See attached

This content is protected and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed.

© The University of Queensland 2026 1

COMU2150 Final Essay Proposal Rubric

Criteria Fail (0-49 %) 4 (50-64 %) 5 (65-74 %) 6 (75-84 %) 7 (85-100 %)

Field-site description & rationale

Site unclear, mis- identified or no meaningful rationale.

Site named but context thin; rationale weak or tangential.

Adequate description; rationale mostly sound but generic.

Clear description and solid rationale; minor contextual gaps (pieces of background information that a reader would need to fully understand why your chosen field-site matters and how it operates).

Precise location, boundaries and context; compelling rationale that foregrounds identity politics of the site. Site situated within a broader social, cultural, and material context that makes your research question meaningful.

Preliminary observations & analytical focus

Minimal or missing observations; no identifiable analytical focus; mis-applied or misunderstood theory.

Partial inventory; largely descriptive notes; identity issue vague.

Complete inventory; analysis is largely descriptive; identity focus implied rather than stated.

Strong inventory of chosen site and thoughtful early analysis; identity lens clear and appropriate.

Insightful inventory of media objects; sharp preliminary reading of spatial dynamics; identity issue articulated as a focused research problem.

3. Theoretical grounding (≥ 2 course theories)

Theories absent, misapplied or irrelevant.

Limited or perfunctory use of theory; citations surface-level.

Theories cited accurately but connections under- developed.

Theories are relevant and clearly connected; hypotheses are logical.

Two or more well- chosen theories precisely linked to site; hypotheses show sophisticated grasp of

This content is protected and may not be shared, uploaded, or distributed.

© The University of Queensland 2026 2

key concepts and their limits.

4. Field documentation (10 + photos & spatial map)

Documentation missing, unreadable or unrelated to analysis. Photos are clearly fabricated.

Fewer than 10 photos or labels unclear; map rough/incomplete.

Required original photos are present; map is functional but basic.

Photos and map detailed and well-labelled, minor omissions. Photos are originals.

Photos are high quality and original, varied angles, labelled clearly; map accurately locates all media; together they triangulate evidence convincingly.

Field notes (1–2 pp.) & ethics/access

Field notes absent or entirely inadequate.

Sparse notes or ethics/access overlooked.

Notes cover basics; ethics mentioned briefly.

Thorough notes and clear ethical considerations.

Rich, systematic notes on timing, conditions, interactions; anticipates ethical and access issues with practical strategies.

Organisation, clarity & academic style

Disorganised, unclear and error- ridden throughout.

Disorganised or wordy; frequent errors impede reading.

Generally clear but some structural or language issues.

Well-organised and readable; minor language slips.

Proposal is concise, logically structured, bulleting used effectively; tone professional; flawless grammar.