| Proposal Rubric |
| Name:________________________________ Grade :______________________ |
| Points | Title and Table of contents | Abstract | Introduction | Method/Specific Aims | | | Expected result with discussion | Figures and Tables | In‐Text Citations | Bibliography | Grammar and Style (applies to all categories listed above) | Structure and Paragraph Construction |
| | | | | Research Design | Instruments | Procedure |
| 3 | Title Page includes Title of Project, Student Name, Teacher Name, and Due Date. A Table of Contents is included after the Title Page and lists all sections with correct page numbers | Abstract is informative, succinct, and offer sufficiently specific details about the educational issue, variables, context, and proposed methods of the study. Hypothesis is stated clearly. | Pertinent sources from a variety of sources and research groups. Understanding of the broader context. Information from sources leads to objectives and the experiment performed. Transitions well into objectives and experimentation | The purpose, questions, and design are mutually supportive and coherent. Attention has been given to eliminating alternative explanations and controlling extraneous variables. Appropriate and important limitations and assumptions have been clearly stated. | Descriptions of instruments and observation protocols included purpose statements, type and number of items, and type of scores. Reasonable evidence of validity and reliability was presented | Method clearly stated, and reproducible. Referenced properly. Recognize the difference between method and parameter being measured. Methods relate to hypothesis. | Addresses the hypothesis and objectives explicitly. Identifies and discusses rational outcomes/results based on experimentation, and ties to research from other sources. Emphasizes uniqueness, strengths and significance of projected results | Presented in a timely and appropriate manner; are not redundant with text, but rather add to text, numbered and include a clear legend. | All non‐original ideas are well‐referenced. | All references cited are in the bibliography, which follows the style guide. | Written concisely primarily in active voice. Grammatically correct; complete sentence; proper use of punctuation. Proper headings in report style | All paragraphs include introductory sentence, explanations of details, and concluding sentence. All paragraphs within a section flow well from one to the next |
| 2 | Title Page and/or Table of context lacks 1 or more pieces of required information. | Informative, complete and understandable. Appropriate vocabulary is used. Hypothesis is vague. | Variety of sources, most pertinent. Missing major concepts from the literature. Broader context mentioned but not developed. Objectives/experimentation hinted to but not addressed | The research design has been identified and described in sufficiently detailed terms. Some limitations and assumptions have been identified. | Instruments and observation protocols were identified by name and described. | Methods clear but poorly referenced. Information from methods applies to hypothesis. Timeline illogical or difficult to follow | Hypothesis is touched on but not discussed in relation to results. Projected outcomes show lack of understanding of objectives or methodology | Redundant, out of position or not cited in narrative. Inadequate legend. | Most non‐original ideas are well referenced. | Most references cited are in the bibliography, which follows the style guide. | Some wordiness and a significant use of the passive voice, yet grammatically correct. Some grammar errors primarily in the use of punctuation. Over- use or under -use of headings. Figures and tables appropriately labeled | Most paragraphs include introductory sentence, explanations or details, and concluding sentence. All paragraphs within a section generally flow well from one to the next |
| 1 | Either Title page or Table of context page is missing | Somewhat informative and understandable. Hypothesis is missing | Used only one source or alternatively, no description or understanding of material from sources. Missing many important concepts from literature. Broader context ignored. Objectives do not follow logically from material discussed | The research design is confusing or incomplete given the research questions and sampling strategy. Important limitations and assumptions have not been identified. | Description of the instruments (purpose, form, and elements) or observation protocols were confusing, incomplete, or lacked relevance to the research questions and variables. | Methods difficult to understand; no clear progression of events. Methods not tied to hypothesis and do not address objectives. Timeline essentially absent | Outcomes poorly thought out and not directly tied to either methodology or objectives. Results are not possible from experimentation. Concepts are unclear | Redundant, out of position or not cited in narrative. Inadequate legend. No clear purpose for figure; simply added for flash. | Many statements are unsubstantiated. | References are cited in the bibliography, but few follow the style guide. | Written almost entirely in the passive voice. Sentence structure lacking. Some grammatical mistakes that do not affect reader comprehension.Needs revisions. Spelling mistakes present. Figures and tables not labeled sufficiently. | Paragraphs included related information but were typically not constructed well. All paragraphs within a section flow somewhat from one to the next. |
| 0 | Both Title and Table of Context is missing | Not informative or understandable. Hypothesis is missing | Few to no outside sources. Incoherent paragraphs. Understanding of major concepts not clear | The research design is inappropriate or has not been identified and or described using standard terminology. Limitations and assumptions are omitted. | Instruments and observation protocols for gathering data were not identified by name or described in a meaningful way. Validity and reliability information was omitted. | No distinct methods described. Unreasonable or fabricated methods. Method with no clear context to hypothesis. | Expected outcomes missing. No potential results discussed | Poor/confusing use of figure with inappropriate labels, legend, title OR undecipherable. | References are seldom cited to support statements. | References did not follow style guide. | Lack of revision and planning evident. Grammar inhibits comprehension of reader. Figures and tables not labeled | Paragraphing structure was not clear and sentences were not typically related within the paragraphs. All paragraphs within a section flow poorly |
| Score | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Total points | 1.5 | 6 | 15 | 15 | 1.5 | 3 | 18.9 | 18 | 0.9 | 1.62 | 3 | 6 |
| Total score | 90.42 |
| Enter information only in highlighted area. |
hp0202
Proposalgradingrubric-90pts.xlsx
