Evaluation Rubric for Student Research Proposals

Criteria

Grade

5 pts.

4 pts.

3 pts.

2 pts.

1 pt.

Content

Experiment/Discovery Science:

clearly identifies hypotheses and predictions OR makes significant contributions to field

identifies hypotheses, but not predictions OR an important & needed contribution to field

predictions made, but hypotheses not identified OR interesting, but adds little to field

hypothesis implied, but not clearly identified OR mostly repeats what is already known

little or no evidence that student is aware of hypotheses involved OR contributes little to the field

Quality of Writing

Well written with very few, if any, errors

Mostly well written

Good content, but poor proofreading

Little evidence of proofreading

Poorly constructed with no evidence of proofreading or concern with quality

Literature cited

Exhibits thorough familiarity with literature in field

Adequate exploration of literature in field

Cursory examination of literature infield

Poor exploration of literature infield

Little or no evidence of familiarity with literature in field

Adherence to Instructions

Length (using normal font and margins)

Full page

Slightly more or less than one page

More than a half page too long

More than 1-1/2 pages long

2 or more pages in length

Budget

Detailed budget with reasonable costs

Costs or amounts of some items vague or unrealistic

A few unrealistic or unreasonable estimates

Mostly vague, unreasonable, or unrealistic estimates

No budge included

Timeline

Realistic timeline not exceeding one year and including time for presentation to Sigma Zeta

Timeline likely to need some minor adjustments; includes time for presentation to Sigma Zeta

Inefficient use of available time; no mention of presentation to Sigma Zeta

Timeline likely to need substantial revision; no mention of presentation to Sigma Zeta

Unrealistic timeline; little evidence of planning

Support Letter

Strong, well-written letter from mentor

Mostly strong letter, but some evidence of indifference on mentor’s part

Letter seems mostly to have been written as a courtesy

Poorly written letter with little evidence of interest on part of mentor

Letter show very little evidence of support for project

TOTAL

Score:      

Recommendation

highly recommended for funding

recommended for funding

not recommended for funding