Research Awards Evaluation Rubric for Student Research Proposals
pdf version of rubric
Researcher
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 |