RESEARCH PAPER PRESENTATION RUBRIC

Oral Presentation:

Excellent (10) Very Good (8) Satisfactory (6) Unsatisfactory (4)

Very logical, coherent, complete Generally logical, mostly coherent, generally complete A bit scattered but acceptable, somewhat coherent, Rather hard to follow, significant omissions and/or
Organization Rubric
occasionally scrambled, some noticeable omissions but substitutions
still understandable

Score:

Presentation Rubric Clear, precise, convincing, articulate, Mostly clear, good grasp of material, only occasional Occasional confusion or lack of clarity, occasional A lot of confusion, not in control of facts and key details,
good audience connection stumbles, minor uncertainty on some facts or details gaps in theory or important details, somewhat nervous very nervous and stiff, frequently at a loss for words
or jittery
Score:

Quickly grasped questions, clear and apt Occasionally misunderstood a question, responses Some misunderstanding of questions, responses Frequently misunderstood a question, incorrect or
Public Q&A Rubric
responses, good control of both theory and usually good though occasionally vague, generally apt may be vague or inaccurate, did not always give a inadequate responses, lack of confidence in response,
findings grasp of question and how to answer full response, may answer a different question argumentative

Score:
Clearly understood both research findings and
underlying theory, could aptly contextualize or Adequate understanding of research findings, Weak but acceptable understanding of theory, could Lacked adequate understanding of theory, research
Interaction with material
interpret findings in light of theory, when generally understood underlying theory, perhaps a present research findings but not always clear on findings not always understood, confused or uncertain
Rubric
appropriate may have suggested how theory bit reluctant to attempt to extend theory or explain implications, occasionally confused details or about the implications of findings, contradictions or
might be extended based on research results contradictory findings important findings confusion evident in how material handled

Score:
Quickly grasped questions, clear and apt Occasionally misunderstood a question, responses Some misunderstanding of questions, responses Frequently misunderstood a question, incorrect or
Response to Committee
responses, good control of both theory and usually good though occasionally vague, generally apt may be vague or inaccurate, did not always give a inadequate responses, lack of confidence in response,
questions Rubric
findings grasp of question and how to answer full response, may answer a different question argumentative

Score:
Research Paper:
Excellent (5) Above Average (4) Satisfactory (3) Unsatisfactory (2)
Well-grounded, properly contextualized, clearly Theoretical motivation visible, context provided, Theoretical motivation could be stronger, presentation Theoretical grounding weak, missing, or confused, not
Research Statement and convincingly presented okay but could be better, research question(s) could be clear what the research question is, presentation and
reasonable presentation
stronger argumentation hard to follow
Score:
Broad-ranging, well-organized, provides a Very adequate, used effectively to introduce the Major sources included but some visible gaps, Significant gaps in the literature review, not effectively
Literature Review strong foundation for the research being research question at hand utilization of sources could be stronger but is used in support of research question, organizing
presented acceptable, organization is okay principles unclear
Score:
Clearly explained, very appropriate, properly Explained, mostly appropriate, generally proper Explained but not always clearly, generally Inadequate explanation, some choices suspect or
Methodology applied application, overall— only a few shaky areas appropriate though they are some weaknesses, inappropriate, methodology not always applied as
application could be improved described
Score:
Consistent with methodology, well Mostly consistent with methodology, adequately Generally consistent with methodology, some problems Data may not be consistent with methodology,
Research Results organized and presented, gaps or problems organized and presented, gaps or problems may in presentation of findings, gaps or problems may not presentation is adequate or confusing, gaps or
acknowledged be glossed over have been acknowledged problems ignored or covered up
Score:
Optimal analytic strategies applied, analytic Good analytic strategies applied, results adequately Analytic strategies acceptable though not optimal, Analytic strategies marginal or inappropriate,
results well-presented and explained, proper presented, interpretation mostly consistent with presentation of results okay but with obvious gaps, presentation of findings inadequate, confused or
Analysis interpretation of analytic results approach to analysis interpretation acceptable but weak at points misleading, interpretation of findings too often
misguided or misleading
Score:
Clear, logical, convincing, strong Generally clear, logical, convincing Okay though there is room for improvement, some Too much redundancy, sections misplaced or missing,
sections may be misplaced, possible gaps in lists of inadequate notational system for showing structure
Organization tables and figures and number tables and figures
Score:
Clear, easy to follow, proper use of technical Very readable though sentence and paragraph Generally readable but occasionally hard to follow, Miss-sue of technical terms is common, writing is
terms, sentence structure not overly adorned, structures may be longer and more complex than occasional miss-use of technical terms, some dense, confusing or misleading, too much
good paragraphing, not dense or cryptic necessary, technical terms mostly used correctly redundancy, some tendency to include sentence and redundancy, non-academic style (use of contractions,
Writing Style paragraph structures which are dense, confusing, and inclusion of folksy vocabulary, tortured sentence
overly-adorned. structure, poor paragraphing, etc.)
Some non-academic jargon may be present
Score:
Coherent, original, creative, well- presented, Content consistent with theory and methodology, well- Content okay, suitable organization Amateurish in tone and manner of presentation,
Content valuable contribution to the field, valuable done but nothing out of the ordinary adds little or nothing to the field
academic contribution
Score