THESIS DEFENSE RUBRIC

Student: _ Date of Defense: ________________________

Thesis Title:

Committee Member:

Instructions for Thesis Committee Members:

Each committee member should complete the thesis section before the defense and the oral defense section
immediately after the defense. The committee chair will average the results followed by discussion and a pass/fail
determination.
For the rubric, complete both sections below by marking an (x) in the appropriate box for each rubric line. The
chair will summarize the rubric scores on form 2252 Thesis Defense Report.
Instructions for Thesis Committee Chair:
For each rubric row (i.e. Organization Rubric, Presentation Rubric, etc.),
1. Assign a numeric score, listed at the top of the column, depending on the committee member’s choice (i.e.,
Excellent = 4, Very Good = 3, etc.).
2. Total the scores from each committee member’s rubric form for that rubric row, then average them. E.g.
Committee Member A scored a 4, Member B scored a 3, Member C scored a 4, so their total is 11 and the
average is 3.67.
3. Record this average score on the Thesis Defense Report form in the appropriate “Score by area” cell.

Oral Defense:
Excellent (4) Very Good (3) Satisfactory (2) Unsatisfactory (1)
Very logical, coherent, complete Generally logical, mostly coherent, A bit scattered but acceptable, somewhat Rather hard to follow, significant
Organization generally complete coherent, occasionally scrambled, some omissions and/or substitutions
Rubric noticeable omissions but still
understandable

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

Score:
Quickly grasped questions, clear and apt Occasionally misunderstood a question, Some misunderstanding of questions, Frequently misunderstood a question,
responses, good control of both theory and responses usually good though responses may be vague or incorrect or inadequate responses, lack of
Public Q&A findings occasionally vague, generally apt grasp inaccurate, did not always give a full confidence in response, argumentative
Rubric
of question and how to answer response, may answer a different
question
Score:
Clearly understood both research Adequate understanding of research Weak but acceptable understanding of Lacked adequate understanding of theory,
findings and underlying theory, could findings, generally understood theory, could present research findings research findings not always understood,
Interactio aptly contextualize or interpret findings underlying theory, perhaps a bit but not always clear on implications, confused or uncertain about the
n with in light of theory, when appropriate may reluctant to attempt to extend theory or occasionally confused details or implications of findings, contradictions or
material have suggested how theory might be explain contradictory findings important findings confusion evident in how material
Rubric extended based on research results handled

Score:
Quickly grasped questions, clear and apt Occasionally misunderstood a question, Some misunderstanding of questions, Frequently misunderstood a question,
Response to responses, good control of both theory and responses usually good though responses may be vague or incorrect or inadequate responses, lack of
Committee findings occasionally vague, generally apt grasp inaccurate, did not always give a full confidence in response, argumentative
questions of question and how to answer response, may answer a different
Rubric
question
Score:
 Thesis:
Excellent (4) Above Average (3) Satisfactory (2) Unsatisfactory (1)
Well-grounded, properly Theoretical motivation visible, context Theoretical motivation could be stronger, Theoretical grounding weak, missing, or
Research contextualized, clearly and provided, reasonable presentation presentation okay but could be better, confused, not clear what the research
Statement convincingly presented research question(s) could be stronger question is, presentation and
Rubric argumentation hard to follow
Score:
Broad-ranging, well-organized, provides Very adequate, used effectively to Major sources included but some Significant gaps in the literature review,
Literature a strong foundation for the research being introduce the research question at visible gaps, utilization of sources could not effectively used in support of research
Review presented hand be stronger but is acceptable, question, organizing principles unclear
Rubric organization is okay

Score:
Clearly explained, very appropriate, Explained, mostly appropriate, generally Explained but not always clearly, Inadequate explanation, some choices
Methodology properly applied proper application, overall— only a few generally appropriate though they are suspect or inappropriate, methodology
Rubric shaky areas some weaknesses, application could be not always applied as described
improved

Score:
Consistent with methodology, well Mostly consistent with Generally consistent with methodology, Data may not be consistent with
Research organized and presented, gaps or methodology, adequately some problems in presentation of methodology, presentation is
Results problems acknowledged organized and presented, gaps or findings, gaps or problems may not have adequate or confusing, gaps or
Rubric problems may be glossed over been acknowledged problems ignored or covered up

Score:
Optimal analytic strategies applied, analytic Good analytic strategies applied, results Analytic strategies acceptable though not Analytic strategies marginal or
results well presented and explained, proper adequately presented, interpretation optimal, presentation of results okay but inappropriate, presentation of findings
Analysis interpretation of analytic results mostly consistent with approach to with obvious gaps, interpretation inadequate, confused or misleading,
Rubric analysis acceptable but weak at points interpretation of findings too often
misguided or misleading

Score:
Clear, logical, convincing, strong Generally clear, logical, convincing Okay though there is room for Too much redundancy, sections
improvement, some sections may be misplaced or missing, inadequate
Organization misplaced, possible gaps in lists of tables notational system for showing structure
and figures and number tables and
figures
Score:
Clear, easy to follow, proper use of Very readable though sentence and Generally readable but occasionally Miss-sue of technical terms is common,
technical terms, sentence structure not paragraph structures may be longer and hard to follow, occasional miss-use of writing is dense, confusing or
overly adorned, good paragraphing, not more complex than necessary, technical technical terms, some redundancy, misleading, too much redundancy,
dense or cryptic terms mostly used correctly some tendency to include sentence and non-academic style (use of contractions,
Writing Style paragraph structures which are dense, inclusion of folksy vocabulary, tortured
confusing, and overly-adorned. sentence structure, poor
Some non-academic jargon may be paragraphing,etc.)
present

Score:
Coherent, original, creative, well- presented, Content consistent with theory and Content okay, suitable organization, Not MA-level work, amateurish in
valuable contribution to the field, valuable methodology, well-done but nothing out of acceptable MA-level work tone and manner of presentation,
Content academic contribution the ordinary, consistent with expectations adds little or nothing to the field
for an MA thesis
Score
p