All Purdue Online DegreesHDFS Project: Proposal Defense Rubric
A score of 0 on any of the Skill areas by any reviewer will result in a postponement of the Proposal Meeting
Student Name:
Committee Member Name:
Date:
| Skill | Exceeds Expectations (2) | Meets Expectations (1) | Unacceptable (0) | Notes on Strengths/Weaknesses |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statement of the Problem (Introduction) | A clear and convincing rationale is stated for the proposed study in the introduction. | A rationale is stated regarding the proposed study. | No clear rationale is stated in relation to the proposed study. | |
| Significance of the Problem/Literature Review (approx. 8-10 pages) | Thorough/complete review of the relevant research/literature. The student builds a case for the proposed study through use of existing literature. | Most relevant literature is included. Some unevenness in development of ideas. Some gaps may appear in the “story” of the proposed study. | Much literature seems to be missing. No apparent storyline for proposed study. Research studies are “strung together” without explanation. An outline is presented. | |
| Research Question |
Research question is clearly developed and presented. Question clearly flows from the literature review and rationale. |
Research question is presented, although vague and/or does not clearly flow from the literature review and rationale. | Research question is not clearly developed or stated and does not flow from the literature review and rationale. | |
| Methods | All elements of research methods section are included and thoroughly described: Sample/ Participants, Data Collection, and Analysis. The reader has a clear understanding of the study, such that it can be easily replicated. | Student has included most elements of the methods section although some information is not included, or not described thoroughly. | The methods section is not clear or is disorganized, leaving the reader with more questions than answers about how the study will be conducted. |
| Skill | Exceeds Expectations (2) | Meets Expectations (1) | Unacceptable (0) | Notes on Strengths/Weaknesses |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supporting Documents | All relevant documentation is included (such as survey instrument, interview guide, code list, and/or variable list) and is well developed, stemming from the literature review and research question. | Relevant documentation is included, but needs a lot of revisions and is not well developed. | Missing some or all documents are not included. | |
| Reference List | A complete reference list that matches in-text citations. References cited are appropriate to the study (scholarly, on topic, recent) | Most references are included; there is some mis-match between in-text citations and the reference list. | Reference list is brief or off-target for the proposed study. Most references are incomplete and/or out of date. | |
| Writing | There is clarity and flow in the writing, with rare grammatical and spelling errors. Overall length is 15-20 pages. | Overall clarity and flow, although some parts may be poorly organized or unclear. | Problems exist in sentence structure, or overall flow and organization. Numerous spelling and/or grammatical errors. Length is too short or long. | |
| APA or ASA Format | Excellent APA or ASA formatting throughout, including organization, use of headers, citations in-text and in the reference list, etc. | Overall attention to APA/ASA format, but some errors in citations, lack of headers, etc. | Multiple APA/ASA formatting errors exist; lack of header use, unorganized, un- alphabetized references, etc. | |
| Oral Presentation (15-20 minutes) | Student has prepared an easy to follow summary power point presentation that captures the essence of the proposed study; is able to explain orally a summary of the literature review, rationale, and method; is able to receive and respond to feedback and questions | Summary power point presentation includes errors in grammar or is hard to read. The presentation captures most of the essence of the proposed study but student has trouble explaining and/or receiving and respond into feedback and questions | Student has no power point presentation, is unable to orally present the proposed study in a way that is connected to the written document; is not able to receive or answer questions about the proposal |
HDFS Project: Final Defense Rubric
A score of 0 on any of the Skill areas by any reviewer will result in a postponement of the Defense Meeting
Student Name:
Committee Member Name:
Date:
| Skill | Exceeds Expectations (2) | Meets Expectations (1) | Unacceptable (0) | Notes on Strengths/Weaknesses |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statement of the Problem (Introduction) | A clear and convincing rationale is stated for the proposed study in the introduction. | A rationale is stated regarding the proposed study. | No clear rationale is stated in relation to the proposed study. | |
| Significance of the Problem/Literature Review (approx. 8-10 pages) | Thorough/complete review of the relevant research/literature. The student builds a case for the proposed study through use of existing literature. | Most relevant literature is included. Some unevenness in development of ideas. Some gaps may appear in the “story” of the proposed study. | Much literature seems to be missing. No apparent storyline for proposed study. Research studies are “strung together” without explanation. An outline is presented. | |
| Research Question developed and presented. | Research question is clearly presented, although Question clearly flows from the literature review and rationale. | Research question is clearly developed or stated vague and/or does not clearly flow from the literature review and rationale. | Research question is not and does not flow from the literature review and rationale. | |
| Methods | All elements of research methods section are included and thoroughly described: Sample/ Participants, Data Collection, and Analysis. The reader has a clear understanding of the study, such that it can be easily replicated. |
Student has included most elements of the methods section although some information is not included, or not described thoroughly. |
The methods section is not clear or is disorganized, leaving the reader with more questions than answers about how the study will be conducted. |
|
| Skill | Exceeds Expectations (2) | Meets Expectations (1) | Unacceptable (0) | Notes on Strengths/Weaknesses |
| Findings/Results | Student demonstrates advanced ability to use and interpret relevant methodologies as applied to their study with clear presentation of results. | Student demonstrates ability to use and interpret relevant methodologies as applied to their study. | Student does not demonstrate understanding of relevant methodologies nor interpretation of results as applied to their study. Not enough participants to complete analyses. | |
| Discussion | Clear and strong connections between results of study and the lit review. |
Connections made between discussion, results, and lit review. |
No connection made to the literature review. |
|
| Conclusion | Clear summary of main findings with potential explanations and implications. Note limitations and how may have affected results with directions for future research. |
Summary of main findings with some potential explanations and some implications. Notes limitations and how may have affected results with directions for future research. |
Lacking potential explanations and implications. Does not note limitations and how may have affected results. Does not include directions for future research. |
|
| Supporting Documents |
All relevant documentation is included (such as survey instrument, interview guide, code list, and/or variable list) and is well developed, stemming from the lit review and question. | Relevant documentation is included, but needs a lot of revisions and is not well developed. |
Missing some or all documents are not included. |
|
| Reference List | A complete reference list that matches in-text citations. References cited are appropriate to the study (scholarly, on topic, recent) |
Most references are included; there is some mis-match between in- text citations and the reference list. |
Reference list is brief or off- target for the proposed study. Most references are incomplete and/or out of date. |
|
| Writing | There is clarity and flow in the writing, with rare grammatical and spelling errors. Overall length is 15- 20 pages. |
Overall clarity and flow, although some parts may be poorly organized or unclear. | Problems exist in sentence structure, or overall flow and organization. Numerous spelling and/or grammatical errors. Length is too short or long. | |
| Skill | Exceeds Expectations (2) | Meets Expectations (1) | Unacceptable (0) | Notes on Strengths/Weaknesses |
| APA or ASA Format | Excellent APA or ASA formatting throughout, including organization, use of headers, citations in-text and in the reference list, etc. | Overall attention to APA/ASA format, but some errors in citations, lack of headers, etc. | Multiple APA/ASA formatting errors exist; lack of header use, unorganized, un- alphabetized references, etc. | |
| Oral Defense | Student demonstrates a professional level presentation that includes a power point presentation and thorough discussion of main elements of the study; is able to defend all aspects of the study and is able to receive and respond to feedback and questions. |
Student has prepared a summary power point presentation that captures the essence of the study; is able to defend most aspects of the study and is able to receive and respond to feedback and questions. |
Student has no power point presentation, is unable to orally present the study in a way that is connected to the written document; is not able to receive or answer questions about the study. |
|
| Revisions Made | Student incorporated faculty feedback from proposal into final document, and demonstrated changes made based on their own efforts to improve and advance the document. |
Student incorporated faculty feedback from proposal into final document. |
Student minimally addressed feedback or ignored faculty feedback on proposal; lack of integration into final document. |
