Example 9 - Original Research Project Rubric
Characteristics to note in the rubric:
- Language is descriptive, not evaluative.
- Labels for degrees of success are descriptive ("Expert" "Proficient", etc.); by avoiding the use of letters representing grades or numbers representing points, there is no implied contract that qualities of the paper will "add up" to a specified score or grade or that all dimensions are of equal grading value.
- Professor provides this rubric to students when the assignment is given. It serves as a tool for them to structure as well as self-evaluate their work in each area of their research project.
This rubric is developed for a specific original research assignment; it would need to be revised to describe the expectations for each specific assignment.
Download Original Research Project Rubric PDF.
| Criteria | Expert | Proficient | Apprentice | Novice |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Introduction [Introductory paragraph(s), literature review, hypotheses or propositions] |
Clearly identifies and discusses research focus/purpose of research Research focus is clearly grounded in previous research/ theoretically relevant literature Significance of the research is clearly identified (how it adds to previous research) Hypotheses/ propositions are clearly articulated |
Limited discussion of research focus/purpose of research Research focus is less well-grounded in previous research/ theoretically relevant literature Significance of the research is not as clearly identified (how it adds to previous research) Hypotheses/ propositions are described but not as well articulated |
Minimal discussion of research focus/purpose of research Research focus is not well-grounded in previous research/ theoretically relevant literature Significance of the research is not clearly identified (how it adds to previous research) Hypotheses/ propositions are not well articulated |
Little or no discussion of research focus/purpose of research Research focus not grounded in previous research/ theoretically relevant literature Significance of the research is not identified (how it adds to previous research) Hypotheses/ propositions are poorly articulated or are absent altogether |
| Research Methods |
Provides accurate, thorough description of how the data was collected, what/how many data sources were analyzed, plan of analysis or measurement instrument, research context Reflection on social situatedness/ reflexivity and how it may influence data collection and interpretation is thorough and insightful |
Description of how the data was collected, what/how many data sources were analyzed, plan of analysis or measurement instrument, research context is adequate but limited. Reflection on social situatedness/ reflexivity and how it may influence data collection and interpretation is adequate but limited |
Description of how the data was collected, what/how many data sources were analyzed, plan of analysis or measurement instrument, research context is somewhat confusing/not clearly articulated. Reflection on social situatedness/ reflexivity and how it may influence data collection and interpretation is limited and lacks insight |
Description of how the data was collected, what/how many data sources were analyzed, plan of analysis or measurement instrument, research context is very confusing/not articulated sufficiently. Reflection on social situatedness/ reflexivity and how it may influence data collection and interpretation is severely limited, lacks insight, or is absent altogether |
| Results |
Results are clearly explained in a comprehensive level of detail and are well-organized Tables/figures clearly and concisely convey the data. Statistical analyses (if used) are appropriate tests and are accurately interpreted. |
Results are explained but not as clearly, level of detail is not as sufficient, and there are some organizational issues Tables/figures are not as clear/concise in conveying the data. Statistical analyses (if used) are appropriate tests but are not accurately interpreted. |
Results are not very clearly explained, level of detail is insufficient, and there are more organizational issues Tables/figures are not clear/concise in conveying the data. Statistical analyses (if used) are inappropriate tests and/or are not accurately interpreted. |
Results are not clearly explained, level of detail is severely insufficient, and there are serious organizational issues Tables/figures are not clear/concise in conveying the data. Statistical analyses (if used) are inappropriate tests and/or are not accurately interpreted. |
| Conclusions |
Interpretations/ analysis of results are thoughtful and insightful, are clearly informed by the study’s results, and thoroughly address how they supported, refuted, and/or informed the hypotheses/ propositions Insightful discussion of how the study relates to and/or enhances the present scholarship in this area Suggestions for further research in this area are insightful and thoughtful |
Interpretations/ analysis of results are sufficient but somewhat lacking in thoughtfulness and insight, are not as clearly informed by the study’s results, and do not as thoroughly address how they supported, refuted, and/or informed the hypotheses/ proposition Discussion of how the study relates to and/or enhances the present scholarship in this area is adequate. Suggestions for further research in this area are adequate. |
Interpretations/ analysis of results lacking in thoughtfulness and insight, are not clearly informed by the study’s results, and do not adequately address how they supported, refuted, and/or informed the hypotheses/ propositions Discussion of how the study relates to and/or enhances the present scholarship in this area is limited. Suggestions for further research in this area are very limited. |
Interpretations/ analysis of results severely lacking in thoughtful ness and insight, are not informed by the study’s results, and do not address how they supported, refuted, and/or informed the hypotheses/ propositions Discussion of how the study relates to and/or enhances the present scholarship in this area is severely limited and/or absent altogether. Suggestions for further research in this area are severely limited and/or absent altogether. |
| Documentation of Sources, Quality of Sources |
Cites all data obtained from other sources. APA citation style is accurately used in both text and bibliography. Sources are all scholarly and clearly relate to the research focus. |
Cites most data obtained from other sources. APA citation style is used in both text and bibliography. Sources are primarily scholarly and relate to the research focus. |
Cites some data obtained from other sources. Citation style is either inconsistent or incorrect. Sources are not primarily scholarly and relate to the research focus but somewhat tangentially. |
Does not cite sources. Sources are disproportionately non-scholarly and do not clearly relate to the research focus. |
| Spelling & Grammar |
No spelling & grammar mistakes |
Minimal spelling & grammar mistakes |
Noticeable spelling and grammar mistakes |
Excessive spelling and/or grammar mistakes |
| Manuscript Format |
Title page has proper APA formatting Used correct headings & subheadings consistently |
Title page approximates APA formatting Used correct headings & subheadings almost consistently |
Title page deviates a bit more from APA formatting Headings & subheadings less consistent |
Title page completely deviates from APA formatting Headings and subheadings completely deviate from suggested formatting or are absent altogether |
| Additional Comments: |