Skip to main content
iRubric: Research Proposal rubric

iRubric: Research Proposal rubric

find rubric

edit   print   share   Copy to my rubrics   Bookmark   test run   assess...   delete   Do more...
Research Proposal 
Research Proposal Introduction
The rubric is used to appraise the introductory research paper that specifies a topic of interest; identifies a problem; proposes a need for a study; formulates a research hypothesis, provides preliminary background data in the form of a review of literature, and the methods of the proposed research.
Rubric Code: HX65WAA
By LisaLoar
Ready to use
Public Rubric
Subject: Social Sciences  
Type: Writing  
Grade Levels: Graduate

Powered by iRubric Research Proposal
  Excellent

10 pts

Good

8 pts

Marginal

7 pts

Below Standard

5 pts

Introduction
10 %

Excellent

Well formulated introduction based on facts with clear definition of key terms and concepts. Comprehensive review of the literature using quality evidence and specifically analyzed the research conducted by describing the individual studies and findings that supported the proposal.
Good

Fairly well formulated introduction that contained adequate definition of key terms and concepts. Comprehensive review of the literature used quality evidence but did not extensively analyze the research findings; simply reported on the literature.
Marginal

Introduction was not well constructed and contained little or no definition of key terms and concepts. Superficial review of the literature that did not describe the research findings; relied heavily on a few studies and used poor quality resources for information gathering
Below Standard

Lacked a proper introduction. Superficial review of the literature that was poorly organized and lacked credibility based on the level of evidence and resources presented.
Problem Statement
5 %

Excellent

Very clearly posed statement of the problem and supported with high quality (strong) evidence.
Good

Fairly well posed statement of the problem that provided evidence but the evidence was not as strong as it could be.
Marginal

Statement of the problem was not clearly stated and/or lacked quality evidence to support the problem.
Below Standard

Lacked a proper statement of the problem.
Evidence presented did not support the problem statement.
Purpose of Study
5 %

Excellent

Very clearly stated purpose of the study that connected very well to the introduction and the statement of the problem.
Good

Fairly well stated purpose of the study that connected well to the introduction and the statement of the problem.
Marginal

Purpose of the study was not clearly stated and/or did not connect well with the introduction and the statement of the problem.
Below Standard

Lacked a purpose of the study statement or did not pertain to the introduction and/or the statement of the problem.
Research Hypothesis/Questions
10 %

Excellent

Well stated research hypothesis/questions based on the purpose of the study.
Good

Fairly well stated hypothesis/questions based on the purpose of the study.
Marginal

Stated hypothesis/questions unclear based on the purpose of the study.
Below Standard

Lacked hypothesis/questions or hypothesis/questions presented did not support the purpose of the study.
Data Collection & Analysis
10 %

Excellent

Project was described in sufficient detail so that the reader could replicate the study. Subjects (number, type), measures, and Procedure were all described well. Statistical approach was thoughtful and correct.
Good

Details on subjects, measures, and procedure were all described in sufficient detail with one or two details lacking. Statistical approach was present but vague.
Marginal

Some details were missing from the subjects, measures, or procedure section such that the design of the study may be confusing. Statistical approach was present but confusing.
Below Standard

Paper lacked details, description of subjects, measures, and procedures. Statistical approach was missing.
Research Quality
25 %

Excellent

Sources were exceptionally well-integrated and they supported claims argued in the paper very effectively. Quotations and Works Cited conformed to APA style sheet.
Good

Sources were well integrated and supported the paper’s claims. There may have been occasional errors, but the sources and Works Cited conformed to APA style sheet.
Marginal

Sources supported some claims made in the paper, but might not have been integrated well within the paper’s argument. There were errors in APA style.
Below Standard

The paper did not use adequate research or if it did, the sources were not integrated well.
APA Style
15 %

Excellent

Writing style was clear, concise and adhered to APA 6th edition formatting guidelines.
No use of colloquialisms, jargon, biased language. No errors in agreement or tense.
Good

Writing predominately clear and adhered to APA 6th edition guidelines. Minimal use of inappropriate language. Few tense or agreement errors.
Marginal

Writing was diffuse at times with some awkward structure, use of colloquialisms, jargon, biased language. Errors in agreement or tense.
Below Standard

Writing was obtuse with poor sentence structure. Language frequently abandoned APA 6th edition guidelines
Grammar, Mechanics
5 %

Excellent

Sentences were clear and varied in pattern, from simple to complex, with excellent use of punctuation. Excellent grammar, spelling, syntax and punctuation.
Good

Sentences wer clear but lacked variation; a few may have been be awkward and there were punctuation errors. A few errors in grammar, spelling, syntax and punctuation, but not many.
Marginal

Sentences were generally clear but may have had awkward structure or unclear content; patterns of punctuation errors. Showed a pattern of errors in spelling, grammar, syntax and/or punctuation. indicated of lack of proof-reading.
Below Standard

Sentences were unclear with continuous errors
References
10 %

Excellent

All references adhered to APA 6th edition formatting guidelines.
All references were within the prescribed date range. Student provided the prescribed number and type of references.
Good

Minor discrepancies in reference formatting, type or number of references.
Marginal

Errors in reference formatting, type or number of references.
Below Standard

References incomplete or contained major errors. Substantially failed to meet type/number of reverences.
Ethics
5 %

Excellent

Ethical considerations fully described. IRB information, consent, data protection methods well articulated and matched study.
Good

Ethical considerations adequately described. IRB information, consent, data protection methods articulated with few gaps and matched study.
Marginal

Ethical considerations generally described. IRB information, consent, data protection methods marginally articulated somewhat matched study.
Below Standard

Ethical considerations unclear and insufficient. IRB information, consent, data protection methods lacked major portions and loosely matched study or did not match study.



Keywords:
  • research proposal



Discuss this rubric




Do more with this rubric:
Preview

Preview

Preview this rubric.
Edit

Edit

Modify this rubric.
Copy

Copy

Make a copy of this rubric and begin editing the copy.

Print

Print

Show a printable version of this rubric.
Categorize

Categorize

Add this rubric to multiple categories.
Bookmark

Bookmark

Bookmark this rubric for future reference.
Assess
Test run

Test run

Test this rubric or perform an ad-hoc assessment.
Grade

Grade

Build a gradebook to assess students.
Collaborate

Collaborate

Apply this rubric to any object and invite others to assess.
Share
Publish

Publish

Link, embed, and showcase your rubrics on your website.
Email

Email

Email this rubric to a friend.
Discuss

Discuss

Discuss this rubric with other members.
 

Do more with rubrics than ever imagined possible.

Only with iRubrictm.


Copyright © 2024 Reazon Systems, Inc.  All rights reserved.
n16