Skip to main content
iRubric: Research Proposal Presentation rubric

iRubric: Research Proposal Presentation rubric

find rubric

edit   print   share   Copy to my rubrics   Bookmark   test run   assess...   delete   Do more...
Research Proposal Presentation 
Research Proposal Presentation
The purpose of a research proposal is to outline all areas of a potential study to an audience in order to receive feedback, input, and critique. An excellent proposal will include a rationale for the research, an overview of the existing research, a list of the research questions, proposed methodology, instrumentation, population/sample, potential confounds, and expected findings.
Rubric Code: UXAA64W
By sloopylew
Ready to use
Public Rubric
Subject: Psychology  
Type: Presentation  
Grade Levels: Undergraduate, Graduate

Powered by iRubric Proposal Presentation
  Excellent/Exceeds Expectations

10 pts

Good/Meets Expectations

8 pts

Fair/Needs Improvement

6 pts

Poor/Incomplete

0 pts

Introduction/Rationale
5 %

Excellent/Exceeds Expectations

An intriguing introduction and rationale that is based on prior research and leads clearly into the research proposal.
Good/Meets Expectations

A fairly well-formulated introduction and rationale with some evidence to support the topic and leads into the research proposal.
Fair/Needs Improvement

Introduction is not well constructed, uninteresting, or does not lead into the research proposal.
Poor/Incomplete

Lacks a proper introduction.
Literature Review
25 %

Excellent/Exceeds Expectations

Demonstrated knowledge of literature in the area, and of prior work on the specific research problem. Clear on connection of prior research, theories, and outcomes relevant to current proposal.
Good/Meets Expectations

Demonstrated basic knowledge of literature or previous research in the area.
Fair/Needs Improvement

Unclearly mentioned some previous work in the area.
Poor/Incomplete

Did not mention any previous research, literature, or theories.
Research Problems
5 %

Excellent/Exceeds Expectations

Stated the research problem(s) clearly, and provided motivation for undertaking the
research.  
Good/Meets Expectations

Fairly well-posed statement of the problem that provides motivation, but the motivation is not as strong as it could be.
Fair/Needs Improvement

Statement of the problem is not clearly stated, is incomplete, and/or lacks quality evidence to support the problem.
Poor/Incomplete

Lacks a proper statement of the problem or motivation presented does not support the thesis or problem statement.
Proposed Method
25 %

Excellent/Exceeds Expectations

Very clearly stated methodology, including population/sample being tested, examples of materials, instrumentation, and procedural details. Easy to follow and is obviously connected to the research purpose.
Good/Meets Expectations

Fairly clearly stated methodology, including population being tested, examples of materials, and procedural details. Fairly easy to follow and is somewhat clearly connected to the research purpose.
Fair/Needs Improvement

Stated methodology was confusing OR did not include one or more of the following elements: population being tested, examples of materials, and procedural details. Connection to the research purpose was vague.
Poor/Incomplete

Stated methodology was confusing AND did not include one or more of the following elements: population being tested, examples of materials, and procedural details. Difficult to follow and connection to the research purpose was non-existent.
Predicted Results
5 %

Excellent/Exceeds Expectations

Well-stated research hypothesis based on the purpose of the study. Connection between predicted results and theories is very clear.
Good/Meets Expectations

Fairly well stated hypothesis based on the purpose of the study. Connection between predicted results and theories is fairly clear.
Fair/Needs Improvement

Stated hypothesis is unclear based on the purpose of the study. Connection between predicted results and theories is vague or lacks clarity.
Poor/Incomplete

Lacks a hypothesis. Connection between predicted results and theories is non-existent.
Confounds
5 %

Excellent/Exceeds Expectations

Very clearly stated potential limitations for the study including the impact of these limitations.
Good/Meets Expectations

Fairly well stated limitations of the study but did not demonstrate its potential impact.
Fair/Needs Improvement

Limitations not clearly stated or incomplete.
Poor/Incomplete

Lacks limitations of the study.
Presentation Skill
10 %

Excellent/Exceeds Expectations

Excellent eye contact, professional dress,
appropriate volume, clear and consistent
enunciation.Well organized among group members.
Good/Meets Expectations

Good eye contact, unprofessional dress, usually had appropriate volume, overall clear enunciation.
Fair/Needs Improvement

Inconsistent with eye contact, volume, and enunciation. Obvious distracting mannerism(s).
Poor/Incomplete

Poor eye contact, volume too low or loud, poor enunciation. Inattentiveness, indifference, or disengagement form audience
Visual Aids
10 %

Excellent/Exceeds Expectations

The presentation included appropriate and easily understood visual aids that complemented and enhanced the presented information. Included a properly formatted list of references provided to professor.
Good/Meets Expectations

The presentation included appropriate and easily understood visual aids that somewhat complemented and enhanced the presented information. Included a list of references that was mostly properly formatted.
Fair/Needs Improvement

The presentation included appropriate visual aids, but there were too few, they were difficult to understand, or the presenter did not refer to or explain them. Included a list of references that was not properly formatted.
Poor/Incomplete

The presentation included no visual aids or the visual aids did not complement the information. Did not include a list of references.
Time Management and Q & A
5 %

Excellent/Exceeds Expectations

The presenters made excellent use of their presentation time. Finished presentation within the time limitations. Answered questions very clearly and knowledgeably.
Good/Meets Expectations

The presenters made good use of their presentation time. Answered questions fairly clearly and knowledgeably.Ran under/over time limitations
Fair/Needs Improvement

The presenters made acceptable use of their presentation time. Answers to questions lacked clarity and/or mastery of topic.
Poor/Incomplete

The presentation was not timed appropriately. Answers to questions were unclear and/or did not demonstrate sufficient knowledge of field.
Creativity and Innovation
5 %

Excellent/Exceeds Expectations

Reflected great critical thinking, creativity, and uniqueness of thought.
Good/Meets Expectations

Reflected some critical thinking, creativity, and uniqueness of thought.
Fair/Needs Improvement

Poor critical thinking, creativity, or uniqueness of thought.
Poor/Incomplete

Reflected no critical thinking, creativity, or uniqueness of thought.



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