Research Practice

Page 1 of 3

Grading Rubric for Research Proposal

Criteria Mark Excellent (5) Good (4) Satisfactory (3) Unsatisfactory (2) Poor (1) Summary 10% Well organized, logical, concise

and self-contained. Engaging and accessible to the non-expert. Rationale/motivation for the proposal is clearly articulated. Approach and methodology is summarised and well articulated. Anticipated results and their significance are well articulated and presented.

Concise, logical and self-contained. Engaging and accessible to the non-expert. Rationale/motivation for proposed research is made clear. Approach and methodology is summarised and articulated. Anticipated results and their significance are presented.

Adequate summary of the research proposal. Understandable to the non-expert. Rationale/motivation for proposed research is provided. Approach and methodology is summarised. Expected outcomes from the research are provided.

Weakly organized with no logical sequencing or structure. Difficult to understand if unfamiliar to the proposed research. Rationale/motivation for proposed research not clear. Approach/methodology is not made clear. Anticipated results and their significance are not clear.

Poorly constructed and presented with irrelevant details. Difficult to understand if unfamiliar to the proposed research. Rationale/motivation for proposed research is not provided. Approach/methodology is not provided. Anticipated results and their significance are not presented.

Background 10% The rationale and significance of the proposed research is articulated in well structured & logical arguments. Motivation for undertaking the research is well articulated. Potential value of solution or contribution to the research problem in advancing knowledge in the field of study is well articulated. Engaging and accessible to the non-expert.

The research problem is clearly stated, well organized & logically presented. Need for the proposed research is articulated. Significance of the proposed research is articulated. Potential contributions of research outcomes to advancing knowledge are made clear. Engaging and accessible to the non-expert.

The research problem generally is well stated and logically presented. Motivation for undertaking the research is outlined. Significance of the proposed research is discussed. Potential contributions of research outcomes to are discussed. Understandable to the non-expert.

The research problem is vaguely described and non-logically presented. Motivation for undertaking the research is unclear. Significance of the proposed research is not discussed. Difficult to understand if unfamiliar to the research topic.

Description of research problem severely lacks in clarity, organization, and logic. Motivation for undertaking the research is not provided. Significance of the proposed research is unclear. Difficult to understand if unfamiliar to the research topic.

Aims & Objectives

10% Concise and focused aim is clearly articulated. Succinct, logical and focused objectives are clearly articulated. Objectives will deliver Aim. Objectives clearly relate to Approach and Methodology.

Aim of proposed research is clearly and concisely stated. Sufficient number of concise and focused objectives are articulated. Aim is achievable with stated Objectives. Objectives relate to Approach and

Aim of proposed research is clearly stated. Objectives presented are reasonably focused. Objectives would deliver Aim. Objectives relate to Approach and Methodology.

Aim of proposal is unclear. Objectives presented are vague or insufficiently focused. Unclear how objectives will deliver Aim. Objectives weakly relate to Approach and Methodology.

Aim of proposed research is not clearly stated or is nonexistent. Objectives are not clearly stated or are nonexistent. Unclear how Aim will be achieved. Objectives do not relate to Approach and Methodology.

Research Practice

Page 2 of 3

Methodology. Literature Review

15% Thorough but focused on material of direct relevance. Research gaps/questions clearly identified and articulated. Fully supports rationale for proposed work. Clearly supports approach and methodology to be used. Overall, a critical and reflective review indicating excellent understanding and ability to build on past work.

Complete and focused on material of direct relevance. Research gaps/questions identified and articulated. Supports rationale for proposed work. Supports approach and methodology to be used. Demonstrates good understanding and ability to build on past work.

Reasonably focused on material of direct relevance. Research gaps/questions clearly are identified. Information has minor weaknesses in relation to and support of proposed research. Supports approach and methodology to be used. Demonstrates understanding and ability to build on past work.

Focus of literature review is unclear. Research gaps/questions unclear. Information has major weaknesses in relation to and support of proposed research. Support to approach and methodology is unclear. Demonstrates reasonable understanding and ability to build on past work

Literature review is unfocused. No research gaps/questions clearly are identified. Information is non-supportive, unrelated to proposed research. Support to approach and methodology is non-existent. Overall, an incomplete review indicating lack of understanding.

Approach & Methodology

15% Details for each major step of approach, including methods/tools to be used, results to be produced, data analysis and expected outcomes, are clearly presented & articulated. Rationale for selection of each method is clearly articulated and justified. Scope of study and any underpinning assumptions and limitations are clearly articulated and justified. Demonstrates significant originality, innovation, and creativity.

Details for each major step of approach provided, including methods/tools to be used, results to be produced, data analysis and expected outcomes. Proposed methodology in relation to the research problem is fully justified. Appropriate and important limitations and assumptions are presented and addressed. Displays some creativity and originality.

Sufficient details for major steps of approach, including methods, data analysis and expected outcomes, are presented. Proposed methodology in relation to the research problem is adequately justified. Appropriate and important limitations and assumptions are adequately addressed. Originality, innovation, or creativity is not apparent.

Insufficient details for major steps of approach, including methods, data analysis and expected results. Rationale for selection of methods is not explained nor justified. Limitations and assumptions are not adequately addressed. It is not clear that the proposal is creative or innovative.

No details for major steps of approach, including methods, data analysis and expected results, are provided. Proposed methodology does not match the research problem. Limitations and other methodological issues are unaddressed. The proposal is not creative or innovative.

Planning 10% Thorough and detailed with timeline, milestones, outcomes & deliverables articulated in words and in charts or tables. Details of significant resources required and how to be provided. Realistic timeframe towards completion of project. Management/supervision

Well thought through with timeline, milestones, outcomes & deliverables presented in words and, if necessary, in graphics (e.g. timeline diagram). Details of significant resources required. Realistic timeframe towards completion of project.

Reasonable plan with timeline, milestones, outcomes & deliverables presented. Details of resources required to conduct research. Reasonable timeframe towards completion of project. Management/supervision arrangements outlined,

Poorly thought out plan with insufficient details on timetable, milestones, outcomes & deliverables. Resources required to conduct research are not clear. Unrealistic timeframe for completion of project. Management/supervision

Incomplete plan lacking details on timetable, milestones, outcomes & deliverables. Resources required to conduct research are not addressed. Unrealistic timeframe for completion of project. Management/supervision arrangements are not

Research Practice

Page 3 of 3

arrangements outlined, particularly if multi-student project or primary supervisor is external to School. Potential methods of reporting research outcomes provided with justification.

Management/supervision arrangements outlined, particularly if multi-student project or primary supervisor is external to School. Potential methods of reporting research outcomes discussed.

particularly if multi-student project or primary supervisor is external to School. Potential methods of reporting research outcomes suggested.

arrangements are unclear. Potential methods of reporting research outcomes are not clear.

addressed. Potential methods of reporting research outcomes are not addressed.

Citations & References

5% All factual statements are supported by suitable references. All sources cited are of high quality (e.g. peer reviewed papers) and are accurately & correctly documented. All references cited are included in the Reference list. Consistent & correct format used for citations & references.

All factual statements are supported by suitable references. All sources are accurately documented. All references cited in text are included in the Reference list. Consistent format used for citations & references.

Some factual statements are supported by references. All sources are accurately documented, but some are not in correct format. All references cited are included in the Reference list. Consistent format used for citations & references.

Many factual statements are not supported by suitable references. Some sources are not accurately documented and/or are in incorrect format. Some references included in the Reference list are not cited in the text. Inconsistent format used for citations & references.

Factual statements are not supported by references Reference list is incomplete or not provided. Inconsistent or incorrect format used for citations & references.

Presentation 10% Logical, easy to follow structure. The writing is clear and concise. Spelling, English grammar, punctuations, etc. are perfect. Material is presented in most appropriate way. Figures of excellent quality and referred to in text. Figures and tables are correctly formatted and captioned.

Logical, easy to follow structure. The writing is clear with no repetition or unnecessary verbiage. Spelling, English grammar, punctuations, etc. have no errors. Material is presented in most appropriate way. Figures of high quality and referred to in text. Figures and tables are correctly formatted and captioned.

Easy to follow structure. The writing is generally clear but unnecessary words & repetitions are occasionally used. Spelling, English grammar, punctuations, etc. are satisfactory with a few common errors. Material is presented in appropriate way. Figures of acceptable quality and referred to in text. Figures and tables are correctly formatted and captioned.

Unsatisfactory presentation; difficult to follow structure. Numerous repetitions in text with unnecessary verbiage. Spelling, English grammar, punctuations, etc. are poor with many errors. Material is not appropriately presented. Figures of poor quality and not referred to in text. Figures and tables are incorrectly formatted and captioned.

Poor presentation, showing complete lack of details. Difficult to follow structure. Numerous repetitions in text with unnecessary verbiage. Numerous spelling mistakes and grammatical errors. Material is poorly presented. Figures of poor quality and not referred to in text. Figures and tables are incorrectly formatted and not captioned.

Technical correctness

15% Technically correct throughout. Essentially technically correct in all parts.

Generally technically correct with minor errors in some parts.

Significant, major errors detected in all parts.

Essentially technically incorrect in all parts.