Connections Proposal Review Rubric Revision: SUMMER 2013 Criteria Weight 15 Overall Merit EXEMPLARY (x4) 60
points
50 Student's clarity of explanation 8 Research topic or question 20 Clearly articulated topic/question with logical, supportive background information points
32
Project plan or how the Strong evidence of thought and question is to be answered planning (details clearly articulated)
80
Clearly articulated, strong statement of why this project is important (can be limited to student impact) points
32
7 Writing style Clear, persuasive, and logical and well organized with little to no errors points
28
7 Timeline Clear and detailed plan for completing work within project timeframe points
28
Mentor statement and Budget justification 25 points
8 Significance or impact of project 10 General recommendation from mentor 15 5 Budget: Readiness for project 5 Sharing results 100 GOOD (x3) Excellent overall topic, project plan, Good but some concerns with and design topic, plan, or design 45
Clear topic/question but some background confusing/unclear; additional details needed 24
Good evidence of thought and planning (some details missing or confusing) ADEQUATE (x2) NEEDS SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT (x1) MISSING Adequate but weak project plan or Project plan or design is vague or Not an appropriate design (recommend revise & has significant flaws (recommend topic, project, or resubmit) plan revise & resubmit) 30
15
0
Topic/question vague and Topic/question weak with little to background missing needed details no background provided 16
Some evidence of thought and planning (few details or plan not presented logically) OR multiple minor flaws in plan 60
40
Shows some effort to describe Vague references to project project's importance; could be importance or explanation difficult stated more clearly (can be limited to understand (can be limited to to student impact) student impact) 24
16
Good overall; minor issues with Adequate writing; isolated areas clarity, logic, or level of detail; few lacking clarity/ details or too many errors errors 21
14
Some details provided on the Vague references to project timing timing of various stages of the project plan 21
14
8
Little evidence of thought or planning (little to no details; confusing) OR significant flaws in plan 20
Little to no reference to project No impact importance or not‐understandable statement (can be limited to student impact) 8
Poorly written overall; confusing, lacking necessary details; excessive or significant errors 7
Little to no details provided 0
7
Strong recommendation with knowledge of student, abilities, and skills points
40
Clear and detailed budget and justification of expenditures points
60
Very good recommendation; some details of student, abilities, and skills 30
Justification indicates an understanding of the budgeted items 45
Good recommendation; few details Weak recommendation; little No known about student, abilities, and recommendation of student, abilities, and skills skills 20
0
10
Justification for the Justification for the No justification budgeted items is vague budgeted items includes little to no detail 0
15
30
Strong evidence student is prepared for project (through classes, previous experience, etc) points
20
Clear and specific plan for sharing work with appropriate audience (beyond Research Day) points
20 Some evidence of readiness OR good plan/support for gaining needed skills 15
Vague plans to share work with others (beyond Research Day) Little to no evidence of readiness Student does not seem ready for AND weak plan/support for gaining project and no structure/plan of support needed skills 10
5
Only mentions Research Day 15 10 No plans to share work described in proposal 0