Checklist and Rubric: Module 2: Week 5
Soneral – Wyse Tax Dollars at Work
Supplement 10
Checklist
Please use this checklist to guide what to include in your proposal. All elements are required.
_____Purposeful scientific facts about your field of study, with up-to-date information about what is currently known about your research
topic.
_____Background information on any methods you will use to answer your research question, starting broad getting more specific.
_____A clear description of the significance of this research question, explaining how this experiment will contribute to the scientific
community.
_____A specific and well articulated hypothesis and null hypothesis.
_____An hypothesis that accurately predicts the influence of the independent variable on the dependent variable.
_____Peer reviewed scientific articles, cited references using CBE/LSE format.
_____A reference list of at least 15 cited, peer reviewed articles.
_____Subheadings wherever appropriate.
_____Excellent spelling and grammar.
______Thorough referencing of all methods from the primary literature. If a commercial kit is used, cite vendor.
______A flow chart describing your intended design (a flow chart is a schematic diagram illustrating the steps of your overall experimental
strategy)
______A clear description of the methods you will use to collect/observe data. Methods must be feasible and well developed. Protocols
are representative of those used in published research.
______Demonstration that your approach will not be biased (i.e. demonstrates comprehension of relevant controls, sampling and
repeated trials, algebraic and statistical treatments)
______A description of how you plan to display the data (i.e. demonstrates comprehension of dependent and independent variables,
______A description of how you might provide alternative approaches (i.e. if-then analysis, demonstrating that you have thought through
the possible shortcomings of your design).
______A preliminary budget demonstrating your understanding of the cost of your study, including salaries of all personnel.
Proposal Rubric (90 points)
Soneral – Wyse Tax Dollars at Work
Supplement 10
Checklist and Rubric: Module 2: Week 5
Emerging
(≤ 60%)
Novice
(70%)
The title absent or is rambling.
There is no attempt within the
title to state the independent
or dependent variables. The
title provides little information
about the content of the
paper. Improvement required.
The stated is not concise.
There is an attempt within
the title to state both the
independent and
dependent variables, but
lacks conciseness and/or
clarity and/or is inconsistent
with the content of the
paper. Improvement
suggested.
Title
Purpose: To briefly and
comprehensively
summarize the content
and authorship of the
paper
5 points
Introduction
(Background and
Significance)
Purpose: To present the
project in the context of
other work in the field;
to communicate how
research makes a
contribution to
knowledge gaps in the
field; to justify
motivation and
significance of the
research project
30 points
Does not address the topic or
question appropriately;
provides no logical thought
progression; Research is not
included. Content is severely
lacking; knowledge gaps not
identified and research is not
contextualized. Improvement
required.
Topic is barely addressed
and thought progression is
unclear; research may/may
not be included and is
largely misconstrued or
irrelevant. Knowledge gaps
are not well identified and
research is not
contextualized. Major
improvements suggested.
Developing
(80%)
The title states both the
dependent and
independent variables,
and/or is written in a
reasonably clear
declarative statement.
The information is
mostly concise and
develops an
understanding of the
content of the paper,
but improvements are
suggested.
Proficient
(90%)
The title states both the
dependent and
independent variables,
and is written in a clear
declarative statement.
The information is
concise and develops a
clear understanding of
the description of the
content of the paper,
but minor
improvements are
suggested.
Topic is addressed but
thought progression is
not entirely coherent.
Prior research may/may
not be relevant to
research aims.
Knowledge gaps are
only superficially
identified.
Improvements are
suggested.
Topic is introduced
logically, but minor
details are irrelevant or
unclear; Research is
included and relevant to
the project; knowledge
gaps are identified.
Research question is
contextualized but
minor improvements
are suggested.
Expert
(100%)
Title clearly states both
the independent and
dependent variables for
the paper, and is
written in a clear
declarative statement.
The information is
concise and provides a
clear description of the
content of the paper.
No improvement
needed.
Introduces the topic
logically using relevant
and research specific to
the aims of this project.
Thoroughly explores
knowledge gaps in the
field, and contextualizes
the purpose of the
research within the
existing body of
knowledge on this
topic. No improvement
needed.
Soneral – Wyse Tax Dollars at Work
Supplement 10
Checklist and Rubric: Module 2: Week 5
Emerging
(≤ 60%)
Introduction (Research
Question)
Purpose: To present
what the research is
designed to test
(research question, H0
and Ha hypotheses); to
describe predicted
results
10 points
The purpose of the study is
completely unclear.
Hypotheses are missing or
incomplete and predictions are
not reasonable.
Improvements required.
The purpose of the study is
not well developed.
Hypotheses are not
included for all dependent
variables and predictions
may/may not be
reasonable. Major
improvements are
suggested.
Methods are described
inappropriately or are missing.
Protocols and description of
data elements are lacking.
Improvement required.
Methods are somewhat
described but are not
appropriate for obtaining
the desired results.
Protocols and description of
data are lacking elements
needed for this work to be
replicated by another
researcher (including
controls, sampling, and
repeated trials). Methods
applied from other studies
may not be referenced.
Major improvements
suggested.
Experimental Methods
Purpose: To describe the
strategy used to test
research question using
sufficient detail that
another researcher can
reproduce the study
15 points
Novice
(70%)
Developing
(80%)
The purpose of the
study can be
determined but is not
obvious. Hypotheses
may/may not be
included for all
dependent variables,
and predicted results
may/may not be
reasonable.
Improvements are
suggested.
Methods are somewhat
described but may not
be appropriate for
understanding the
desired results.
Protocols and
description of data
elements, including
controls, sampling, and
repeated trials are
lacking some important
elements. Methods
from other studies
may/may not be cited.
Improvement
suggested.
Proficient
(90%)
The purpose or
objective of the study is
clear and fairly well
developed. Hypotheses
are included for all
dependent variables,
but may not entirely be
properly reported.
Predicted results are
reasonable, but minor
improvements are
suggested.
Methods are described
but lacking in a few
minor considerations;
protocols and
description of all data
elements, including
controls, sampling
procedures and, and
repeated trials are
descriptive but may be
excessive. Methods
applied from other
studies are cited.
Methods may may not
lack a few minor
elements or contain too
many details. Minor
improvements
suggested.
Expert
(100%)
The purpose or
objective of the study is
clear and well
developed. Hypotheses
are included for all
dependent variables,
and are written in the
proper format. Section
clearly describes the
predicted results.
Methods are
thoroughly described;
protocols and
description of all data
elements, including
controls, sampling, and
repeated trials are
thorough and
descriptive but not
excessive. Methods
applied from other
research studies are
cited.
Soneral – Wyse Tax Dollars at Work
Supplement 10
Checklist and Rubric: Module 2: Week 5
Emerging
(≤ 60%)
Statistical Methods
Purpose: To describe the
statistical tests, software
applied and data used
with sufficient detail
that another researcher
can reproduce the study.
15 points
Budget
Purpose: To describe the
cost and scale of the
study
10 points
7. References
Purpose: To present
scientific references
using the correct format
(CBE/CSE)
5 points
Sum
No statistical methods were
given and the description of
data elements is absent.
Novice
(70%)
Statistical methods are not
appropriate for the data and
are described
inappropriately or are
missing. Protocols and
descriptions of data
elements are lacking, or
errors were made in the
choices. Citation of
software is absent.
Developing
(80%)
Proficient
(90%)
Statistical methods
may/may not be
appropriate for data, or
are described with many
errors. Statistical
software used may/may
not be cited.
Statistical methods are
appropriate for data
analysis and data used
to run these tests are
described, although a
few details are lacking.
Statistical software used
is cited.
Budget is absent
Major flaws exist in the
design of the budget, or the
budget was not completed.
Identification of materials
and cost was unclear, and
reader has no
understanding of the cost of
project. Table is neither
neat nor presentable.
The types and quantities
for some of the
materials are indicated,
and some research on
pricing was reported.
Budget is lacking some
important items and/or
cost or the budget
exceeds the scale of
project. Table is
presentable.
The types and
quantities for most
materials are indicated,
prices are reasonably
well-researched, and
overall budget is
appropriate. The table
is neat and presentable,
and reasonably labeled.
Formatting guidelines
completely disregarded;
margins, fonts, or line spacing
inappropriate; references not
formatted according to
requirements
Formatting guidelines
largely disregarded; some
aspects of formats
inappropriate; references
formatted inconsistently
and not always
appropriately
Formatting guidelines
largely followed; some
inconsistencies with
references or text
formats
Formats almost entirely
correct; minor
inconsistencies or errors
in formatting of
references are present
Expert
(100%)
Statistical tests are
appropriate for data
analysis and data used
to run these tests are
clearly and concisely
described. Statistical
software is cited.
The types and
quantities for all
materials are clearly
indicated, prices are
well-researched, and
overall budget is
appropriate for the
scale of study. Table is
complete, neat,
graphically appealing,
and appropriately
labeled.
Formats entirely
appropriate using
CBE/CSE style;
references cited
appropriately within
text and at the end of
the paper
Soneral – Wyse Tax Dollars at Work
Supplement 10
Checklist and Rubric: Module 2: Week 5
Elements of Writing (35 points)
Category
Emerging
(≤ 60%)
Novice
(70%)
Developing
(80%)
Proficient
(90%)
Expert
(100%)
Incorrect or inaccurate
terminology repeatedly
used, or terminology is
missing
Incorrect terminology
used with moderate
frequency
Incorrect terminology
used occasionally
Terminology used
correctly with minor
inconsistencies or errors
Terminology used correctly
with no inconsistencies or
errors
Thoughts poorly organized
and/or lack clarity; flow of
ideas is interrupted;
sentence structure is very
awkward; some parts of
paper are
incomprehensible;
excessive amounts of
quoted material may be
present
Organization, flow, &
clarity problematic;
wording is awkward but
not completely
incomprehensible;
excessive amounts of
quoted material may be
present
Organization, flow, &
clarity somewhat
problematic but not
enough to distract
readers from thought
progression; some
awkward phrases
present; quoted
material may be
somewhat overused
Organization good with
few to no problems;
wording awkward in 1-2
places; one example of
an inappropriate
quotation may be
present
Excellent organization, flow,
& clarity; appropriate word
choices used; quotations used
only when appropriate (but
preferably not used at all)
Formatting guidelines
completely disregarded;
margins, fonts, or line
spacing inappropriate;
references figures and
tables not formatted
according to
requirements,
Formatting guidelines
largely disregarded;
some aspects of formats
inappropriate;
references, figures,
tables formatted
inconsistently or in
error. Needs
improvement.
Formatting guidelines
largely followed; some
inconsistencies with
references, text formats
or figures and tables.
Formats almost entirely
correct; minor errors or
inconsistencies in
formatting of references
figures, and tables.
Minor improvements
suggested.
Formats appropriately.
References, figures and tables
are formatted appropriately.
No improvements suggested.
Many spelling and/or
grammatical errors
present; so many errors
are present that reader (or
listener) gets completely
distracted
Some glaring spelling
and/or grammatical
errors present
Several spelling and/or
grammatical errors
present
One or two spelling
and/or grammatical
errors present
No spelling or grammatical
errors
Terminology
Purpose: To use scientific
terminology correctly
5 points
Organization, Flow, &
Clarity
Purpose: To present
scientific information
clearly, concisely, and
logically
15 points
Formatting
Purpose: To demonstrate
proficiency using
scientific formatting and
CSE citation system.
10 points
Grammar & Spelling
Purpose: To demonstrate
proficiency with written
(or spoken) English
5 points
Sum
Soneral – Wyse Tax Dollars at Work
Supplement 10
Checklist and Rubric: Module 2: Week 5
Responsiveness to Feedback (25 points)
Category
Incorporation of
Feedback from Peer
Review Process
Purpose: To synthesize
the feedback from the
peer review process and
improve the efficacy of
the paper
25 points
Emerging
(≤ 60%)
Novice
(70%)
Very few (≤60%) of the
suggestions from the peer
review process were
incorporated in the final
paper draft, and the paper
did not improve beyond its
draft stages. Elements 1-12
were not synthesized or
incorporated into the final
product.
Some (70%) of the
suggestions from the
peer review process
were incorporated in
the final paper draft,
and the paper
modestly improved
beyond its draft stages.
Elements 1-12 were
somewhat addressed
or incorporated into
the final product.
Sum
150 points total
Feedback and Action Steps
Developing
(80%)
A reasonable number
(80%) of the suggestions
from the peer review
process were
incorporated in the final
paper draft, and the
paper adequately
improved beyond its
draft stages. Elements 112 were reasonably
addressed or
incorporated into the
final product.
Proficient
(90%)
Expert
(100%)
Most (90%) suggestions
from the peer review
process were
incorporated in the final
paper draft, and the
proposal improved
beyond the minimum
suggestions. Elements
1-12 were fully
synthesized to make an
excellent final product.
All suggestions from the peer
review process were
incorporated in the final
paper draft, and the proposal
improved above and beyond
the minimum suggestions.
Elements 1-12 were fully and
remarkably synthesized to
make an exemplary final
product.