SUST 301, Fall 2012: Rubric for Community Based Research Project (50% of grade)
Research Plan
(5 points)
Progress Report
(5 points)
Draft Report
(10 points)
Individual
Presentation
(5 points)
Team Presentation
(5 points)
Exemplary
The research plan has all the
requested elements and is
clear, concise, well defined,
detailed, and feasible;
demonstrates substantial
effort to identify sources and
experts; is extremely well
matched to needs of Dickinson
College; and shows strong
promise of significant benefit
to the college.
The progress report
demonstrates substantial
effort and progress on the
project, including consultations
with relevant stakeholders and
experts. Challenges are clearly
described and understood;
strong strategies for
overcoming challenges are
presented.
Nearly all elements of draft
report are on track for an
exemplary final report (see
final report below).
Main messages and
recommendations are
presented clearly, logically and
effectively; recommendations
are strongly supported by
analysis and evidence;
presentation is well organized,
professional, creative,
compelling and appropriate to
the audience; voice is strong
and easily heard; strong eye
contact with audience; holds
the audience’s attention; time
limits are not exceeded.
Individual makes substantial,
positive contributions to the
team presentation; performs
assigned tasks with a high
degree of competence and
responsibility; plays a
Proficient
The research plan has all the
requested elements and is
clear, well defined, and
feasible; demonstrates good
effort to identify sources and
experts; is well matched to
needs of Dickinson College;
and shows good promise of
benefit to the college.
Satisfactory
The research plan has most of
the requested elements and is
well defined; demonstrates
effort to identify sources and
experts; is responsive to the
needs of Dickinson College.
Unsatisfactory
The research plan is
incomplete, is poorly defined,
demonstrates minimal effort to
identify sources and experts,
and is not responsive to the
needs of Dickinson College.
The progress report
demonstrates good effort and
progress on the project,
including consultations with
relevant stakeholders and
experts. Challenges are
described; good strategies for
overcoming challenges are
presented.
The progress report
demonstrates some effort and
progress on the project,
including consultations with
relevant stakeholders and
experts. Challenges are
identified; strategies for
overcoming challenges are
presented.
The progress report
demonstrates minimal effort
and progress on the project.
Relevant stakeholders and
experts have not been
consulted. Challenges are not
identified and strategies for
overcoming challenges are not
presented.
Most elements of draft report
are on track for a proficient
final report (see final report
below).
Main messages and
recommendations are
presented clearly;
recommendations are
supported by analysis and
evidence; presentation is well
organized, professional,
engaging, and appropriate to
the audience; voice is easily
heard; good eye contact with
audience; hold’s the audience’s
attention; time limits are not
exceeded.
Most elements of draft report
are on track for a satisfactory
final report (see final report
below).
Main messages and
recommendations are evident
and understandable;
presentation is well organized;
voice can be heard; some eye
contact made with audience;
time limits are not exceeded.
Multiple elements of draft
report fall short of a
satisfactory final report (see
final report below)
Main messages and
recommendations are not
evident or are confusing;
presentation is disorganized,
monotone, dull; time limits are
not respected.
Individual makes substantial,
positive contributions to the
team presentation; performs
assigned tasks competently
and responsibly.
Individual makes positive
contributions to the team
presentation; performs
assigned tasks responsibly.
Individual makes minimal
contribution to the team
presentation.
Score
1
SUST 301, Fall 2012: Rubric for Community Based Research Project (50% of grade)
Final Report
(70 points)
(i) Information
collection,
selection,
documentation
(ii) Analysis
(iii)
Recommendations
leadership role in organizing
and carrying out the group
work.
Quality of final report is
comparable to an expertly
researched and written
professional consultant’s
report, as exemplified by:
Extensive information is
collected from multiple
credible sources, including
consultations with facilities
staff and external experts;
information sources are fully
documented; discussion and
use of information in analysis
and to support
recommendations
demonstrates sophisticated
awareness of issues of data
quality and uncertainty and
their implications for decisionmaking.
Analysis is based on clear and
relevant criteria; methods of
analysis are appropriate,
expertly applied and described
fully and clearly; results are
presented thoroughly, logically
and clearly; interpretation of
results is valid and insightful.
Recommendations are clear,
focused, have potential to
substantially advance
Dickinson’s progress toward
climate neutrality; supporting
arguments and evidence are
presented logically and
convincingly; necessary steps
and responsibilities to
implement are described
thoroughly; opportunities and
barriers to implementation are
Quality of final report is
comparable to a good quality
student project, as exemplified
by:
Quality of final report is
comparable to a competent
student project, as exemplified
by:
Quality of final report is well
below expectations, as
evidenced by:
Information is collected from
multiple credible sources,
including consultations with
facilities staff and external
experts; information sources
are well documented;
discussion and use of
information in analysis and to
support recommendations
demonstrates awareness of
issues of data quality and
uncertainty and their
implications for decisionmaking.
Information is collected from a
small number of appropriate
sources; some obvious sources
omitted; information sources
are incompletely documented;
discussion and use of
information in analysis and to
support recommendations
demonstrates some but uneven
or unsophisticated awareness
of issues of data quality and
uncertainty and their
implications for decisionmaking.
Collected information is
inadequate to the task; many
obvious sources omitted;
sources of important data lack
credibility; information
sources are poorly
documented; awareness of
data quality issues and
uncertainty are lacking.
Analysis is based on clear and
mostly relevant criteria;
methods of analysis are
appropriate and clearly
described; application of
methods is competent but may
have minor errors; results are
presented and are mostly
clear; interpretation of results
has some minor problems.
Criteria for analysis are
evident but unclear; most but
not all methods of analysis are
appropriate; description of
methods is incomplete;
application of methods is
competent but some errors are
made; results are presented
but are unclear or incomplete;
interpretation of results has
some significant problems.
Recommendations are clear
and relevant to Dickinson’s
climate neutrality goal;
supporting arguments and
evidence are given but are
incomplete or not convincing
on important points; necessary
steps and responsibilities to
implement are incomplete or
unclear; opportunities and
barriers to implementation are
not identified; alternative
Criteria for analysis are
lacking; methods of analysis
are not appropriate or not
clear; application of methods
subject to significant error;
presentation of results is
illogical and unclear;
interpretation of results has
many significant problems.
Recommendations are clear,
focused, have potential to help
advance Dickinson’s progress
toward climate neutrality;
supporting arguments and
evidence are presented
logically and are mostly
convincing; necessary steps
and responsibilities to
implement are noted;
opportunities and barriers to
implementation are identified;
Recommendations are unclear,
unfocused, are not supported
by analysis, and are not
convincing; steps and
responsibilities to implement
are lacking or inadequately
described.
2
SUST 301, Fall 2012: Rubric for Community Based Research Project (50% of grade)
(iv) Writing
thoroughly characterized;
alternative courses of action
are considered and compared
to recommended actions.
Organization of the report is
logical and effective; writing is
compelling; tone is consistent
and appropriate for a
professional consultant’s
report; ideas are carefully
developed and elaborated with
relevant details; sentence
structure and length are varied
effectively throughout report;
word choice is rich, effective
and precise; technical
terminology is used correctly;
writing is free of grammar,
spelling and punctuation
errors; references are
complete and use consistent
and correct style.
alternative courses of action
are considered.
courses of action are not
considered.
Organization of the report is
logical and effective; writing
maintains reader’s interest;
tone is mostly consistent and
appropriate for a professional
consultant’s report; ideas are
developed but not always
thoroughly elaborated;
sentence structure and length
are varied; word choice is
good, varied; technical
terminology is used correctly
most of the time; a few
grammar, spelling and
punctuation errors are
present; references are
complete and use consistent
and correct style.
Some problems with the
organization of the report;
writing generally maintains
reader’s interest; tone is
inconsistent, not always
appropriate for a professional
consultant’s report; ideas
presented with little
development or elaboration;
limited variety in sentence
structure; word choice is
ordinary; technical
terminology is used incorrectly
several times; grammar,
spelling and punctuation
errors are common and
distracting; references are
mostly complete; correct style
for references used
inconsistently.
Poorly organized; writing loses
reader’s interest; tone is not
appropriate for a professional
consultant’s report; ideas are
incomplete and undeveloped;
sentence structure is
simplistic, not varied; word
choice is simplistic, inaccurate;
terminology is used
incorrectly; numerous errors
in grammar, spelling and
punctuation that interfere with
communication; references
lacking or incomplete.
Aggregate score:
Grade:
Comments:
3