ASSESSMENT RUBRIC
FOR
INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH
PAPER (IRP)
I. HOW THE IRP PROPOSAL RELATES TO THE COURSE LEARNING OUTCOMES:
Learning outcome #7 states, “Students will be able to write an interdisciplinary research paper (IRP).” This
paper requires you to incorporate you understanding of interdisciplinarity and the class theme, human
cloning, into an integrative research paper. The subject and structure you developed step by step in the
interdisciplinary research proposal will now be applied in the IRP.
II. DEADLINE AND FORMAT:
 The Interdisciplinary Research Paper (IRP) is due 4/20 for MWF students, and 4/21for TTR
students.
 For this paper, we require MLA citation format. Consult the information at this web site:
<http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/research/r_mla.html#Works-Cited>
 The IRP Proposal is to be typed on the form provided. Keep copies of all materials for your own
records.
 Content: The IRP will be 7-8 pages of text (introduction, body, and conclusion), a separate page of
Endnotes, and a separate page of Select Bibliography. The cover sheet will be the IRP Proposal
Form.
 Format: Standard 1” margins, double spacing, 12 point font.
III. GRADING CRITERIA
POSITIVE SOURCE ELEMENTS
Drawing on
Disciplinary
Sources:



Primary sources included
Sources come from recent publications
Sources come from professional literature
Critical
Argumentation:




Scope of problem/topic/issue clearly defined
Empirical evidence, textual evidence or direct
experience cited to support major assertions
Reflections on the limitations or merits of a
source(s) presented
Shortcomings or merits of a disciplinary approach
identified
NEGATIVE
SOURCE ELEMENTS
















Over-reliance on 1-2 sources
Poor quality of sources
Excessive direct quotations
Failure to credit source(s)
Source paraphrased
inappropriately
Important claims/facts not
supported by a source(s)
Misunderstanding of key
concepts
Failure to define key terms
Irrelevant facts or arguments
Assertions presented in illogical
order
Ideas presented in inappropriate
context
Fallacious reasoning
Undeveloped or insufficient
analysis
Scope of problem too broad or
narrow
Argument inconsistent with
thesis or fails to adequately
support the action the thesis is
demanding
Insufficient content to
adequately develop major point
Possible
Points
POINTS
EARNED
10
20
1
Topic/Thesis:


Problem or issue clearly stated in the introduction
Thesis statement clearly stated in the introduction






Sentence Outline/Structure:



Sentence outline of case (3 major points and a
minimum of 2 sub points under each)
Main points of outline are supportive of
action/remedy/solution proposed by thesis
Main points of argument/case allow for integration
of various disciplinary perspectives






Interdisciplinary Perspective and
Integration:






Clear rationale for taking interdisciplinary
approach stated in introduction
Disciplinary perspectives of sources identified
Assumptions of disciplines used in study made
explicit and compared in text
Disciplinary perspectives compared and
contrasted in text
Integration occurs within each major section of
paper
Conclusion is integrative of disciplinary
perspectives used and voice is given to minority
viewpoints









Other:

Endnotes reflective of disciplinary research used
in body of paper.

Select Bibliography contains minimum of 3
sources for each of 3 required disciplines


Writing is free from major errors









POINT TOTAL
Topic too broad
Superficial thesis
Thesis not researchable
Thesis poorly stated
Thesis lacks sufficient
specificity
Thesis does not appear in the
introduction
Major point(s) not logical
/supportive development of
thesis
Major point(s) not stated in
complete sentence(s)
Sub points under major point(s)
missing
Only 1 sub point under a major
point
Each main point is limited to a
single discipline, not allowing
for integration of various
disciplinary perspectives
Main point(s) is/are wordy
and/or lack(s) clarity
5
15
Rationale for taking an
interdisciplinary approach is
missing or is poorly worded
Disciplines and disciplinary
perspectives not stated in text
Assumptions of disciplines used
in study missing or defective.
Disciplinary perspectives not
compared and contrasted in text
Disciplinary perspectives of
persons or sources cited in text
not identified
Integration of two or more
disciplinary perspectives fails to
occur within in one or more
major sections of paper.
Uneven coverage of
disciplinary perspectives
Integrative conclusion lacking
20
Endnotes not reflective of
disciplinary research used
Endnotes conform to MLA
10
Select Bibliography contains
less than minimum of 3 sources
for each of three disciplines
Numerous spelling errors
Numerous grammatical errors
Numerous syntax errors
Overall structure of paper is not
clearly delineated (clearly
reflective of sentence outline)
Internal structure of major
section lacks clarity
Introduction too long
Topic sentence introducing
major point/section does not
correspond to sentence outline
Definition of key terms needed
10
10
100
Copyrighted 5/11/04: AFR, rev. 8/12/04: JLW
All rights reserved
2