Student Name:

 

Title of Thesis:

 

Thesis Evaluator:

 

          RUBRIC FOR THE WRITTEN THESIS

1.  Includes a two-page précis.

           Needs Improvement                                                           Excellent                                                

Précis written in technical language.

Incomplete description of project/written work.

Précis includes description of research problem/project, approach, process, and conclusions. Easily understood by a general audience.

 

2.  Identifies the issue or problem or creative challenge.

         Needs Improvement                                                              Excellent                                                

Does not identify the issue or represents the issue inaccurately or inadequately.

Identifies and summarizes the project/research problem. States project goals/objectives and hypothesis.

 

3.  Includes a section on methodology/approach.

Methodology/approach missing or incompletely/insufficiently detailed.

A methodology/approach was clearly delineated. Awareness of the procedures of the discipline.

 

4.  Examination of supporting evidence and body of knowledge is included.

              Needs Improvement                                                           Excellent                                              

No evidential support for argument. Inadequate discussion of body of knowledge.

Does not distinguish between fact and opinion.

Discusses body of knowledge thoroughly. Infers appropriately from evidence.

Questions its accuracy and relevance.

 

5.  Identifies conclusions, implications, and consequences.

                Needs Improvement                                                         Excellent                                              

No conclusions, implications, and/or consequences are included.

Concludes by discussing the value of the project and its implications. Considers context and assumptions.

 

6.  Reflects high quality writing.

                Needs Improvement                                                         Excellent                                              

Numerous grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors.

Well-written and mechanically correct.

 

Comments:

 

 

 

 

 

 

          RUBRIC FOR THE ORAL PRESENTATION

1.  Introduction

               Needs Improvement                                                                 Excellent                                     

No introduction to topic.

Interesting and engaging introduction

Prepared the audience.

 

2. Organization

                Needs Improvement                                                                Excellent                                     

Disorganized; poorly organized.

Audience does not understand argument presented.

Well-organized and easy to follow.

Audience understands the argument and can formulate questions.

 

3.  Delivery

                Needs Improvement                                                                Excellent                                     

Paper was read; no eye contact.

Speech is too slow or too fast.

Appears unprepared.

Smooth, clear, and articulate; well prepared.

Everyone can hear.

Good eye contact.

 

4.  Response to Questions

                Needs Improvement                                                                Excellent                                     

Misunderstands questions or cannot answer simple questions.

Answers questions well and with reference to own work; shows knowledge of subject.

 

5. Content

                Needs Improvement                                                                Excellent                                      

Paper and presentation highly technical.

Only understood by specialists in the discipline.

A general audience could understand the presentation.

 

           

 

Did the project take a unique approach or reflect an unusual effort on the part of the student?

Comments on student’s overall performance:

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

           

OVERALL, I WOULD RATE THIS THESIS:

 

1  Nomination for “Pass with Distinction”
1  Excellent
1  Pass
1  Needs revision in order to pass.
1  Fail

 

“Pass with Distinction:” This category is reserved for theses in which the research question or project demonstrated unusual originality and creativity, was elegantly executed and/or was innovative in its field. (e.g., analysis had more depth than is usual in an Honors thesis.)