Education — research proposal assessment rubric

// Analytic rubric for a graduate research proposal: five weighted criteria by four performance levels, every cell described in terms a second marker can apply, with the weighted total computed from the grid.
//
// Every string below is EXAMPLE text from a fictional course: replace it.
//
// Weights sum to 1.00 (0.25 + 0.25 + 0.20 + 0.15 + 0.15), so a proposal
// scoring Exemplary (4 points) on every criterion totals 4.00 and the grid
// reads directly as a grade-point-style score. Each descriptor states what
// is observable in the submission rather than how good it feels, which is
// what makes double marking converge: two markers who disagree should be
// able to point at the sentence in the descriptor they read differently.
//
// Every criterion has all four levels. A rubric with a missing level
// forces a marker to invent one, and the invented level is where marking
// drifts between cohorts.

rubric proposal {
  title: "Research proposal — summative assessment"
  course: "RES 701 · Research Design and Methods"
  assignment: "Full research proposal, 4000 words, with a data management plan"
  author: "Programme assessment team"
}

criterion question {
  name: "Research question and rationale"
  weight: 0.25
  description: "Answerable, important, grounded?"
}
criterion design {
  name: "Design and methods"
  weight: 0.25
  description: "Does the design fit the question?"
}
criterion analysis {
  name: "Analysis plan"
  weight: 0.20
  description: "Specified before the data?"
}
criterion ethics {
  name: "Ethics and data management"
  weight: 0.15
  description: "Risks to people and data handled?"
}
criterion communication {
  name: "Structure and scholarly writing"
  weight: 0.15
  description: "Could an outsider check it?"
}

level question_1 { criterion: question label: "Emerging" points: 1 descriptor: "Topic rather than a question; no gap in the literature identified." }
level question_2 { criterion: question label: "Developing" points: 2 descriptor: "Question too broad to answer in one study; rationale rests on few sources." }
level question_3 { criterion: question label: "Proficient" points: 3 descriptor: "Focused, answerable question; gap shown by a structured literature search." }
level question_4 { criterion: question label: "Exemplary" points: 4 descriptor: "Population, exposure and outcome stated; the gap and its cost argued." }

level design_1 { criterion: design label: "Emerging" points: 1 descriptor: "Design named but not justified; sample and measures undefined." }
level design_2 { criterion: design label: "Developing" points: 2 descriptor: "Plausible design; major threats to validity left unaddressed." }
level design_3 { criterion: design label: "Proficient" points: 3 descriptor: "Design justified against alternatives; main biases addressed." }
level design_4 { criterion: design label: "Exemplary" points: 4 descriptor: "Validity threats anticipated with specific mitigations and a pilot." }

level analysis_1 { criterion: analysis label: "Emerging" points: 1 descriptor: "No analysis plan, or tests listed without reference to the outcome." }
level analysis_2 { criterion: analysis label: "Developing" points: 2 descriptor: "Main analysis named; no sample-size reasoning or missing-data plan." }
level analysis_3 { criterion: analysis label: "Proficient" points: 3 descriptor: "Primary analysis pre-specified, sample size justified, missing data planned." }
level analysis_4 { criterion: analysis label: "Exemplary" points: 4 descriptor: "Sensitivity analyses pre-specified; power computed, assumptions stated." }

level ethics_1 { criterion: ethics label: "Emerging" points: 1 descriptor: "Ethical issues not considered; no data management plan." }
level ethics_2 { criterion: ethics label: "Developing" points: 2 descriptor: "Consent mentioned; data storage and retention not specified." }
level ethics_3 { criterion: ethics label: "Proficient" points: 3 descriptor: "Consent, confidentiality and storage specified; approval route named." }
level ethics_4 { criterion: ethics label: "Exemplary" points: 4 descriptor: "Risks graded with mitigations; FAIR data plan for access and sharing." }

level communication_1 { criterion: communication label: "Emerging" points: 1 descriptor: "Structure hard to follow; referencing inconsistent." }
level communication_2 { criterion: communication label: "Developing" points: 2 descriptor: "Logical sections; terms used before defined; some reference errors." }
level communication_3 { criterion: communication label: "Proficient" points: 3 descriptor: "Clear structure, accurate references; figures support the text." }
level communication_4 { criterion: communication label: "Exemplary" points: 4 descriptor: "Concise and precise; an outside expert could review it unaided." }

view rubric_grid_view: rubric_grid