Sei sulla pagina 1di 3

Research Proposal Evaluation Form

KXGX 6101: Research Methodology


Session 2012-2013, Semester 2
Details of Proposal and Student
Name:
Program:
Department:
Matric No.:
Proposal Title:
EVALUATION:
Name of Evaluator:
Program:
Department:
Matric No.:
Rubric for Research Proposal Evaluation
1

Title of Research

Format

Background, Objective,
Methodology, Work Schedule,
Equipment, Cost and
Reference

Introduction /
literature
review
Identifies and Summarizes the
Problem/Question to be
investigated

Not clear/ vague/not


representing the
research/ contain
error. Title not
acceptable.
Very poorly arranged
and format is not
followed.

Not clear/ vague/not


representing the
research/ contain
error. Title requires
major revision.
-

Clear/ specific/ representative


of the research/ error free. Can
be accepted with minor
revision.

Clear, specific, representative of the


research and error free. Minor
revision is required

Clear, specific, representative


of the research and error free.
Can be accepted as it is.

Strictly arranged according to


the format.

Question identified is
too broad or vague to
provide a coherent
thesis.

Has identified an appropriate


topic but be studied, but lacks a
clearly stated hypothesis.

Uses prior knowledge to identify a


question to be studied. Has clearly
stated hypothesis.

Uses prior knowledge to


identify a question to be
studied. Has clearly stated
hypothesis.

Organized as a catalogue of
information about the topic
rather than pointing toward a
hypothesis.

Break the question down into


smaller steps, but has not identified
all the complexities and nuances
inherent in the question.

Uses some appropriate sources


to discover what is already
known about the
system/problem, but discussion
omits important aspects of the
problem.

Uses appropriate sources to discover


what is already known about the
system/problem, but does not make
clear connections between this
information and the question to be
investigated.

Review of relevant
knowledge is seriously
incomplete. Inadequate
variety of sources.
Identifies Existing, Relevant
Knowledge and Views

Major issues are


ignored.

Breaks question down into a


series of steps that leads to the
questions to be addressed in the
study. Identifies complexities
and nuances in the question.
Provides a through and relevant
literature review. Excellent
variety of sources.
There are clear linkages among
the information and the
question under consideration.

Adequate variety of sources.


Many factual errors or
inconsistencies.
Analysis and Synthesis

Vague discussion of
detail.
Lack of insight/analysis

Vague discussion of detail.


Little insight/analysis; that
which is provided is
conventional or

Most information is factually


correct.
Adequate discussion of detail.
Adequate depth of insight/analysis.

All information is factually


correct.
Excellent discussion of detail.
Impressive depth of
insight/analysis.

Mark
Obtained

underdeveloped.

Draws Sound Interfaces from


Previous Research that Lead
Clearly to the
Hypothesis/Research Question

Draw interfaces which


are not justified.

Draws reasonable conclusion


from the previous research, but
does not convincingly connect
the hypothesis to the previous
research.

Draws sound conclusions from the


previous research and communicates
a logical path from the data to the
hypothesis.

Draws sound conclusions from


the previous research and
communicates a logical path
from the data to the hypothesis.

1
Rubric for Research Proposal Evaluation (Continued)
1

Mark
Obtained

Vague, inappropriate
and not achievable.
Need to re-write.

Vague/inappropriate /
not achievable. Need
to rewrite.

Clear, appropriate and


achievable with minor revision.

Clear, appropriate and achievable.


No need for revision.

Objectives are very clear,


specific and achievable.

Methodology and
methods used are not
appropriate.

Provides poor
statement of research
design, sample,
instruments, analysis
and procedures with
large degree of
vagueness.

Provides adequate statement of


research design, sample,
instruments, analysis, and
procedures with some degree of
vagueness.

Provides good statement of research


design, sample, instruments,
analysis, and procedures with little
degree of vagueness.

Provides clear and descriptive


statement of research design,
sample, instruments, analysis,
and procedures.

Provide some rationale of the


methodology/methods used

Provides very convincing


rationale of the
methodology/methods used

Objectives

Methodology Planning

Fails to identify key


experimental/computat
ional parameter.

Barely identifies key


experimental/computational
parameter.
Barely gives the level of
accuracy, precision etc.

Fails to give the level


of accuracy, precision
etc.

Adequately identifies key


experimental/computational
parameter.
Adequately gives the level of
accuracy, precision etc.

Provide adequate details in a


very systematic way.
Adequately identifies key
experimental/computational
parameter.
Adequately gives the level of
accuracy, precision etc.

Work Schedule

Writing (language and grammar)

Activities and
millstones are
incomplete/ not clear
and graduate on time
program not adopted.
Language obscures
meaning/ unclear all
over the places.
Grammatical, spelling,
or punctuation errors are
distracting or repeated.

Activities and
millstones are
incomplete/not clear
but graduate on time
program is adopted.

Activities and millstones are


fairly complete and graduate
on time program is adopted.

Activities and millstones are


complete and graduate on time
program is adopted.

Sentence structure too


repetitive.

Language is fairly clear.

Only few distracting errors in


sentence mechanics and grammar.

Many distracting
errors in sentence
mechanics and
grammar.

Grammatical, spelling, or
punctuation errors are few.

Activities and millstones


are specific and graduate
on time program is fully
adopted.

Language very clearly and


effectively communicates
ideas.

Organization is clear and effective.


Use proper format.

Language is appropriately
nuanced and eloquent.
Error free.

Work is unfocused.
Organization is clumsy
or mechanical.
References not cited or
not used correctly.

Redundancy.
Organization is very clear and
effective.
Sources and citations used
correctly.