dissertation grading rubric

Rubrics for Dissertations

Introduction.

Rubrics used to evaluate research-based dissertation most often rate each section or chapter as well as the overall document. The section ratings may be holistic or broken down into components. There are examples of rubrics for the proposal and the final dissertation, as well as for the oral defense. These rubrics focus on many of the same dimensions used to rate papers (e.g., organization, thoroughness, mechanics, format). ​​​​​​​Rubrics for Written Assignments

Lovitts (2005) argued that faculty have implicit standards for evaluating dissertations and that making them explicit in a rubric makes evaluation of dissertations more valid, reliable, and consistent. In a study of faculty members in a sample of universities and disciplines, she asked participants to characterize dissertations and their components (i.e., problem statement, literature review, theory, methods, analysis, and discussion) at four levels of quality (i.e., Outstanding, Very Good, Acceptable, and Unacceptable).

Based on her data, she developed a table of the characteristics of dissertations of differing quality. For example,  outstanding  dissertations were described as

• Original, significant, compelling, creative, engaging, interesting, and thoughtful
• Very well written and organized
• Synthesizing information and connecting components seamlessly
• Exhibiting mature, independent thinking
• Having a point of view and authoritative voice
• Asking a new question or addressing an important problem
• Displaying deep understanding of massive amount of complicated literature
• Making focused, logical, rigorous, and sustained argument
• Theoretically sophisticated
• Using or developing new tools, methods, approaches, or types of analyses
• Having rich data
• Using analysis that is comprehensive, complete, and convincing
• Showing significant results
• Creating a conclusion that ties the whole thing together
• Of interest to a larger community ​​​​​​​

On the other hand,  unacceptable  dissertations were described as

• Poorly written, having grammatical and spelling errors,
• Having a sloppy presentation
• Plagiarized or deliberately misread or misused sources
• Lacking in understanding of basic concepts, processes, or conventions of discipline
• Lacking careful thought
• Looking at a problem that is trivial, weak, unoriginal, or already solved
• Misunderstanding or missing relevant literature
• Making a weak, inconsistent, self-contradictory, unconvincing, or invalid argument
• Not handling theory well, neglecting theory, or missing theory
• Relying on inappropriate of incorrect methods
• Presenting data that are flawed, wrong, false, or misrepresented
• Using wrong, inappropriate, incoherent, or confused analysis
• Including results that are obvious, already known, unexplained, or misinterpreted
• Having unsupported or exaggerated interpretation
• Failing to make a contribution

These descriptions could be used as a basis for a rubric to rate dissertations. Lovitts concluded that such a rubric could be used as a teaching tool during the dissertation process. Distributing it to students would set clear expectations at the outset and filling it out periodically would allow the advisor and student to evaluate progress and areas for improvement. Thus, the rubric can be a tool for faculty to provide feedback and establish benchmarks against which students can subsequently evaluate their own work. It can also be used in peer review, with students evaluating the work of their peers to provide an additional source of feedback. How to Grade a Dissertation

These are example of dissertation-related rubrics developed by Alliant schools and programs.

ELM and Ed Psych CSOE dissertation

LA Clinical PsyD proposal

LA Clinical PsyD dissertation and defense

CSPP Organizational Psychology dissertation

Examples of Rubrics for Rating Dissertation Proposals

Rubrics for Assessing Dissertations Texas A&M/Commerce Thesis and Dissertation Services

Dissertation Proposal Rubric Syracuse University Graduate School of Education

Thesis/Dissertation Proposal Rubric Fresno State Academics

Examples of Rubrics for Rating Dissertations

Rubric for Evaluating Dissertations The Chicago School of Professional Psychology

Dissertation Rubric California State University/Northridge Michael D. Eisner School of Education

Rubrics for Assessing Dissertations Texas A&M University/Commerce Graduate School

Examples of Rubrics for Rating Oral Defense

Assessment Rubric for Defense of Dissertation University of Maryland

Presentation Rubric for Evaluating MS Thesis & PhD Dissertation Defenses University of Miami Department of Public Health Sciences

Dissertation defense rubric Loyola University School of Medicine

University of Rhode Island Graduate Council ​​​​​​​ Thesis/Dissertation Defense Evaluation

Saybrook Dissertation Services

• Dissertation Services
• The Mentor System
• Dissertation Timeline and Milestones Diagrams

Dissertation Preparation Guides and Assessment Rubrics

• Dissertation Finalization
• Dissertation Policies and Procedures
• Dissertation Services Event Calendar

The Dissertation Policies and Procedures committee developed these instructional guides and assessment tools to support dissertation success. 

Prior to the Dissertation Proposal 

The  Dissertation Readiness Assessment and Instructional Guide is designed to assist in the conceptualization of a student’s proposed dissertation topic and their readiness to complete the work following the advanced research course(s) (refer to your department’s policy). This assessment is designed to support students as they evaluate their readiness to proceed with the dissertation. The assessment also guides committee members as they evaluate the student’s proposed research readiness.   

Dissertation Proposal 

The Dissertation Proposal Instructional Guide describes steps to support students as they prepare and submit their written proposal for their committee members to review.  This guide includes links to the following resources: Dissertation Proposal Template and the Proposal Rubric . 

Dissertation 

The Dissertation Instructional Guide describes steps to support students as they prepare and submit a draft of their full dissertation for their committee members to review.  This guide includes links to the following resources: Dissertation Template and the Dissertation Rubric . 

• << Previous: Dissertation Timeline and Milestones Diagrams
• Next: Dissertation Finalization >>
• Last Updated: Aug 23, 2024 12:16 AM
• URL: https://tcsedsystem.libguides.com/dissertation_services

Honors Thesis Evaluation Rubric

This rubric is intended to provide guidelines for thesis committee members and students.

Each project should be considered individually in the context of its discipline and the thesis chair's discretion.

• Student Resources

The paper is written from the perspective of a well-informed writer. Writer has likely read at least 10-15 articles (and/or books) on the subject and has integrated at least 10 peer-reviewed sources into the paper.

The writer exhibits basic working knowledge of the subject matter. Writer has likely read 7-10 articles (and/or books) on the subject and has integrated at least 7 peer-reviewed sources into the paper.

Writer’s understanding of the subject is lacking because of a failure to read and/or comprehend significant scholarly secondary material on the subject.

Methodology is clearly and effectively designed, executed, and represented in the paper, appropriately addressing the hypothesis/thesis.

The writer makes an effort to address the hypothesis/thesis through adept design and execution of the methodology, taking into account the advice of the chair. However, the research process (or its representation in the paper) falls short.

The design, execution, and/or representation of the methodology fall notably short.

The paper forwards a valuable, appropriately narrowed, and well-articulated research hypothesis/thesis.

The paper forwards a hypothesis/thesis feasible for research, though it may not be clearly articulated and may not lead toward original or valuable findings.

The paper forwards an inappropriate hypothesis/thesis, or no clear hypothesis/thesis at all.

The paper effectively integrates well-chosen secondary sources and appropriate primary research to define, test, and/or support the project’s findings in light of the hypothesis/thesis.

The paper integrates generally pertinent secondary sources and primary research in an effort to define, test, and/or support the project’s findings in light of the hypothesis/thesis, though representation of this research may fall short of achieving the project’s purpose.

The paper fails substantially to integrate pertinent secondary and primary research to define, test, and/or support the project’s hypothesis/thesis.

The paper not only presents primary research findings, but breaks them down and examines them to determine patterns, anomalies, function, structure, and/or cause and effect. Additionally, the paper leads the reader effectively through the process used to understand the issue and test the hypothesis/thesis.

The paper not only presents primary research findings, but breaks them down and examines them to determine patterns, anomalies, function, structure; and/or cause and effect. The writer attempts to lead readers through the process used to understand the issue and test the hypothesis/thesis, though he/she falls short in significant ways.

The paper fails to provide adept analysis of primary research findings.

The writer offers insightful interpretation of the primary research, effectively leading the reader toward the writer’s final perspective on the issue.

The writer offers interpretation of the primary research, exhibiting an effort to lead readers toward his/her final perspective on the issue, though failing to do so with the desired impact.

The writer fails to interpret the primary research clearly and/or convincingly.

The writer asserts a clear thesis that controls all other ideas in the paper. It provides transitions and explanations indicating the relationships among ideas as well as their link to the thesis.

The writer asserts a relatively clear thesis that generally controls the paper. He/she attempts to tie all ideas in the paper to the thesis, though the effort may fall short of this goal.

The writer fails to assert a clear thesis and/or to indicate clearly the relationships among ideas discussed in the paper.

With few mistakes, the writer indicates sources used for the study, following the guidelines of the field-appropriate documentation style.

With some lack of control or effort, the writer documents sources used in the paper according to the field-appropriate documentation style. This effort at least indicates whose ideas are whose, and avoids plagiarism.

Writer fails to document sources used in the paper according to the field-appropriate documentation style. The paper may not make clear whose ideas are whose and /or may exhibit plagiarism.

The paper employs scholarly tone and style (or in the fine and performing arts, whichever tone and style is deemed appropriate for the project) to build the writer’s ethos and generate desired impact.

The writer attempts to employ an effective tone and style for the purpose of the paper, but falls short of that goal.

Tone and style undermine the goals of the paper.