Student Funding Rubrics

Research

40 points.

ExcellentGoodFairMediocrePoor
Implications (10) Clearly demonstrated the importance and relevance of proposed research to a broader non-specialist audience as well as the academic implications. Makes an effort to explain research to a non-specialist audience, but still employes significant field jargon. Has a clearly developed research concept but does not explain its significance well to even an expert audience. Heavy use of jargon and field specific language, without explaining their meaning. Assumes the significance of project is mostly self-evident and only provides highly specific literature review for context. No context or background is given.
Question (10) Highlighted an exceptional question of research and demonstrated a grasp of the existing research. A satisfactory research questions is proposed, but may not be adequately connected to research. Proposes a clear research question, but there are significant flaws with the question or the research. Poorly articulated research question and lacks description of how it fits within existing research. Does not have a clear research question.
Methodology (10) The feasibility of proposed research is evident. All relevant research theories, approaches, methods, and sources of data are fully articulated. Applicant clearly has a full methodological plan ready to implement, and the skills to implement this plan. Proposed research is very likely feasible. Relevant research theories, approaches, methods, and sources of data are articulated, but some relevant information might be missing. Applicant clearly has a robust methodological plan that is close to ready for implementation. Proposed research may be feasible. Relevant research theories, approaches, methods, and sources of data are mentioned, but not fully explained, and key information is missing. The applicant lacks a fully developed methodological plan. Proposed research is unlikely to be feasible. Discussion of methodology is too vague to be useful and needs significant further development. No methodology is proposed to address the question.
Criteria (5) Proposal perfectly meets criteria and addresses how funds will be used. Proposal meets criteria but does not adequately address or neglects some issues. Proposal appears to meet criteria; however, does not specifically address funding. Does not clearly demonstrate how funds will be utilized, nor is it clear if criteria are clearly met. Does not meet criteria. Disqualified.
Need (5) Demonstrates strong need of funding and has not previously received significant funding. Demonstrates a clear need of funding, but has received some funding. Does not demonstrate strong need but has not received funding in the past. Does not demonstrate a particularly strong need and has received some funding in the past. Does not demonstrate any need and has previously received funding.

Travel

35 points.

Excellent Good Fair Mediocre Poor
Implications (5) Clearly demonstrated the importance and relevance of proposed research to a broader non-specialist audience as well as the academic implications. Makes an effort to explain research to a non-specialist audience, but still employes significant field jargon. Has a clearly developed research concept but does not explain its significance well to even an expert audience. Heavy use of jargon and field specific language, without explaining their meaning. Assumes the significance of project is mostly self-evident and only provides highly specific literature review for context. No context or background is given.
Question (5) Highlighted an exceptional question of research and demonstrated a grasp of the existing research. A satisfactory research questions is proposed but may not be adequately connected to research. Proposes a clear research question, but there are significant flaws with the question or the research. Poorly articulated research question and lacks description of how it fits within existing research. Does not have a clear research question.
Methodology (5) The feasibility of proposed research is evident. All relevant research theories, approaches, methods, and sources of data are fully articulated. Applicant clearly has a full methodological plan ready to implement, and the skills to implement this plan. Proposed research is very likely feasible. Relevant research theories, approaches, methods, and sources of data are articulated, but some relevant information might be missing. Applicant clearly has a robust methodological plan that is close to ready for implementation. Proposed research may be feasible. Relevant research theories, approaches, methods, and sources of data are mentioned, but not fully explained, and key information is missing. The applicant lacks a fully developed methodological plan. Proposed research is unlikely to be feasible. Discussion of methodology is too vague to be useful and needs significant further development. No methodology is proposed to address the question.
Criteria (10) Proposal perfectly meets criteria and addresses how funds will be used. Proposal meets criteria but does not adequately address or neglects some issues. Proposal appears to meet criteria; however, does not specifically address funding. Does not clearly demonstrate how funds will be utilized, nor is it clear if criteria are clearly met. Does not meet criteria. Disqualified.
Need (10) Demonstrates strong need of funding and has not previously received significant funding. Demonstrates a clear need of funding but has received some funding. Does not demonstrate strong need but has not received funding in the past. Does not demonstrate a particularly strong need and has received some funding in the past. Does not demonstrate any need and has previously received funding.