NORZAGARAY ACADEMY, INC.

Telephone: (044) 762 8659/ 0917-542-9400; Email: norzacad2015@gmail.com

A. Villarama St. Poblacion, Norzagaray, Bulacan

Rubric for Research Paper

Practical Research 2
Quantitative Research

Name/s: _______________________________________________________________ Grade and Strand: _______________________

Research Adviser: _________________________________ _____________________ Date: __________________________________

Oral Defense:
Excellent (12-15 points) Very Good (8-11 points)) Satisfactory (4-7 points) Unsatisfactory (0-3 points)
Very logical, coherent, complete Generally logical, mostly coherent, A bit scattered but acceptable, Rather hard to follow, significant
Organization generally complete somewhat coherent, occasionally omissions and/or substitutions
scrambled, some noticeable omissions
but still understandable

Score:
Clear, precise, convincing, Mostly clear, good grasp of material, Occasional confusion or lack of clarity, A lot of confusion, not in control of facts
Presentation articulate, good audience only occasional stumbles, minor occasional gaps in theory or important and key details, very nervous and stiff,
connection uncertainty on some facts or details details, somewhat nervous or jittery frequently at a loss for words

Score:
Quickly grasped questions, clear and Occasionally misunderstood a Some misunderstanding of Frequently misunderstood a question,
apt responses, good control of both question, responses usually good questions, responses may be incorrect or inadequate responses,
Public Q&A theory and findings though occasionally vague, generally vague or inaccurate, did not always lack of confidence in response,
apt grasp of question and how to give a full response, may answer a argumentative
answer different question
Score:
Clearly understood both research Adequate understanding of Weak but acceptable understanding Lacked adequate understanding of
findings and underlying theory, could research findings, generally of theory, could present research theory, research findings not always
Interaction aptly contextualize or interpret understood underlying theory, findings but not always clear on understood, confused or uncertain
with findings in light of theory, when perhaps a bit reluctant to attempt to implications, occasionally confused about the implications of findings,
material appropriate may have suggested extend theory or explain details or important findings contradictions or confusion evident in
how theory might be extended based contradictory findings how material handled
on research results
Score:
Quickly grasped questions, clear and Occasionally misunderstood a Some misunderstanding of Frequently misunderstood a question,
Response to apt responses, good control of both question, responses usually good questions, responses may be incorrect or inadequate responses,
Committee theory and findings though occasionally vague, generally vague or inaccurate, did not always lack of confidence in response,
questions apt grasp of question and how to give a full response, may answer a argumentative
answer different question
Score:

/ 75

Committee’s Signature over Printed Name

Paper:
Excellent (12-15 points)
Well-grounded, properly
Research contextualized, clearly and
Statement convincingly presented
Very Good (8-11 points))
Theoretical motivation visible, context
provided, reasonable presentation
Satisfactory ((4-7 points)
Theoretical motivation could be
stronger, presentation okay but could
be better, research question(s) could
be stronger
Unsatisfactory (0-3 points)
Theoretical grounding weak, missing,
or confused, not clear what the
research question is, presentation
and argumentation hard to follow

Score:
Broad-ranging, well-organized, Very adequate, used effectively to Major sources included but some Significant gaps in the literature
Literature provides a strong foundation for the introduce the research question at visible gaps, utilization of sources review, not effectively used in support
Review research being presented hand could be stronger but is acceptable, of research question, organizing
organization is okay principles unclear

Score:
Clearly explained, very appropriate, Explained, mostly appropriate, Explained but not always clearly, Inadequate explanation, some
Methodology properly applied generally proper application, overall— generally appropriate though they choices suspect or inappropriate,
only a few shaky areas are some weaknesses, application methodology not always applied as
could be improved described

Score:
Consistent with methodology, well Mostly consistent with Generally consistent with Data may not be consistent with
Research organized and presented, gaps or methodology, adequately methodology, some problems in methodology, presentation is
Results problems acknowledged organized and presented, gaps presentation of findings, gaps or adequate or confusing, gaps or
or problems may be glossed problems may not have been problems ignored or covered up
over acknowledged
Score:
Optimal analytic strategies applied, Good analytic strategies applied, Analytic strategies acceptable though Analytic strategies marginal or
analytic results well presented and results adequately presented, not optimal, presentation of results inappropriate, presentation of
Analysis explained, proper interpretation of interpretation mostly consistent with okay but with obvious gaps, findings inadequate, confused or
analytic results approach to analysis interpretation acceptable but weak at misleading, interpretation of findings
points too often misguided or misleading

Score:
Clear, logical, convincing, strong Generally clear, logical, convincing Okay though there is room for Too much redundancy, sections
improvement, some sections may be misplaced or missing, inadequate
Organization misplaced, possible gaps in lists of notational system for showing
tables and figures structure and number tables and
figures
Score:
Clear, easy to follow, proper use of Very readable though sentence and Generally readable but occasionally Miss-sue of technical terms is
technical terms, sentence structure not paragraph structures may be longer hard to follow, occasional miss-use common, writing is dense, confusing
overly adorned, good paragraphing, and more complex than necessary, of technical terms, some or misleading, too much
not dense or cryptic technical terms mostly used correctly redundancy, some tendency to redundancy, non-academic style
Writing Style include sentence and paragraph (use of contractions, inclusion of
structures which are dense, folksy vocabulary, tortured sentence
confusing, and overly-adorned. structure, poor paragraphing,etc.)
Some non-academic jargon may be
present
Score:
Coherent, original, creative, well- Content consistent with theory and Content okay, suitable organization, Not MA-level work, amateurish in
presented, valuable contribution to the methodology, well-done but nothing out acceptable MA-level work tone and manner of presentation,
Content field, valuable academic contribution of the ordinary, consistent with adds little or nothing to the field
expectations for an MA thesis
Score

/ 120

Committee’s Signature over Printed Name