Personal Work Evaluation

Direction: Rate your own paper using the rubric below. For the purpose of improvement, rate
your output as honestly as you can. Use the following scale in evaluating your own
paper.
5 – Very Good, 4 – Good, 3 – Fair, 2 – Poor, 1 – Needs Improvement
NAME:
RESEARCH TITLE:
Indicator Self-Rating
1. Research Design
Type and definition were presented, and rational is
discussed.
2. Sampling Procedure and Sample
Population and samples are described, and sampling
procedure is clear and relevant.
3. Research Instrument, and its Validity and Reliability
Basis of decision is explained, instrument is well
described, and its validity and reliability were clearly
presented.
TOTAL

Personal Work Evaluation

Direction: Rate your own paper using the rubric below. For the purpose of improvement, rate
your output as honestly as you can. Use the following scale in evaluating your own
paper.
5 – Very Good, 4 – Good, 3 – Fair, 2 – Poor, 1 – Needs Improvement
NAME:
RESEARCH TITLE:
Indicator Self-Rating
1. Research Design
Type and definition were presented, and rational is
discussed.
2. Sampling Procedure and Sample
Population and samples are described, and sampling
procedure is clear and relevant.
3. Research Instrument, and its Validity and Reliability
Basis of decision is explained, instrument is well
described, and its validity and reliability were clearly
presented.
TOTAL

Personal Work Evaluation

Direction: Rate your own paper using the rubric below. For the purpose of improvement, rate
your output as honestly as you can. Use the following scale in evaluating your own
paper.
5 – Very Good, 4 – Good, 3 – Fair, 2 – Poor, 1 – Needs Improvement
NAME:
RESEARCH TITLE:
Indicator Self-Rating
1. Research Design
Type and definition were presented, and rational is
discussed.
2. Sampling Procedure and Sample
Population and samples are described, and sampling
procedure is clear and relevant.
3. Research Instrument, and its Validity and Reliability
Basis of decision is explained, instrument is well
described, and its validity and reliability were clearly
presented.
TOTAL
 Rubric for Research Title Proposal Presentation

Research Title

Researchers

Content (35%)
▪ The parts of the paper are complete and appropriate.
▪ The parts of the research methodology are clearly described and justified.
▪ Overall content is comprehensive.]

Coherence (25%)
▪ Cohesive of devices are effectively used.
▪ Organization of ideas is smoothly presented.

Creativity (20%)
▪ Writer’s voice is showcased.
▪ Paper uses variety of sentence structures.
▪ Uses appropriate language.

Communication (20%)
▪ Sentences are well structured
▪ Grammatical conventions are observed.
▪ Correct spelling and proper research
format is followed.
TOTAL

Rubric for Research Title Proposal Presentation

Research Title

Researchers

Content (35%)
▪ The parts of the paper are complete and appropriate.
▪ The parts of the research methodology are clearly described and justified.
▪ Overall content is comprehensive.]

Coherence (25%)
▪ Cohesive of devices are effectively used.
▪ Organization of ideas is smoothly presented.

Creativity (20%)
▪ Writer’s voice is showcased.
▪ Paper uses variety of sentence structures.
▪ Uses appropriate language.

Communication (20%)
▪ Sentences are well structured
▪ Grammatical conventions are observed.
▪ Correct spelling and proper research
format is followed.
TOTAL

Rubric for Research Manuscript

Research Title
Researchers

Mastery Proficient Basic Beginning Total

Category
16-20 11-15 6-10 0-5 Score
Introduction/Topic Exceptional Proficient introduction Basic introduction that Weak or no introduction
introduction that that is interesting and states topic but lacks of topic. Paper’s
grabs interest of states topic. interest. Thesis/topic is purpose is unclear.
reader and states Thesis/topic is clear somewhat clear and Thesis/topic is weak or
topic. Thesis/topic is and arguable arguable. missing.
exceptionally clear, statement of position.
well-developed, and
a definitive
statement.
Score
Purpose Clearly stated and Clearly stated and Somewhat Unclear and confusing.
appropriately worded. appropriately worded. understandable No conceptualization.
Well Moderately but needs clarity. Some
conceptualized. conceptualized. level
of conceptualization.
Score
Research Clearly related to Related purpose and Somewhat related to Unrelated to purpose
purpose understandable. purpose and poorly written.
Questions/ and understandable. Moderate and understandable. Significant revision
Hypothesis Little revision needed. Significant revision needed.
or no revision needed.
needed.
Score
Review of Comprehensive Complete literature Partially complete and Incomplete or
literature review somewhat disorganized. disorganized. Includes
Literature/ review. Includes with sound Includes few non- an inappropriate
Theoretical current organization. refereed number of non-refereed
and landmark Includes very few sources. Establishes a sources. Fails
Framework literature nonreferred sources basic to establish an
highly relevant to the and theoretical framework appropriate theoretical
topic. provides current (including motivational framework (including
Establishes an research theories) for the motivational theories)
advanced relevant to the field research for the research topic.
theoretical framework and the topic. Demonstrates a Fails to site
(including topic. Establishes a basic appropriately. Not
motivational sound understanding of appropriate for
theories) for the and proficient appropriate publication or
research theoretical citation format, but presentation.
topic. Is appropriate framework (including requires
for motivational theories) significant revision. Is
publication or for not
presentation the research topic. appropriate for
with little or no May be publication or
revision. appropriate for presentation without
publication significant revision.
or presentation with
major
or moderate revision.
Score
Method Well written, detailed Moderately well Partial description of Incomplete and little
description of written and methods description of methods.
methods. mostly complete which appear to be Methods appear
Methods are highly description appropriate and related inappropriate or
appropriate for this of methods. Methods to unrelated to purpose
type of appear sound, purpose and research and research
project and are appropriate questions. Data questions. Data
directly and related to analysis analysis is incomplete
linked to the purpose purpose and appears appropriate for and inappropriate. Not
and research questions. the appropriate for
research questions. Data research but needs publication or
Data analysis is significant presentation.
analysis is highly appropriate for refinement. Is not
appropriate for the the research but appropriate
research needs for publication or
and needs little or no some refinement. presentation
refinement. Is May be without significant
appropriate appropriate for revision.
for publication or publication
presentation with little or presentation with
or no major
revision. or moderate revision.
Score
TOTAL

Rubric for Powerpoint Presentation

Research Title
Researchers