Capstone Report Rubric

Abstract

A succinct but complete summary of the Capstone Report.

Score	Category	Comments
10	Outstanding, Top Notch	No Notes. The abstract precisely pulls all the key components of the project together in a clear and concise fashion. The abstract strictly adheres to the word limits. Objective showed relevance beyond project
9.30	Great	Minor Revisions. Objective logical and succinct. The abstract adheres to the word limits
9.00	Very Good	Moderate Revisions. The abstract pulls most of the key components of the project together in a concise fashion. Abstract a little too long. Objective stated, but could be stated a little more clearly / mostly adheres to word limits.
8.50	Fair	Moderate Deficiencies. The abstract does not adhere to the word limits, rambles on exceeds word limits (or is too short) Objective stated but unclear.
8.00	Just Passing	Extensive Deficiencies. The abstract is ambiguous / Does not adequately summarize the report. The abstract refers to some of the key components of the project. Critical points are absent. Objective poorly stated or exceeds word limits or is far too short .
< 8	Below passing	MAJOR Deficiencies. The abstract is confusing and makes very little reference to the rest of the report. Objective not stated.
0	Total Failure	This section did not follow the established guidelines and/or was incomprehensible.

Background and Rationale

A concise introduction to what is known in the field. This information should inform the Rationale, which sets up the Hypothesis. There should be a brief overview of the methods and an implication of the findings.

Score	Category	Comments
10	Outstanding, Top Notch	No Notes. Connections to previous literature and broader issues were clear.. Background information relevant, summarized well and clearly supports rationale. Presentation of a logical rationale / statement of problem was clear and insightful.
9.30	Great	Minor Revisions. Background missing only minor details but otherwise clear and strongly supports the rationale. Rationale clearly stated.
9.00	Very Good	Moderate Revisions. The hypothesis/statement of problem presented clearly. Background introduction was mostly relevant, mostly supports rationale.
8.50	Fair	Moderate Deficiencies. Some relevant background information/introduction missing. Presented information not clearly connected with the project or did not support rationale . Rationale of project was unclear
8.00	Just Passing	Extensive Deficiencies. Background information insufficient. A questionable rationale presented or rationale not sufficiently supported. Hypothesis unclear
< 8	Below passing	MAJOR Deficiencies. The hypothesis or problem not stated / inadequate. Background information was missing
0	Total Failure	This section did not follow the established guidelines and/or was incomprehensible.

Methods

The methods used to answer the hypothesis.

Score	Category	Comments
10	Outstanding, Top Notch	Superb discussion of methods used. The rationale for the methods was clear and insightful. Superb discussion of the statistics employed, including an excellent discussion of control vs experimental groups
9.30	Great	Minor Revisions. Clear and accurate discussion of methods used to carry out the research. Appropriate rationale for listed for specific methods used. Clear description of statistics used.
9.00	Very Good	Moderate Revisions. Good explanation of methods used. Good explanation of the choice of methods. Good description of statistics used, including a discussion of control vs experimental groups
8.50	Fair	Moderate Deficiencies. Methods discussed insufficiently (missing key information to fully understand what was done). Little or now discussion of why specific methods were chosen. Statistics described adequately
8.00	Just Passing	Extensive Deficiencies. No discussion of the choice of methods / why chosen methods were the best for the project. Methods were not adequately described / poorly organized. Statistics insufficiently described
< 8	Below passing	MAJOR Deficiencies. No discussion of methods or reason for methods. No discussion of statistical analysis or proper use of control groups. Methods section completely disorganized
0	Total Failure	This section did not follow the established guidelines and/or was incomprehensible.

Results

The Results should be clearly presented in a manner that addresses the rationale and hypothesis.

Score	Category	Comments
10	Outstanding, Top Notch	Results clearly addressed the rationale. Substantial amounts of high quality data were presented. Presentation of data was clear, thorough, and logical. Statistical results and levels of significance presently clearly and demonstrated a strong understanding of hypothesis testing.
9.30	Great	Minor Revisions. Results addressed the rationale. Presentation of high quality data was clear, thorough, and logical. Statistical results and levels of significance demonstrated a good understanding of hypothesis testing.
9.00	Very Good	Moderate Revisions. Results addressed most aspects of the rationale. Sufficient amounts of good quality data were presented clearly and logically. Statistical results and significance were sufficiently discussed.
8.50	Fair.	Moderate Deficiencies. Results mostly sufficient. Adequate amounts of data were presented to address the rationale. Presentation of data was not entirely clear / data was of low quality. Statistical results discussed adequately. Statistical significance mentioned
8.00	Just passing	Extensive Deficiencies. Some results lacking or insufficient. Results did not sufficiently address the rationale. Presentation of data was unclear or difficult to comprehend. Inconsistent use of statistics (such as averages and standard errors). Statistical discussion lacked any mention of statistical significance.
< 8	Below passing	MAJOR Deficiencies. Results were insufficient or severely lacking. Presentation of data was insufficient or severely lacking. Statistics was insufficient or severely lacking: eg reporting an average without a standard error or standard deviation
0	Total Failure	This section did not follow the established guidelines and/or was incomprehensible.

Discussion

Summarizes the Results. Compares the results to previous studies. Discuss any new findings and implications for the results.

Score	Category	Comments
10	Outstanding, Top Notch	Conclusions strongly supported by the Results. Clear connections were made between the Conclusions and the Rationale. Broader implications of the results were presented in a clear and insightful manner
9.30	Great	Minor Revisions. Conclusions well supported by the Results. Solid connections were made between the conclusions and the rationale. Broader implications of the results were clearly discussed.
9.00	Very Good	Moderate Revisions. Conclusions / implications of the Results presented well with only few details missing. Logical Connections made back to the Background & Rationale. Discussion of broader impacts thoughtful but missing a few points.
8.50	Fair	Moderate Deficiencies. Conclusions / implications of the Results present but missing critical detail. Connections / reference made back to the Background & Rationale were lacking or not clear. Discussion of broader impacts not convincing — missing some critical points.
8.00	Just passing	Extensive Deficiencies. Conclusions or implications of the Results insufficient. Few connections or little reference made back to the Background & Rationale. Poor discussion of the Broader Impacts or critical points missing.
< 8	Below passing	MAJOR Deficiencies. Conclusions / implications of the Results grossly insufficient. No connection or reference made back to the Background & Rationale. Insufficient discussion of Broader Impacts .
0	Total Failure	This section did not follow the established guidelines and/or was incomprehensible.

Report Mechanics

The Report should be clearly written and easily to follow using a Scientific, professional tone.

Score	Category	Comments
10	Outstanding, Top Notch	The text is concise, legible, and completely free of spelling or typographical errors. Writing is of the highest quality - worthy of publication. Literature Citations follows guidelines to the letter. All in-text citations are accurate and appropriately used.
9.30	Great	Minor Revisions. The text is legible, and almost completely free of spelling or typographical errors The writing is clear and easy to follow. The tone is professional. In-text citations accurate
9.00	Very Good	Moderate Revisions. The text is mostly free of spelling or typographical errors The writing is clear and understandable The tone is professional. Literature Citations mostly follows guidelines / In-text citations mostly accurate
8.50	Fair	Moderate Deficiencies. The text is legible, but inconsistently free of spelling or typographical errors; The manuscript adheres to the formatting guidelines specified for the Report. The writing is sometimes confusing. Literature citations do not consistently follow guidelines. In text citations are sometimes inaccurate (or do not exist)
8.00	Just passing	Extensive Deficiencies. The text has many spelling or typographical errors. The manuscript adheres to the formatting guidelines specified for the Report.The writing is confusing. Literature citations do not consistently follow guidelines. In text citations are sometimes inaccurate
< 8	Below passing	MAJOR Deficiencies. The text is incomprehensible due to excessive grammatical errors or overly complex sentence structure. Font size too small or too large / text illegible. The tone of the writing is not professional, reads more like a personal diary than a scientific article Contains numerous spelling or typographical errors
0	Total Failure	This section did not follow the established guidelines and/or was incomprehensible.

Figures and Legends

Figures should be high quality and extend understanding of the Project. All figures should have figure legends that help the figures stand on their own.

Score	Category	Comments
10	Outstanding, Top Notch	Figures are of the highest quality - publication ready. Figure legends clearly describe the figures. Figure photos/tables/graphs greatly extend understanding of the project. Many high resolution images and/or 3D models included enhance the overall visual appeal of the report.
9.30	Great	Minor Revisions. Figures are high quality, almost publication ready. Figure legends are informative, explain the figures well Figure photos/tables/graphs extend understanding of the project. Some high resolution images and/or 3D models enhance the overall visual appeal of the report.
9.00	Very Good	Moderate Revisions. Figures are of good quality, need some revision for publication. Figure legends explain the figures well. Figure photos/tables/graphs improve understanding of the project.
8.50	Fair	Moderate Deficiencies. Figure legends contain little edifying information Figure photos/tables/graphs generally improve understanding of the report Figures are of sufficient quality.
8.00	Just passing	Extensive Deficiencies. Figure legends sporadically sufficient, contain errors, or are unclear. Figures are poorly labeled - content is confusing. Figures are inconsistently linked to text. Certain photographs/tables/graphs appear superfluous - reason for inclusion not sufficiently detailed.
< 8	Below passing	MAJOR Deficiencies. Figure legends insufficient. The resolution of the figure photos/tables/graphs not suitable for printing and makes finer details impossible to read. High resolution images and/or 3D models not included. Figures do not appear to be related to text.
0	Total Failure	This section did not follow the established guidelines and/or was incomprehensible.