Expert
Use appropriate evidence, presentation modes and/or argument strategies to skillfully communicate meaning to a specified audience; communicate with clarity and fluency and in a virtually error-free presentation.
Proficient
Use mostly appropriate evidence, presentation modes, and/or argument strategies to communicate meaning to a specified audience; design a presentation that is clear and has few errors.
Emerging
Use some appropriate evidence, presentation modes, and/or argument strategies to communicate meaning to a specified audience; design a presentation with limited clarity and/or some errors.
Novice
Use approaches or include errors that limit or obscure relevance and impede understanding.
Expert |
Proficient |
Emerging |
Novice |
|
Articulation of Problem, Purpose, or Focus |
Question, hypothesis, or position is articulated and defended in the context of the problem or purpose; and/or A central purpose, focus, or essence of the work or performance is highly evident |
Question, hypothesis, or position is stated clearly and context of the problem or purpose is apparent; and/or A central purpose, focus, or essence of the work or performance is evident |
Question, hypothesis, or position is stated clearly; and/or A purpose or focus of the work can be determined |
Question, hypothesis, position, purpose, or focus is not visible or stated clearly |
Scholarly Context |
Comprehensively places problem/question in appropriate scholarly context (scholarly literature, theory, model, or genre) |
Sufficiently places problem/question in appropriate scholarly context (scholarly literature, theory, model, or genre) |
Partially places problem/question in scholarly context; some critical elements are missing, incorrectly developed, or unfocused |
Scholarly context for the problem/question may be apparent but is not sufficiently demonstrated |
Application of Scholarly Method/Technique to Project Design |
Method/technique is appropriate for question or purpose Data/sources/evidence are expertly presented All elements of method/technique are fully developed and articulated |
Method/technique is appropriate for question or purpose Data/sources/evidence are adequately presented Critical elements of method/technique are adequately developed; subtle elements are unclear or missing |
Method/technique loosely supports the question or purpose Data/sources/evidence are partially presented Critical elements of method/technique are partially developed |
Method/technique is not appropriate for question or purpose Data/sources/evidence are minimally or not presented Critical elements of method/technique are minimally developed |
Analysis or Interpretation |
Evidence supports a mature, complex, and/or nuanced analysis of the problem Interpretation is explicitly linked to theoretical framework or scholarly model |
Evidence supports an adequately complex analysis of the problem Interpretation is adequately linked to theoretical framework or scholarly model |
Evidence supports a limited analysis of the problem Interpretation is partially linked to theoretical framework or scholarly model |
Evidence supports very limited analysis of the problem Interpretation is minimally linked to theoretical framework or scholarly model |
Implications/Impact |
Implications, consequences, and/or questions raised by the project are thoroughly explored Limitations are fully articulated |
Implications, consequences, and/or questions are adequately explored Limitations are adequately articulated |
Implications, consequences, and/or questions are partially explored Limitations are partially articulated |
Implications, consequences, and/or questions are minimally supported or unarticulated Limitations are minimally or not articulated |
Quality of Delivery |
Presentation or performance is of superior quality Delivery is free of technical errors |
Presentation or performance is of high quality Delivery has few technical errors |
Presentation or performance is of acceptable quality Delivery has some technical errors |
Presentation or performance is of low quality Delivery has frequent technical errors |
From George Mason University Students as Scholars Product Rubric [pdf]