Skip to main content area Skip to institutional navigation Skip to sub-navigation

Rubric for Capstone Integrative Projects

Click here to download the rubric and description as a pdf. Revised September 2012.

 

Education Studies Minor

Rubric for Capstone Projects

Project Title:

Student’s Name: ___________________________________________________

Advisor’s Signature: ________________________________________________

Reflective Essay: How has your coursework in the minor influenced your capstone? (20%)

Category (Weight)

Advanced

(Score 5)

Proficient

(Score 3 to 4)

Poor

(Score 1 to 2)

Content

Makes succinct and precise connections (i.e. specific references to relevant readings and experiences) to coursework in the minor. Provides insights into how the coursework shaped the capstone project

Provides vague connections to coursework in the minor and only some insights into how the coursework shaped the capstone project

Fails to provide explicit connections to coursework in the minor and/or little insight into how the coursework shaped the capstone project

Written Conventions

No grammatical or mechanical errors in this essay

No more than three grammatical or mechanical errors in this essay

More than three grammatical or mechanical errors in this essay

Annotated Bibliography:  15-25 references (30%)  *more resources could be read; annotations are limited to the most relevant resources

Category (Weight)

Advanced

(Score 5)

Proficient

(Score 3 to 4)

Poor

(Score 1 to 2)

Awareness and Depth of Knowledge

 

Demonstrates broad awareness and sufficient depth of knowledge pertaining to the topic without being redundant

Sufficiently covers the scope of the research topic but not in as much depth, or as explicit as expected

Includes insignificant sources and/or not enough to comprehensively address the topic

*Annotations

 

Follows the four criteria for each annotation and provides a brief summary of each source

Clearly summarizes the main conclusion of each source, but fails to include some of the annotation points

Summarizes sources, but has trouble focusing on the main idea; little or no attempt to include all four points for annotations

Quality of Sources

At least two-thirds of the sources represent scholarly (i.e. peer reviewed) research

Only one-third of the sources represent scholarly (i.e. peer reviewed) research

Less than one-third of the sources represent scholarly (i.e. peer reviewed) research

Written Conventions

No grammatical or mechanical errors in the bibliography

No more than three grammatical or mechanical errors in the bibliography

More than three grammatical or mechanical errors in the bibliography

*Annotation criteria: qualifications (peer reviewed, trade, opinion…) of the referenced author(s); synthesis of the referenced author(s) work; relation of the cited work to the student’s capstone project; student’s evaluation (qualify the value) of the contribution of the cited work to the capstone project.

Applications Essay (40%)

Category (Weight)

Advanced

(Score 5)

Proficient

(Score 3 to 4)

Poor

(Score 1 to 2)

Introduction (brief 2-3 pages)

Synthesizes sources by noting trends and comparing/contrasting viewpoints. There is a clear progression toward the application component

Synthesizes only some of the research, thus offering incomplete connections between sources and an unclear link to the application component

Only summarizes findings without connections between sources. There is no link to the application component.

Application

 

Offers an original and realistic proposal, policy, intervention, or product that strategically situates the undertaken research within existing policies or programs.

Considers undertaken research but lacks originality and/or realism in its application and implies connection to research

Utilizes little or none of the undertaken research, leading to a weak proposal, policy, intervention, or product

Written Conventions

No grammatical or mechanical errors

No more than three grammatical or mechanical errors

More than three grammatical or mechanical errors

Critical thinking: Points of view and assumptions

Identifies and synthesizes possible assumptions regarding audience and context for which the application component is designed

Identifies, but does not synthesize possible assumptions regarding audience and context for which the application component is designed

Provides one-sided information to support the application component with no discussion of possible assumptions regarding audience or context

Critical thinking: Limitations and influential variables

(beyond audience and context)

Identifies limitations of research and analyzes influential variables of the application’s design, implementation, and/or outcome

Identifies limitations of research, but does not analyze influential variables of the application’s design, implementation, and/or outcome

Makes no reference to any limitations or influential  variables affecting the application’s design, implementation, and/or outcome

  

Professionalism (10%)

Category (Weight)

Advanced

(Score 5)

Proficient

(Score 3 to 4)

Poor

(Score 1 to 2)

Initiative, Comprehensive Timelines, Revisions, & Use of APA Formatting

 

Met weekly with advisor on predetermined schedule; submitted material on time, fully proof read and addressed all revisions

Submitted material late one time and/or did not completely proof read and/or did not address all revisions sufficiently

Submitted insufficient material and/or submitted material late more than one time and/or rarely proof read, and/or did not appropriately address all revisions

 

Revised 9/17/12

Adapted from and permission granted from:

*Minjuan Wang, Ph. D. San Diego State University. http://edweb.sdsu.edu/Courses/Ed690DR/grading/literaturereviewrubrique.html

*Wolcott, S. K.  (February 9, 2006).  Steps for Better Thinking Competency Rubric [On-line]. Available:  http://www.WolcottLynch.com.  Based in part on information from Reflective Judgment Scoring Manual With Examples (1985/1996) by K. S. Kitchener & P. M. King.  Grounded in dynamic skill theory (Fischer & Bidell, 1998).

Scoring Summary 

Reflective Essay (20%)

Category

Score

Weight

Weighted Score

Content

 

x 3

 

Written Conventions

 

x 1

 

 

Annotated Bibliography (30%)

Category

Score

Weight

Weighted Score

Awareness and Depth of Knowledge

 

x 2

 

Annotations

 

x 2

 

Quality of Sources

 

x 2

 

Written Conventions

 

x 1

 

 

Applications Essay (40%)

Category

Score

Weight

Weighted Score

Introduction

 

x 1

 

Application

 

x 2

 

Written Conventions

 

x 1

 

Critical thinking:  Points of View and Assumptions

 

 

X1

 

Critical thinking:  Limitations and Influential variables

 

 

X1

 

 

Professionalism (10%)

Category

Score

Weight

Weighted Score

Initiative, Comprehensive Timelines, Revisions, & Use of APA Formatting

 

x 1

  

 

Grades based on points awarded:

A

=

87-90 points

A-

=

83-86 points

B+

=

79-82 points

B

=

75-78 points

B-

=

71-74 points

C+

=

67-70 points

C

=

63-66 points

C-

=

59-62 points

NC

=

< 58   points

 

Total points: _____________

 

Grade: __________________