Tools for Doctoral Capstone: Rubrics

EdD Tools for Doctoral Capstone: Rubrics Minimum Standards Rubric


The key indicators in the EdD Minimum Standards Rubric are used to assure the overall quality of the document. To be completed individually by the chair, committee member, and University Research Review (URR) member at the proposal and final study stages.

Instructions


For each indicator, choose “Target” (exceeds expectations), “Acceptable” (meets expectations), or “Unacceptable” (does not meet expectations) to represent if the document meets that quality indicator. All indicators are required. If review suggests that any parts of the indicator are not complete, the appropriate score is that the document is “Unacceptable.” For items marked “Unacceptable,” please indicate ways in which the document can be improved to meet the standard.

Items 9 and 10 are relevant to the final study only. All reviewers must rate each indicator as Target or Acceptable in order for the document to be considered as having met minimum standards.

Date: (click here and type today’s date)      

Student’s Name:       Student ID:      

Program:      

Committee Members’ Names:

Chairperson:      

Member:      

University Research Reviewer:      

Top of Form

Target Acceptable Unacceptable Score/Level
1. The document includes all relevant items from the checklist. Referring to the appropriate checklist, the document is complete for the stage in the process and is of exceptional quality. Referring to the appropriate checklist, the document is complete for the stage in the process and is of acceptable quality. The candidate’s submission is unacceptable.
If unacceptable, which items are missing?
2. The problem is clearly articulated, worthy of doctoral level research, and within the scope of the discipline. The candidate has completed this criterion with exceptional quality. The candidate has completed this criterion with acceptable quality. The candidate’s submission is unacceptable.
If unacceptable, what is the reasoning for this assessment?
3. The work is grounded in a focused application of the relevant theories or conceptual frameworks. The candidate has completed this criterion with exceptional quality. The candidate has completed this criterion with acceptable quality. The candidate’s submission is unacceptable.
If unacceptable, what other theories or frameworks might be more appropriate?
4. The literature review is exhaustive and reflects mastery of the current state of knowledge in the discipline related to the area of research. The candidate has completed this criterion with exceptional quality. The candidate has completed this criterion with acceptable quality. The candidate’s submission is unacceptable.
If unacceptable, what is the reasoning for this assessment?
5. The problem statement, purpose, research questions, and/or hypotheses, design, and methodology are consistent with the state of knowledge development in the discipline described in the literature review. The candidate has completed this criterion with exceptional quality. The candidate has completed this criterion with acceptable quality. The candidate’s submission is unacceptable.
If unacceptable, what is the reasoning for this assessment?
6. The research design and methodology, including issues of sampling, sample size (quantitative and mixed method studies), participant numbers (qualitative and mixed method studies), instrumentation, data collection, data analyses, and procedures are appropriate to answer the research questions and/or test hypotheses. The candidate has completed this criterion with exceptional quality. The candidate has completed this criterion with acceptable quality. The candidate’s submission is unacceptable.
If unacceptable, what is the reasoning for this assessment?
7. The problem statement, purpose, research questions and/or hypotheses, design, and methodology are consistent and aligned. The candidate has completed this criterion with exceptional quality. The candidate has completed this criterion with acceptable quality. The candidate’s submission is unacceptable.
If unacceptable, in what ways could aspects of the prospectus be better aligned?
8. The study describes implications for positive social change at the appropriate levels—individual, community, and/or societal (proposal and final study). The candidate has completed this criterion with exceptional quality. The candidate has completed this criterion with acceptable quality. The candidate’s submission is unacceptable.
If unacceptable, what is the reasoning for this assessment?
9. Results are accurately presented and are aligned with the research questions and/or hypotheses, design, and analysis. The candidate has completed this criterion with exceptional quality. The candidate has completed this criterion with acceptable quality. The candidate’s submission is unacceptable.
If unacceptable, what is the reasoning for this assessment?
10. Conclusions, limitations, recommendations, and/or outcomes are clearly described, are appropriate to the study scope, and are integrated into the state of knowledge described in the literature review. The candidate has completed this criterion with exceptional quality. The candidate has completed this criterion with acceptable quality. The candidate’s submission is unacceptable.
If unacceptable, what is the reasoning for this assessment?

admin

Author Since: November 30, 2020