THESIS DEFENSE RUBRIC, Schemes and Mind Maps of Science education

Download THESIS DEFENSE RUBRIC and more Schemes and Mind Maps Science education in PDF only on Docsity! THESIS DEFENSE RUBRIC Student: ______________________________________________Date of Defense: ________________________ Thesis Title: __________________________________________________________________________________ Committee Member: __________________________________ Instructions for Thesis Committee Members: Each committee member should complete the thesis section before the defense and the oral defense section immediately after the defense. The committee chair will average the results followed by discussion and a pass/fail determination. For the rubric, complete both sections below by marking an (x) in the appropriate box for each rubric line. The chair will summarize the rubric scores on form 2252 Thesis Defense Report. Instructions for Thesis Committee Chair: For each rubric row (i.e. Organization Rubric, Presentation Rubric, etc.), 1. Assign a numeric score, listed at the top of the column, depending on the committee member’s choice (i.e., Excellent = 4, Very Good = 3, etc.). 2. Total the scores from each committee member’s rubric form for that rubric row, then average them. E.g. Committee Member A scored a 4, Member B scored a 3, Member C scored a 4, so their total is 11 and the average is 3.67. 3. Record this average score on the Thesis Defense Report form in the appropriate “Score by area” cell. Oral Defense: Excellent (4) Very Good (3) Satisfactory (2) Unsatisfactory (1) Organization Rubric Very logical, coherent, complete Generally logical, mostly coherent, generally complete A bit scattered but acceptable, somewhat coherent, occasionally scrambled, some noticeable omissions but still understandable Rather hard to follow, significant omissions and/or substitutions Score: Presentation Rubric Clear, precise, convincing, articulate, good audience connection Mostly clear, good grasp of material, only occasional stumbles, minor uncertainty on some facts or details Occasional confusion or lack of clarity, occasional gaps in theory or important details, somewhat nervous or jittery A lot of confusion, not in control of facts and key details, very nervous and stiff, frequently at a loss for words Score: Public Q&A Rubric Quickly grasped questions, clear and apt responses, good control of both theory and findings Occasionally misunderstood a question, responses usually good though occasionally vague, generally apt grasp of question and how to answer Some misunderstanding of questions, responses may be vague or inaccurate, did not always give a full response, may answer a different question Frequently misunderstood a question, incorrect or inadequate responses, lack of confidence in response, argumentative Score: Interaction with material Rubric Clearly understood both research findings and underlying theory, could aptly contextualize or interpret findings in light of theory, when appropriate may have suggested how theory might be extended based on research results Adequate understanding of research findings, generally understood underlying theory, perhaps a bit reluctant to attempt to extend theory or explain contradictory findings Weak but acceptable understanding of theory, could present research findings but not always clear on implications, occasionally confused details or important findings Lacked adequate understanding of theory, research findings not always understood, confused or uncertain about the implications of findings, contradictions or confusion evident in how material handled Score: Response to Committee questions Rubric Quickly grasped questions, clear and apt responses, good control of both theory and findings Occasionally misunderstood a question, responses usually good though occasionally vague, generally apt grasp of question and how to answer Some misunderstanding of questions, responses may be vague or inaccurate, did not always give a full response, may answer a different question Frequently misunderstood a question, incorrect or inadequate responses, lack of confidence in response, argumentative Score: