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) 
                                   Very logical, coherent, complete         Generally logical, mostly coherent,      A bit scattered but acceptable,         Rather hard to follow, significant 
                   Organization                                             generally complete                       somewhat coherent, occasionally         omissions and/or substitutions 
                      Rubric                                                                                         scrambled, some noticeable omissions 
                                                                                                                     but still understandable 
                     Score:                                                                                                                                                      
                                   Clear, precise, convincing,              Mostly clear, good grasp of material,    Occasional confusion or lack of clarity,  A lot of confusion, not in control of facts 
                   Presentation  articulate, good audience                  only occasional stumbles, minor          occasional gaps in theory or important  and key details, very nervous and stiff, 
                      Rubric       connection                               uncertainty on some facts or details     details, somewhat nervous or jittery    frequently at a loss for words 
                      Score:                                                                                                                                                       
                                   Quickly grasped questions, clear and     Occasionally misunderstood a             Some misunderstanding of                Frequently misunderstood a question, 
                   Public Q&A  apt responses, good control of both          question, responses usually good         questions, responses may be             incorrect or inadequate responses, 
                      Rubric       theory and findings                      though occasionally vague, generally     vague or inaccurate, did not always     lack of confidence in response, 
                                                                            apt grasp of question and how to         give a full response, may answer a      argumentative 
                                                                            answer                                   different question 
                      Score:                                                                                                                                                      
                                   Clearly understood both research         Adequate understanding of                Weak but acceptable understanding       Lacked adequate understanding of 
                  Interaction      findings and underlying theory, could    research findings, generally             of theory, could present research       theory, research findings not always 
                      with         aptly contextualize or interpret         understood underlying theory,            findings but not always clear on        understood, confused or uncertain 
                   material        findings in light of theory, when        perhaps a bit reluctant to attempt to    implications, occasionally confused     about the implications of findings, 
                    Rubric         appropriate may have suggested           extend theory or explain                 details or important findings           contradictions or confusion evident in 
                                   how theory might be extended based       contradictory findings                                                           how material handled 
                                   on research results 
                    Score:                                                                                                                                                         
                   Response to  Quickly grasped questions, clear and        Occasionally misunderstood a             Some misunderstanding of                Frequently misunderstood a question, 
                    Committee      apt responses, good control of both      question, responses usually good         questions, responses may be             incorrect or inadequate responses, 
                    questions      theory and findings                      though occasionally vague, generally     vague or inaccurate, did not always     lack of confidence in response, 
                      Rubric                                                apt grasp of question and how to         give a full response, may answer a      argumentative 
                                                                            answer                                   different question 
                      Score:                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                     
                   Thesis: 
                                              Excellent (4)                           Above Average (3)                            Satisfactory (2)                          Unsatisfactory (1) 
                     Research       Well-grounded, properly                    Theoretical motivation visible, context    Theoretical motivation could be            Theoretical grounding weak, missing, 
                     Statement      contextualized, clearly and                provided, reasonable presentation          stronger, presentation okay but could      or confused, not clear what the 
                       Rubric       convincingly presented                                                                be better, research question(s) could      research question is, presentation 
                                                                                                                          be stronger                                and argumentation hard to follow 
                      Score:                                                                                                                                                             
                     Literature     Broad-ranging, well-organized,             Very adequate, used effectively to         Major sources included but some            Significant gaps in the literature 
                       Review       provides a strong foundation for the       introduce the research question at         visible gaps, utilization of sources       review, not effectively used in support 
                       Rubric       research being presented                   hand                                       could be stronger but is acceptable,       of research question, organizing 
                                                                                                                          organization is okay                       principles unclear 
                      Score:                                                                                                                                                              
                                    Clearly explained, very appropriate,       Explained, mostly appropriate,             Explained but not always clearly,          Inadequate explanation, some 
                   Methodology  properly applied                               generally proper application, overall—     generally appropriate though they          choices suspect or inappropriate, 
                       Rubric                                                  only a few shaky areas                     are some weaknesses, application           methodology not always applied as 
                                                                                                                          could be improved                          described 
                      Score:                                                                                                                                                             
                                    Consistent with methodology, well          Mostly consistent with                     Generally consistent with                  Data may not be consistent with 
                     Research       organized and presented, gaps or           methodology, adequately                    methodology, some problems in              methodology, presentation is 
                      Results       problems acknowledged                      organized and presented, gaps              presentation of findings, gaps or          adequate or confusing, gaps or 
                       Rubric                                                  or problems may be glossed                 problems may not have been                 problems ignored or covered up 
                                                                               over                                       acknowledged 
                      Score:                                                                                                                                                              
                                    Optimal analytic strategies applied,       Good analytic strategies applied,          Analytic strategies acceptable though      Analytic strategies marginal or 
                      Analysis      analytic results well presented and        results adequately presented,              not optimal, presentation of results       inappropriate, presentation of 
                       Rubric       explained, proper interpretation of        interpretation mostly consistent with      okay but with obvious gaps,                findings inadequate, confused or 
                                    analytic results                           approach to analysis                       interpretation acceptable but weak at      misleading, interpretation of findings 
                                                                                                                          points                                     too often misguided or misleading 
                      Score:                                                                                                                                                             
                                    Clear, logical, convincing, strong         Generally clear, logical, convincing       Okay though there is room for              Too much redundancy, sections 
                                                                                                                          improvement, some sections may be          misplaced or missing, inadequate 
                   Organization                                                                                           misplaced, possible gaps in lists of       notational system for showing 
                                                                                                                          tables and figures                         structure and number tables and 
                                                                                                                                                                     figures 
                      Score:                                                                                                                                                             
                                    Clear, easy to follow, proper use of       Very readable though sentence and          Generally readable but occasionally        Miss-sue of technical terms is 
                                    technical terms, sentence structure not  paragraph structures may be longer           hard to follow, occasional miss-use        common, writing is dense, confusing 
                                    overly adorned, good paragraphing,         and more complex than necessary,           of technical terms, some                   or misleading, too much 
                                    not dense or cryptic                       technical terms mostly used correctly      redundancy, some tendency to               redundancy, non-academic style 
                   Writing Style                                                                                          include sentence and paragraph             (use of contractions, inclusion of 
                                                                                                                          structures which are dense,                folksy vocabulary, tortured sentence 
                                                                                                                          confusing, and overly-adorned.             structure, poor paragraphing,etc.) 
                                                                                                                          Some non-academic jargon may be 
                                                                                                                          present 
                      Score:                                                                                                                                                             
                                    Coherent, original, creative, well-        Content consistent with theory and         Content okay, suitable organization,       Not MA-level work, amateurish in 
                      Content       presented, valuable contribution to the  methodology, well-done but nothing out  acceptable MA-level work                        tone and manner of presentation, 
                                    field, valuable academic contribution      of the ordinary, consistent with                                                      adds little or nothing to the field 
                                                                               expectations for an MA thesis 
                       Score