Student Funding Rubrics

Research

	Excellent	Good	Fair	Mediocre	Poor
Implications (10)	Clearly demonstrated the importance and relevance of proposed research to a broader non-specialist audience as well as the academic implications.	Makes an effort to explain research to a non-specialist audience, but still employes significant field jargon.	Has a clearly developed research concept but does not explain its significance well to even an expert audience. Heavy use of jargon and field specific language, without explaining their meaning.	Assumes the significance of project is mostly self-evident and only provides highly specific literature review for context.	No context or background is given.
Question (10)	Highlighted an exceptional question of research and demonstrated a grasp of the existing research.	A satisfactory research questions is proposed, but may not be adequately connected to research.	Proposes a clear research question, but there are significant flaws with the question or the research.	Poorly articulated research question and lacks description of how it fits within existing research.	Does not have a clear research question.
Methodology (10)	Proposes or employs unique, novel, and feasible research theories, methods, sources, or approaches to answer research question.	Satisfactorily proposes a concise and feasible approach to their research, but lacks originality or has minor practical flaws with methodology.	Provides a methodological approach to research, but contains significant flaws or feasibility issues.	Methodology is poorly developed and needs further consideration.	No methodology is proposed to address question.
Criteria (5)	Proposal perfectly meets criteria and addresses how funds will be used.	Proposal meets criteria but does not adequately address or neglects some issues.	Proposal appears to meet criteria; however, does not specifically address funding.	Does not clearly demonstrate how funds will be utilized, nor is it clear if criteria are clearly met.	Does not meet criteria. Disqualified.
Need (5)	Demonstrates strong need of funding and has not previously received significant funding.	Demonstrates a clear need of funding, but has received some funding.	Does not demonstrate strong need but has not received funding in the past.	Does not demonstrate a particularly strong need and has received some funding in the past.	Does not demonstrate any need and has previously received funding.

Travel

	Excellent	Good	Fair	Mediocre	Poor
Implications (5)	Clearly demonstrated the importance and relevance of proposed research to a broader non-specialist audience as well as the academic implications.	Makes an effort to explain research to a non-specialist audience, but still employes significant field jargon.	Has a clearly developed research concept but does not explain its significance well to even an expert audience. Heavy use of jargon and field specific language, without explaining their meaning.	Assumes the significance of project is mostly self-evident and only provides highly specific literature review for context.	No context or background is given.
Question (5)	Highlighted an exceptional question of research and demonstrated a grasp of the existing research.	A satisfactory research questions is proposed but may not be adequately connected to research.	Proposes a clear research question, but there are significant flaws with the question or the research.	Poorly articulated research question and lacks description of how it fits within existing research.	Does not have a clear research question.
Methodology (5)	Proposes or employs unique, novel, and feasible research theories, methods, sources, or approaches to answer research question.	Satisfactorily proposes a concise and feasible approach to their research but lacks originality or has minor practical flaws with methodology.	Provides a methodological approach to research but contains significant flaws or feasibility issues.	Methodology is poorly developed and needs further consideration.	No methodology is proposed to address question.
Criteria (10)	Proposal perfectly meets criteria and addresses how funds will be used.	Proposal meets criteria but does not adequately address or neglects some issues.	Proposal appears to meet criteria; however, does not specifically address funding.	Does not clearly demonstrate how funds will be utilized, nor is it clear if criteria are clearly met.	Does not meet criteria. Disqualified.
Need (10)	Demonstrates strong need of funding and has not previously received significant funding.	Demonstrates a clear need of funding but has received some funding.	Does not demonstrate strong need but has not received funding in the past.	Does not demonstrate a particularly strong need and has received some funding in the past.	Does not demonstrate any need and has previously received funding.