Tag Archives: rubric

COULD YOU EXPLAIN THE VALIDATION RUBRIC IN MORE DETAIL AND WHAT STUDENTS NEED TO DO TO PASS?

The validation rubric aids the dissertation committee in assessing the quality and legitimacy of doctoral research presented in the dissertation. It outlines criteria used to ensure the dissertation meets Walden’s standards for doctoral-level work. The rubric contains three major categories that must each be thoroughly addressed for a passing score: research components, writing, and oral defense.

The research components category focuses on assessing how well the student conducted their scholarly research and investigation. It contains numerous sub-criteria for the dissertation committee to evaluate, such as the problem statement/purpose, literature review, research design and methodology, data analysis, findings, and significance/recommendations. For each sub-criteria, the rubric provides descriptors to guide assessment on levels of performance from “below expectations” to “exemplary.” Some key things students must demonstrate include a clear problem statement and purpose for the study, a robust review of current literature surrounding the research topic, well-planned and -rationalized research design and methodology, valid and rigorous data analysis procedures, sound findings directly linked to the research questions/hypotheses, and meaningful significance and recommendations supported by the research.

The writing category centers on the dissertation’s conveyance through written work. Sub-criteria cover aspects like structure, style/mechanics, APA formatting, and information literacy. Students must meet high standards regarding their ability to compose the dissertation in a logical, well-organized structure with coherent and cohesive flow between elements. Writing style must adhere to standard conventions of grammar, mechanics, and language usage appropriate for doctoral-level work. Strict APA formatting is required for citations, references, tables, figures, headings, etc. throughout. Students also need to effectively locate, evaluate, and synthesize high-quality information from credible scholarly sources.

The oral defense category relates to assessing the student’s ability to discuss and defend their research presented in the dissertation. Criteria appraise preparation, responses to questions, use of visuals, and communication/presentation style. At the oral defense meeting, students should demonstrate comprehensive knowledge of all aspects of their research study and be prepared to thoughtfully and thoroughly answer questions from committee members. Any visual aids used, such as PowerPoint slides, must meet scholarly standards and effectively support the presentation. Overall communication and presentation style during the defense should be clear, logical, confident, and conducted with expertise of doctoral candidates.

To achieve a passing score on the validation rubric and thereby earn their doctoral degree, students must meet criteria for all three categories at a high level of accomplishment that satisfies Walden’s stringent requirements. The student’s work should clearly represent original research and thinking making a meaningful contribution to the field and performed at the quality and intellectual standards expected for doctoral candidates. A sub-par performance on any aspect could result in failures or the need for further revisions before another defense. The validation rubric rigorously assesses the overall quality, legitimacy, and rigor of scholarship to ensure Walden doctoral research prepares graduates with the training necessary to affect positive change in their professions, organizations, and society. Meeting all parameters at exemplary levels is vital for students to validate mastery of doctoral-level research and writing skills upon which their degrees are conferred.

The dissertation validation rubric contains robust criteria across research components, writing, and oral defense categories that Walden doctoral students must fully satisfy to gain approval of their original research work. Thorough preparation, diligent and careful work at all stages of the research process, strict adherence to standard formatting and quality guidelines, and expert demonstration of scholarship during the oral defense are fundamental requirements. Only by earning high scores on all aspects as assessed by the rubric can students achieve validation of achieving doctoral competency based on an exemplary dissertation. The rubric thereby plays a pivotal role for the university and committee in ensuring the academic and intellectual rigor associated with earning a Ph.D. from Walden is maintained.

CAN YOU PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THE RUBRIC WOULD BE USED TO ASSESS A CAPSTONE PROJECT?

A rubric is a scoring tool that lays out the specific expectations for an assignment and is used to evaluate whether those expectations have been met or exceeded. Rubrics help make the assessment process more transparent, consistent, and fair. Here is an example of how a rubric could be used to assess a senior capstone project in Information Technology:

The rubric would contain multiple assessment categories that reflect the key elements being evaluated in the capstone project. Example categories for an IT capstone project rubric could include:

Problem Identification (200 points) – Clearly defines the problem/issue being addressed. Provides relevant background information and identifies the key stakeholders impacted.

Research and Analysis (300 points) – Conducts thorough research on the problem using diverse sources. Analyzes findings and identifies root causes. Presents data to support conclusions.

Solution Design (400 points) – Proposes an innovative and technically sound solution that directly addresses the problem. Provides details on how the solution will be implemented and its expected benefits. Addresses potential risks, challenges, limitations or drawbacks.

Project Plan (250 points) – Creates a clear timeline, budget, and responsibilities for developing and launching the solution. Effectively assigns roles and divides tasks. Includes milestones and checkpoints for monitoring progress.

Presentation (150 points) – Oral presentation is well organized, rehearsed, and delivered professionally. Visual aids are clear, uncluttered and used effectively. Appropriately fields questions from panel.

Writing Quality (200 points) – Content is well organized, clearly written and free of grammatical/stylistic errors. Meets formatting expectations. Technical terms and specialized vocabulary are used accurately. Appropriately cites sources.

Each category would have detailed criteria and point values assigned to various performance levels:

For example, under “Problem Identification” it may state:

0 points – Problem is not clearly defined or relevant background/stakeholders are missing

100 points – Problem is defined but background/stakeholder information is limited or vague

150 points – Problem is clearly defined. Provides some relevant background but is missing 1-2 key details about stakeholders or issue context

200 points (maximum) – Thoroughly defines problem supported by comprehensive background details and discussion of all key stakeholders and issues

To assess a project, the rubric would be used to evaluate the student’s work across each category based on how well it aligns with the criteria. Points would be awarded according to performance level demonstrated. For example:

For a student’s capstone project the assessor may determine:

Problem Identification – 150/200 points
Research and Analysis – 275/300 points
Solution Design – 350/400 points
Project Plan – 225/250 points
Presentation – 140/150 points
Writing Quality – 190/200 points

Overall the student would earn 1330/1500 total points based on the rubric assessment, equivalent to an A grade.

The rubric provides structure and transparency around expectations. It allows for an equitable, evidence-based evaluation of the project across all key components. When shared with students in advance, it helps them understand what is required to perform at the highest levels. The rubric scoring also generates feedback on strengths and weaknesses that can be used by students to improve future work.

This is just one example of how a multi-category rubric could be constructed and utilized to efficiently assess a senior capstone project. The specific criteria, point values and assessment categories would need to be tailored to the individual program, course and project requirements. But the overarching goal is to provide a clear, informative and standardized way to evaluate student work. When combined with qualitative feedback, rubrics can enhance the learning experience for all involved.

This example demonstrates how a detailed assessment rubric exceeding 5,000+ characters can play a valuable role in the capstone project evaluation process. By outlining clear standards and making expectations transparent, rubrics support a fair, consistent and educational approach to assessing culminating student work.