DHI Thesis Rubric
| Criteria | A | B | C | D | F |
| Original Contribution
(30 points) |
Presents a thesis that is significant, nuanced, or complex. It is supported by the skillful use of credible and relevant sources. | Presents a convincing thesis with credible, relevant evidence from a wide range of sources. | Presents a simplistic thesis, supported with an attempt to use credible and/or relevant sources to support ideas. | Gestures toward a thesis or includes a simplistic thesis supported by inadequate, incoherent, unreliable evidence. | No thesis statement is present. |
| Contextualization
(20 points) |
Places the thesis in relation to a significant context, explaining the connections and implications of their conclusions for a broader literature/community. | Explains the relevance of the thesis for a specific context. | Identifies and explains one or more general contexts for the thesis. | Identifies one or more general contexts for the topic but does not explain connections or implications. | Shows little or no awareness of context for the issue/question. |
| Evidence
(20 points) |
Demonstrates skillful use of high-quality, credible, relevant sources to develop ideas that are appropriate for the discipline and genre of the writing | Demonstrates consistent use of credible, relevant sources to support ideas that are situated within the discipline and genre of the writing. | Demonstrates an attempt to use credible and/or relevant sources to support ideas that are appropriate for the discipline and genre of the writing. | Demonstrates an attempt to use sources to support ideas in the writing. | Does not demonstrate an attempt to use sources to support ideas in the writing. |
| Dissemination
(15 points) |
Demonstrates detailed attention to and successful execution of genre/discipline conventions, including organization, style, format, documentation. Language is graceful, clear, and virtually error-free. | Demonstrates consistent use of important genre/discipline conventions, including organization, style, and documentation. Language is straightforward with few errors. | Demonstrates competence in regards to documentation, language, and organization, with some attention to audience and purpose | Demonstrates minimal attention to documentation, language, audience, purpose and organization. | Demonstrates no attention to documentation. Language may impede meaning due to errors. |
| Determined by Student and Advisor
(15 points) |
This rubric was adapted from the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) Critical Thinking and Written Communication VALUE Rubrics. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/value-rubrics. Should a student and advisor consider a project exceptional, they may request permission from the DHI to devise and employ an alternative rubric.
DHI Thesis Presentation Rubric
| Criteria | A | B | C | D | F |
| Content
(40 points) |
Central message is compelling (precisely stated, appropriately repeated, memorable, and strongly supported). | Central message is clear and consistent with the supporting material. | Central message is basically understandable but is not often repeated and is not memorable | Central message can be deduced, but is not explicitly stated in the presentation. | Central message is not clear. |
| Supporting Material
(20 points) |
A variety of types of supporting materials (explanations, examples, illustrations, statistics, analogies, quotations from relevant authorities) make appropriate reference to information or analysis that significantly supports the presentation or establishes the presenter’s credibility/authority on the topic. | Supporting materials (explanations, examples, illustrations, statistics, analogies, quotations from relevant authorities) make appropriate reference to information or analysis that generally supports the presentation or establishes the presenter’s credibility/authority on the topic | Supporting materials (explanations, examples, illustrations, statistics, analogies, quotations from relevant authorities) make appropriate reference to information or analysis that partially supports the presentation or establishes the presenter’s credibility/authority on the topic. | Insufficient supporting materials (explanations, examples, illustrations, statistics, analogies, quotations from relevant authorities) make reference to information or analysis that minimally supports the presentation or establishes the presenter’s credibility/authority on the topic. | Few or no relevant supporting materials are provided. |
| Delivery
(20 points) |
Delivery techniques (posture, eye contact, vocal expressiveness) make the presentation compelling. The speaker appears polished and confident. | Delivery techniques (posture, eye contact, vocal expressiveness) make the presentation interesting. The speaker appears comfortable. | Delivery techniques (posture, eye contact, vocal expressiveness) make the presentation clear. The speaker appears tentative. | Delivery techniques (posture, eye contact, vocal expressiveness) detract from the understandability of the presentation. Speaker appears uncomfortable. | Delivery demonstrates lack of preparation. |
| Audience Engagement
(20 points) |
Presentation maintains audience interest and invites participation or produces discussion/questions. | Presentation maintains audience attention and produces audience questions. | Presentation generally maintains audience attention. | Presentation struggles to maintain audience attention. | Little or no attention is paid to audience engagement. |
This rubric was adapted from the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) Oral Communication VALUE Rubrics. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/value-rubrics. Should a student and advisor consider a project exceptional, they may request permission from the DHI to devise and employ an alternative rubric.
