Inadequate	Minimally developed	Moderately developed	Exemplary
	[0-40]	[40-50]	[50-70]	[70-100]
Research topic, problem and research question. [15%]	Research proposal is incomplete and/or does not specify topic clearly. Research question identified is too broad or vague to provide a coherent proposal.	Research proposal is incomplete and minimally specifies topic. Has identified an appropriate topic to be studied, but lacks a clearly state hypothesis. Organised as a catalogue of information about the topic rather than pointing towards a hypothesis.	Research proposal is complete and strong but needs refinement of key components. Uses prior knowledge to identify a question to be studied. Has a clearly stated hypothesis. Breaks questions down into smaller steps, but has not identified all the complexities and nuances inherent in the question.	Research proposal clearly defines research topic and identifies key components. Uses prior knowledge to identify a question to be studied. Has a clearly stated hypothesis. Breaks question down into a series of steps that will lead to the question to be addressed in the study. Identifies complexities and nuances in the question.
Relevant literature and explanation [15%]	Study is not contextualized within field of literature. Review of relevant knowledge is seriously incomplete. Inadequate variety of sources. Major issues are ignored. Many factual errors or inconsistencies.	Study is somewhat contextualized within field of literature. Uses some appropriate sources to discover what is already known about the system/problem, but discussion omits important aspects of the problemn.	Study is contextualized within field of literature. Uses appropriate sources to discover what is already known about the system/problem, but does not make clear connections betweeen this information and the question to be investigated. Adequate variety of sources. Most information is factually correct.	Study is contextualized within field of literature and proposes unique application. Provides a through and relevant literature review. Excellent variety of sources. There are clear linkages among the information and to the question under consideration. All information is factually correct.
Reserch methodology and issues [15%]	Research questions do not match methods. Some methodological issues are unaddressed.	Research questions somewhat align with methods. Limitations, ethical issues, validity, and analysis are mostly addressed.	Research questions align with methods. Limitations, ethical issues, and validity, issues are noted.	Research questions align with methods. Limitations, ethical issues, and validity, issues are addressed in research design.
Data collection and preparation [20%]	Research plan provided will not answer the question, does not control relevant variables, or uses other innappropriate methodology. Experiments are designed without sufficient care, so that the accuracy of the data is in doubt. Serious safety/ethical issues are ignored. Does not recognize the limits or implications of the method to be employed. Incomplete plan and unrealistic timetable.	Study is designed with appropriate methodology and safety/ethical measures, but the design contains some obvious and remediable flaws. Quantity of data collected is insufficient for statistical significance, or there is no check for interrater reliability of coding. General plan but incomplete timetable.	Designs controlled investigation using equipment to the experiment and using appropriate safety/ethical measures. Idenfities relevant constraints. Data collection is planned carefully and with appropriate precision and adequate statistical power. Any flaws are relatively minor/excusable due to practical constraints. Consideration of the consequences and limits of the method to be employed are incomplete. Realistic plan and timetable presented.	Designs controlled investigation using equipment appropriate to the study and using appropriate safety/ethical measures. Identifies relevant constraints. Data is collected carefully and with appropriate precision and adequate statistical power. Flawns are not readily apparent. Plans pilot work or other methods to refine the study. Considers possible criticisms of the experimental plan and addresses them. Realistic plan and timetable presented with explicit identification of sources.
Overall research design [20%]	Incomplete design and weak explanation of final product/activity. Vague discussion of detail. Lack of insight/analysis.	Weak design with problems related to methods, data and/or final product/activity. Vague discussion of detail. Little insight/analysis that which is provided is conventional or underdeveloped.	Clear design but incomplete explanation of final product/activity. Adequate discussion of detail. Adequate depth of insight/analysis.	Integrated each part of research design and displays creativity and originality. Excellent discussion of detail. Impressive depth of insight/analysis.
Bibliographic elements [15%]	Citations within the text and in the reference section are not present or extremely incomplete.	Citations are in somehow present but not in the right format (APA).	Citations are present and almost in the right format (APA).	Citations are present, in the right format both within text and in the reference section.