GRADUATE STUDENT THESIS/DISSERTATION

DEFENSE EVALUATION

The attached evaluation tool (rubric) is designed to assist in the evaluation of students ability to
successfully prepare and defend their graduate research. The rubric includes seven evaluation criteria, and
allows for the addition of criteria important to individual departments/programs. Evaluation of a
thesis/dissertation and its defense can be an integral part of graduate student learning outcomes
assessment conducted by graduate programs. It is applicable to all programs that have a thesis or
dissertation requirement.

This evaluation tool will:

provide students, prior to their defense, with a clear understanding of the elements of their written
thesis/dissertation and its defense deemed most important to the defense committee
provide multiple perspectives on students ability to successfully prepare and defend their research
and engage in cogent discourse about their chosen field of study
encourage conversations among departmental colleagues about improving graduate student
learning outcomes and assessment
serve as a potential source of program-level data on the accomplishment of the programs learning
outcome objectives, for submission as part of an assessment report

Suggested Instructions (may be modified to suit program needs):

Defense committee members and students should review and become familiar with the criteria in the
evaluation tool prior to the defense. The rubric should be scored at the conclusion of the defense, or
shortly thereafter, by every member of the defense committee. This cover page (page 1) can then be
completed (providing a summary of the scored ratings below for each of the criteria in the rubric),
returned to the appropriate department/program office, and maintained in a confidential departmental file
following the defense (one cover page per evaluator) for use as a valuable tool in graduate student
learning outcomes assessment. The remaining rubric pages (2 - 4) can be shared with the student or
destroyed.

Student ID:________________________ Student name: ________________________________

Program: ____________________________________________________________________
Degree: M.A. _____ M.S. _____ Ph.D. _____
Date of Defense: ______________________________________________________________
Evaluator role:
___ Major Advisor ___ Internal Core Committee member
___ External Core Committee member ___ Internal Defense Committee member
___ External Defense Committee member and Defense Chair
Other (explain) _____________________________________________________

Defense Score Summary by Criterion:

Assessment Criteria: 1: __________ 4: __________ 7: ________
2: __________ 5: __________ 8. ________
3: __________ 6: __________ 9. ________

Page 1 January 2013

Student ID: _________________________
Assessment Criteria
PART I: Written Defense Draft
1. Mastery of fundamental
knowledge in the field
2. Ability to access and
integrate information into a
cohesive overview of current
knowledge; ability to critically
evaluate the meaning, value,
and contribution of published
literature in the field
3. Imagination and originality
of thought
4. Ability to design and
implement an appropriate
collection and analysis of data
or ability to articulate a critical
response to dramatic or artistic
theory, literature, design and
performance in one's own work
or that of another artist
Evaluator Name/Role: _________________________ Date: _________________
4=Exceptional 3=Strong 2=Marginal 1=Unacceptable N/A Score
Consistently applies Frequently applies Somewhat applies Does not apply fundamental
fundamental and fundamental and some fundamental concepts to concepts to topics in subject
advanced concepts to advanced concepts to topics in subject area. area.
topics in subject area. topics in subject area.
Command and Relates and understands Aware of the research Knowledge is unrelated to
understanding of the the current research literature in the field. the current research
current research literature in the field. literature in the field.
literature in the field.
Problem/purpose of Problem/purpose of Problem/purpose of Problem/purpose of study
study very creative or study original study moderately lacked
original with new and or creative; original or creative; creativity or not new;
innovative ideas; Design/approach Design/ approach Duplication of previous
Explored original topic appropriate or moderately appropriate work.
and discovered new innovative. or innovative.
outcomes.
Data interpretation is Data interpretation is Data interpretation is Data interpretation is
appropriate and appropriate and uses appropriate and uses inappropriate and/or uses
creatively uses correct many correct limited number of incorrect methodology;
methodology; identifies methodology; identifies correct methodology; identifies no weaknesses in
weaknesses in some weaknesses in identifies no interpretation
interpretation; Demon- interpretation weaknesses in Demonstrates a lack of
strates a an advanced Demonstrates a an ability interpretation ability to articulate a critical
ability to articulate a to articulate a critical Demonstrates a an response to dramatic or
critical response to response to dramatic or limited ability to artistic theory, literature,
dramatic or artistic artistic theory, literature, articulate a critical design and performance in
theory, literature, design and performance response to dramatic or one's own work or that of
design and performance in one's own work or that artistic theory, another artist
in one's own work or of another artist literature, design and
that of another artist performance in one's
own work or that of
another artist
Page 2
Student ID: _________________________
Assessment Criteria
5. Ability to draw reasoned
conclusions from a body of
knowledge
6. Impact of research on the field
PART II: Oral Defense
7. Oral presentation and defense
of thesis/dissertation
COMMENTS:
Evaluator Name/Role: _________________________ Date: _________________
4=Exceptional 3=Strong 2=Marginal 1=Unacceptable N/A Score
Discussion was Discussion sufficient and Major topics or Little discussion of project
superior, accurate, and with few errors; Greater concepts inaccurately findings/outcomes;
engaging; foundation needed from described; Considerable Displayed poor grasp of
Conclusions/summaries past work in area; relevant discussion material; Conclusion/
and recommendations Conclusions/summary missing; summary not supported by
appropriate and clearly based on outcomes and Conclusions/summary findings/outcomes.
based on outcomes. appropriate, included not entirely supported
some recommendations. by findings/outcomes.
Thesis or dissertation is Thesis or dissertation has Thesis or dissertation Thesis or dissertation has
very relevant or fair relevance or only moderate relevance little relevance
has significant significance/authenticity or or significance/authenticity
importance/ to field and will make a significance/authenticit to field and will make little
authenticity to field and good contribution to y to field and will make contribution to field.
will make an important field. a nominal contribution
contribution to field. to field.
Masterfully defends Competently defends Adequately defends Does not adequately
research by providing research research; answers defend research;
clear and insightful by providing very questions, but often does not answer key
answers to questions; helpful answers with little insight; questions; frequently
Uses presentation to questions; may frequently shows a need shows a need for deeper
resources as occasionally manifest for deeper reflection on reflection on vital points;
a guide, gives detailed need for further minor points; Relies too Reads the
explanations, is easily reflection on minor much on material from
understandable, and points; Uses presentation presentation and has presentation to make the
keeps appropriate eye resources as a guide, is difficulty speaking report and is clearly not
contact with the easily understandable, freely to the audience, comfortable with the topic.
audience. and keeps eye contact and is somewhat
with the audience with comfortable with the
the audience. topic.
Page 3
Student ID: _________________________ Evaluator Name/Role: _________________________ Date: _________________

Assessment Criteria 4=Exceptional 3=Strong 2=Marginal 1=Unacceptable N/A Score

8. Additional Assessment
Criterion:

9. Additional Assessment
Criterion:

ADDITIONAL COIMMENTS:

Page 4