THESIS DEFENSE RUBRIC
Student: ______________________________________________Date of Defense: ________________________
Thesis Title: __________________________________________________________________________________
Committee Member: __________________________________
Instructions for Thesis Committee Members:
Each committee member should complete the thesis section before the defense and the oral defense section
immediately after the defense. The committee chair will average the results followed by discussion and a pass/fail
determination.
For the rubric, complete both sections below by marking an (x) in the appropriate box for each rubric line. The chair
will summarize the rubric scores on form 2252 Thesis Defense Report.
Instructions for Thesis Committee Chair:
For each rubric row (i.e. Organization Rubric, Presentation Rubric, etc.),
1. Assign a numeric score, listed at the top of the column, depending on the committee member’s choice (i.e.,
Excellent = 4, Very Good = 3, etc.).
2. Total the scores from each committee member’s rubric form for that rubric row, then average them. E.g.
Committee Member A scored a 4, Member B scored a 3, Member C scored a 4, so their total is 11 and the
average is 3.67.
3. Record this average score on the Thesis Defense Report form in the appropriate “Score by area” cell.
Oral Defense:
Excellent (4)
Very Good (3)
Satisfactory (2)
Unsatisfactory (1)
Organization
Rubric
Very logical, coherent, complete
Generally logical, mostly coherent,
generally complete
A bit scattered but acceptable,
somewhat coherent, occasionally
scrambled, some noticeable omissions
but still understandable
Rather hard to follow, significant
omissions and/or substitutions
Score:
Presentation
Rubric
Clear, precise, convincing,
articulate, good audience
connection
Mostly clear, good grasp of material,
only occasional stumbles, minor
uncertainty on some facts or details
Occasional confusion or lack of clarity,
occasional gaps in theory or important
details, somewhat nervous or jittery
A lot of confusion, not in control of facts
and key details, very nervous and stiff,
frequently at a loss for words
Score:
Public Q&A
Rubric
Quickly grasped questions, clear and
apt responses, good control of both
theory and findings
Occasionally misunderstood a
question, responses usually good
though occasionally vague, generally
apt grasp of question and how to
answer
Some misunderstanding of
questions, responses may be
vague or inaccurate, did not always
give a full response, may answer a
different question
Frequently misunderstood a question,
incorrect or inadequate responses,
lack of confidence in response,
argumentative
Score:
Interaction
with
material
Rubric
Clearly understood both research
findings and underlying theory, could
aptly contextualize or interpret
findings in light of theory, when
appropriate may have suggested
how theory might be extended based
on research results
Adequate understanding of
research findings, generally
understood underlying theory,
perhaps a bit reluctant to attempt to
extend theory or explain
contradictory findings
Weak but acceptable understanding
of theory, could present research
findings but not always clear on
implications, occasionally confused
details or important findings
Lacked adequate understanding of
theory, research findings not always
understood, confused or uncertain
about the implications of findings,
contradictions or confusion evident in
how material handled
Score:
Response to
Committee
questions
Rubric
Quickly grasped questions, clear and
apt responses, good control of both
theory and findings
Occasionally misunderstood a
question, responses usually good
though occasionally vague, generally
apt grasp of question and how to
answer
Some misunderstanding of
questions, responses may be
vague or inaccurate, did not always
give a full response, may answer a
different question
Frequently misunderstood a question,
incorrect or inadequate responses,
lack of confidence in response,
argumentative
Score:
