Unit I Initial Research Proposal – Analytic Rubric
Purpose
Use this rubric to assess the Unit I Initial Research Proposal for Academic Writing. The proposal is an early planning document: students are expected to define and align a researchable problem, rationale, purpose, research question(s), scope, and realistic plan for continuing the project. Students are not required to locate or cite scholarly articles for this initial proposal.
The course syllabus assigns 50% of the grade on evaluated work to the use of English. Accordingly, Criteria 1–5 assess proposal content and independent research planning (50 points), while Criteria 6–10 assess B2+ academic English (50 points).
AI Policy
Generative AI is not permitted for this assignment. Students must complete the proposal through their own reading, thinking, planning, drafting, and revision. They may not use ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Claude, or similar generative AI tools to generate, narrow, organize, rewrite, edit, summarize, evaluate, or otherwise contribute to the submitted proposal.
Use of spelling dictionaries, standard word processors, and non-generative reference resources is acceptable unless otherwise directed by the instructor.
Analytic Rubric — 100 points
| Criterion | 9–10: Exemplary | 7–8: Proficient | 5–6: Developing | 0–4: Beginning |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Researchable Problem & Rationale — 10 pts | Defines a focused, specific, and researchable problem in a clear context and explains convincingly why the issue merits inquiry. | Defines a generally focused researchable problem and gives a relevant rationale; minor clarification is needed. | Problem is identifiable but broad, vague, weakly contextualized, or only partly justified. | Problem is unclear, not researchable, missing, or presented only as a broad topic; rationale is absent or unrelated. |
| 2. Purpose Statement & Research Question(s) — 10 pts | Purpose clearly responds to the problem, and research question(s) are focused, answerable, and directly aligned with that purpose. | Purpose and question(s) are mostly aligned and researchable, with minor wording or focus issues. | Purpose or question(s) are present but broad, vague, partially misaligned, or difficult to answer within the project. | Purpose and/or question(s) are missing, contradictory, unrelated to the problem, or not researchable. |
| 3. Scope, Context & Feasibility — 10 pts | Clearly establishes realistic boundaries for context, population or possible participants, central concepts, and project scale; the proposed inquiry is manageable. | Scope is generally realistic and clear, although one boundary or feasibility issue needs refinement. | Scope is partly defined but remains too broad, too narrow, or uncertain in terms of access, population, context, or project scale. | Scope is largely missing or the proposed inquiry is not realistically manageable. |
| 4. Alignment & Internal Coherence — 10 pts | Working title, problem, rationale, purpose, research question(s), and scope consistently address the same central inquiry with no unexplained shifts. | Components are generally aligned, with only minor shifts in wording, emphasis, population, or context. | Several components are present but alignment is inconsistent or relationships among them require substantial clarification. | Major components conflict, are disconnected, or do not form a coherent proposal. |
| 5. Independent Planning & Academic Integrity — 10 pts | Proposal clearly reflects the student’s own thinking, decisions, and drafting; all required components are complete, and the no-AI requirement is fully respected. | Proposal reflects independent work and meets the no-AI requirement; only minor planning or completeness issues are evident. | Proposal is incomplete or shows limited independent development; questions about ownership or compliance require clarification. | Proposal does not demonstrate independent authorship, violates the no-AI requirement, or is substantially incomplete. |
| 6. Grammatical Accuracy & Sentence Control — 10 pts | Consistently controls B2+ sentence structures, verb forms, agreement, and syntax; errors are infrequent and do not affect meaning. | Grammar is generally accurate; recurring minor errors rarely interfere with meaning. | Frequent grammatical problems reduce clarity or sentence control, though meaning is usually recoverable. | Persistent grammatical errors substantially impede clarity or comprehensibility. |
| 7. Academic Vocabulary & Register — 10 pts | Uses precise, varied, and appropriately formal academic vocabulary; tone is consistently suitable for a research proposal. | Academic register is generally appropriate, with occasional informal, repetitive, or imprecise wording. | Register is uneven; vocabulary is often general, repetitive, informal, or imprecise. | Language is consistently inappropriate for academic writing or too limited to communicate the proposal effectively. |
| 8. Clarity, Precision & Concision — 10 pts | Ideas are stated directly and precisely; wording avoids unnecessary repetition, vagueness, unsupported claims, and wordiness. | Meaning is generally clear and concise, with occasional vague, repetitive, or wordy passages. | Clarity is inconsistent because of vague references, redundancy, imprecise claims, or excessive wording. | Writing is frequently unclear, confusing, overly vague, or difficult to interpret. |
| 9. Coherence & Cohesion — 10 pts | Information progresses logically across sections; relationships among problem, purpose, questions, and scope are explicit and easy to follow. | Organization and connections are generally clear; a few transitions or links need strengthening. | Organization is uneven; relationships among ideas or sections are sometimes difficult to follow. | Proposal lacks a clear organizational progression; ideas and sections appear disconnected. |
| 10. Mechanics & Readability — 10 pts | Spelling, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing, and formatting are consistently accurate and support professional readability. | Minor mechanical errors occur but do not significantly distract from readability. | Repeated mechanical errors distract the reader and reduce professionalism. | Frequent mechanical problems substantially interfere with readability and presentation. |
Scoring Summary
| Area | Points |
|---|---|
| Proposal content, alignment, feasibility, and independent planning | 50 |
| Use of English at B2+ level | 50 |
| Total | 100 |
Suggested Interpretation
-
90–100: Highly successful initial proposal; focused, aligned, feasible, independent, and linguistically strong.
-
80–89: Successful initial proposal; minor revision needed before moving forward.
-
70–79: Developing proposal; significant revision is needed in one or more areas.
-
60–69: Limited proposal; major conceptual and/or linguistic revision is required.
-
Below 60: Proposal does not yet demonstrate sufficient readiness to guide the next stage of the research process.
Important Note
This rubric does not assess article selection, source integration, or APA references because scholarly articles are not required for this initial Unit I proposal. Those expectations can be introduced in later stages of the course.