The CURE Undergraduate Research Award Review Committees will use the following classifications for ranking application:
Excellent (4): Exceptional clarity, coherence, and depth; full and effectively addresses all relevant criteria within the project's disciplinary or creative context
Good (3): Clear and well-developed, and appropriate; meets expectations in all criteria
Fair (2): Adequate but uneven; addresses criteria with limited depth, clarity or coherence
Poor (1): Insufficient, unclear or underdeveloped; does not meet expectations in multiple areas.
NOTE: This rubric is designed to assess undergraduate research and creative projects across all academic fields. Project statements should be assessed within the norms and practices of the applicant's discipline or form of inquiry, including the humanities, arts, sciences, social sciences, and interdisciplinary work.
Criteria
Criteria | Excellent (4) | Good (3) | Fair (2) | Poor (1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Clarity and Significance of Inquiry | Purpose, question, or creative intent is exceptionally clear, well-framed, and compelling; significance is convincingly articulated within the field | Purpose or intent is clear and relevant; significance is appropriately explained | Purpose or intent is present but vague, underdeveloped, or weakly contextualized | Purpose or intent is unclear, unfocused, or not articulated |
Approach, Methods, or Creative Process | Approach or process is well-justified, rigorous, and clearly aligned with the inquiry or medium; highly feasible | Approach or process is appropriate and clearly described; generally feasible | Approach or process is partially explained, loosely aligned, or raises feasibility concerns | Approach or process is unclear, inappropriate or infeasible |
Student's Role and Contribution | Student's intellectual or creative ownership and responsibilities are clearly defined and substantial | Student's role is clear and appropriate to the project | Student's role is limited, vague, or insufficiently distinguished | Student's role is unclear or minimal |
Resources, Planning and Feasibility | Resources are clearly identified and well-matched to project needs; planning is realistic and thorough | Necessary resources are identified; planning is generally realistic | Resources or planning are partially addressed or insufficiently detailed | Resources or planning are in adequate, unrealistic, or not addressed |
Expected Outcomes or Impact | Outcomes or impacts are clearly articulated, meaningful, and appropriate to the field or creative practice | Outcomes or impacts are clear and relevant | Outcomes or impacts are vague, and weakly connected to the project | Outcomes or impacts are unclear or not articulated |
Mentorship and Engagement | Strong evidence of collaboration and consultation with the faculty mentor, demonstrating active engagement and support | Adequate mentorship and engagement are evident | Limited or inconsistently described mentorship or engagement | Little or no evidence of mentorship or engagement |
Personal and Intellectual Growth Reflection | Reflection is thoughtful and insightful; clearly connects the project to academic, creative or professional growth | Reflection is clear and relevant to the student's development | Reflection is brief, generic, or weakly connected to growth | Reflection is minimal, unclear, or absent |
Letter of Recommendation | Strong, specific endorsement demonstrating readiness, independence, and high potential | Clear and positive support appropriate to the project | General or limited support with few specific examples | Weak, vague, or non-supportive letter |