Graduate School of Life Sciences / Rubrics / Rubric Writing Assignment

Rubric Writing Assignment

Graduate School of Life Sciences
Clear Table


> For the criteria you wish to grade or provide feedback on, click on the individual cells that apply, or on the category as a whole (black bar) to highlight.
> When using a UMC Utrecht computer please note that printing of this Rubric only works in Internet Explorer.
> When appropriate, additional criteria may be added and/or judgements may be fine-tuned by rephrasing the pre-formulated texts. For this purpose use the space ‘Additional criteria or Feedback’ or this Rubric as Excel file.
> To save this rubric use the print option to make a pdf. In order to print to pdf using the browsers Internet Explorer, Firefox and Opera printing of background images (in Dutch: achtergrondkleuren afdrukken) has to be enabled. For more detailed information:
Firefox (Mac), Internet Explorer (Windows), Edge (Windows), Chrome, Firefox (Windows) of Safari

Name student:
Student number:
Research group: 
Master’s Programme:
Rubric Writing Assignment

fails to meet academic requirements
meets academic requirements
belongs to the top 10%*
Content: Insufficient
Content: Satisfactory
Content: Excellent
Does not justify the content
Suggests incorrect/over interpretation of data
Represents the content
Attracts attention
Creative and original

Misrepresents the content
Lacks components
Is hard to understand
Represents most highlights
Contains all components
Can be understood without additional information
Represents main information and all highlights
Concise and correct
Layman’s Summary

Misrepresents the content
Unattractive and too technical
Level too high / too low
Represents most highlights
Understandable but not appealing
High school level
Represents main information and all highlights
Interesting to read and easy to understand
Relevance research question and scope of literature research (if applicable)

Incomplete or inaccurate overview of literature
Adequate overview of relevant literature
Complete concise overview of relevant literature

Research question absent or lacks focus
Research question well defined and focussed
Substantiated research question with clear focus

Relevance research question unclear
Relevance of research question clarified
Research question has the potential to contribute useful new knowledge to the field

Search strategy is badly motivated, inappropriate, confusing or unsystematic
Valid strategy used for searching literature or collecting data
Search strategy clearly outlined and optimally suited to answer research question
Main body of text
Description of relevant literature/ data analysis

Incomplete or incorrect analysis of relevant literature/data
Satisfactory analyses/ descriptions/ interpretations of data/retrieved literature
Data/retrieved publications and analyses are valid, complete and presented concisely

Data/retrieved publications are irrelevant
Text can be understood without information provided by figures and tables
Interpretation of literature/data is convincing and creative
Tables and figures

Absent/incorrect referral in written text
Correctly referred to in written text

Tables and figures are irrelevant
Do not support text
Relevant presentation of acquired data
Presented in the best possible way
Excellent presentation of acquired data
Legends provide insufficient information
Can be understood without additional information
Legends contain the necessary information
Legends are complete and concise
Discussion and Conclusion
Presentation of new models or hypotheses,
Depth and critical analysis
Weak or not supported by evidence
Repetitive information
In line with presented evidence
Fails to answer research question
Answers research question
Data inadequately discussed, sticking rigidly to
existing concepts or using invalid arguments
Relation data and research question discussed
adequately, using valid arguments
Concise, sensible and in depth discussion of
data in relation to research question
Discussion fails to address strengths and
weaknesses of study
Strengths and limitations, new insights are
addressed in the light of the literature
Complete, critical and balanced discussion of
strengths, limitations, new insights and
Critical discussion of how the data relate to
current knowledge of the subject
Hypotheses, new models, or suggestions for
additional research are missing/ illogical
Suggestions for future research may be
based on weak assumptions
New insights, hypotheses or new models
New insights, new models and hypotheses are
discussed in depth
Structure and Style
Structure and Style: Insufficient
Structure and Style: Satisfactory
Structure and Style: Excellent
Structure and line of reasoning
The line of thought is unclear
Line of thought mostly clear
The line of thought is easy to follow and supported by the structure
Text is badly structured
Structure supports legibility of text
Referral is insufficient, inconsistent, incomplete or incorrect**
References cannot be retrieved
Referral is complete and correct
References can be traced
Correct application of a single referencing system
(Key) references have been found independently
Writing Skills
Style too wordy or too concise
Grammar and style enable understanding of the information
Writing flows smoothly
Grammar and style support legibility of the document
Disturbing spelling or grammar mistakes
No errors present detected by spellcheckers

Professional attitude
Professional attitude: Insufficient
Professional attitude: Satisfactory
Professional attitude: Excellent
Initiative, independence,
Content superficiallly handled; depth is lacking
Part of ideas/content conceived independently
Content is provided independently
Relies on supervisor’s instructions only
Takes initiative (initially) after stimulation
Contains creative elements
Critical attitude
Critical attitude is absent
Self-reflection is absent
Shows self-reflection and has critical attitude towards (published) research
Critical attitude is based on intellectual depth and profundity
Data manipulated or left out**
Accurate, reliable and trustworthy
Fails to meet deadlines
Meets most deadlines
Sets own deadlines and adheres to them
Fails to keep appointments
Keeps appointments
Schedules appointments when necessary
Additional criteria or Feedback

* Requirements for "satisfactory" must be fulfilled as well
** In case of fraud or plagiarism, the examiner will inform the Board of Examiners of this in writing

Add Signature Field
Add Date

Name Supervisor:

Clear Table