UROP Project Rubric

All UROP Project applications are reviewed by members of the Undergraduate Research Opportunities Council (UROC) and/or ad hoc faculty reviewers from UHM based on the criteria shown in the UROP Project Rubric below. Once the application evaluation and scoring are complete, the sum of all scores will be divided by 8 (the total number of criteria) to create an overall score on a 4.0 scale (note that the two Project Mentor Form scores will be averaged prior to the final summation and score calculation). All required components must be included for application funding consideration.

Criterion/

Score

4

3

2

1

0

Description (WHAT)

The objective is clear and understandable to those outside the field

The objective is sufficiently clear and understandable to those outside the field

The objective is somewhat clear and understandable to those outside the field

The objective is not clear and understandable to those outside the field

No Description

Significance (WHY)

Importance and relevance to the field are clearly justified

Importance and relevance to the field are sufficiently justified

Importance and relevance to the field are somewhat justified

Importance and relevance to the field are not justified

No Significance

Process / Methodology (HOW / WHERE)

Process/methodology is clearly defined and appropriate for the project to meet the objective

Process/methodology is sufficiently defined and appropriate for the project to meet the objective

Process/methodology is somewhat defined and appropriate for the project to meet the objective

Process/methodology is not defined and appropriate for the project to meet the objective

No Process / Methodology

Timetable (WHEN)

Timetable is clearly justified and feasible

Timetable is sufficiently justified and feasible

Timetable is somewhat justified and feasible

Timetable is not justified and feasible

No Timetable

Applicant’s Role (WHO)

Applicant’s role will clearly facilitate a positive learning outcome for the applicant

Applicant’s role will sufficiently facilitate a positive learning outcome for the applicant

Applicant’s role will somewhat facilitate a positive learning outcome for the applicant

Applicant’s role will not facilitate a positive learning outcome for the applicant

No Applicant’s Role

Budget

Projected items and expenses are clearly justified

Projected items and expenses are sufficiently justified

Projected items and expenses are somewhat justified

Projected items and expenses are not justified

No Budget

Project Mentor Form: Mentorship Plan (Section 2)

Mentorship Plan clearly outlines a supportive mentor committed to the student  and project completion

Mentorship Plan sufficiently outlines a supportive mentor committed to student  and project completion

Mentorship Plan somewhat outlines a supportive mentor committed to student and project completion

Mentorship Plan does not outline a supportive mentor committed to the student and project completion

No Mentorship Plan

Project Mentor Form: Project/
Student Evaluation (Section 3)

Evaluations clearly show mentor’s support of the student and reflect high quality of the proposed project

Evaluations sufficiently show mentor’s support of the student and reflect good quality of the proposed project

Evaluations somewhat show mentor’s support of the student and reflect moderate quality of the proposed project

Evaluations do not show mentor’s support of the student and reflect poor quality of the proposed project

No Project Evaluation

GPA

The scoring for grade-point average (GPA) utilizes the 4.0 scale for the applicant’s cumulative academic record including all transfer credits.

Back To Top
X