progress-evaluation-rubric

Progress Evaluation Rubric

This rubric provides standardized criteria for evaluating research progress and performance across different roles in the IDEEAS Lab.

Graduate Student Evaluation Rubric

Research Progress and Quality (40%)

Excellent (4):

Consistently meets or exceeds research milestones
Produces high-quality, rigorous research outputs
Demonstrates deep understanding of research area
Shows innovation and original thinking
Effectively integrates feedback and improves work

Proficient (3):

Generally meets research milestones on time
Produces solid, methodologically sound research
Shows good understanding of research area
Incorporates some original ideas or approaches
Responds well to feedback and makes improvements

Developing (2):

Sometimes meets milestones but may need extensions
Research quality is acceptable but needs improvement
Basic understanding of research area with some gaps
Limited original contribution or innovation
Inconsistent in incorporating feedback

Needs Improvement (1):

Frequently misses milestones or requires significant support
Research quality below acceptable standards
Significant gaps in understanding of research area
Little evidence of original thinking
Difficulty incorporating feedback effectively

Professional Skills Development (25%)

Excellent (4):

Exceptional communication skills (written and oral)
Strong project management and time management
Demonstrates leadership in lab activities
Actively builds professional network
Excellent collaboration and teamwork skills

Proficient (3):

Good communication skills with room for growth
Generally manages time and projects well
Contributes positively to lab community
Some networking and professional development
Works well with others on team projects

Developing (2):

Communication skills need development
Struggles with time or project management
Limited contribution to lab community
Minimal professional development activities
Some challenges in collaborative work

Needs Improvement (1):

Poor communication skills affecting work quality
Significant time management or organization issues
Little engagement with lab community
No evidence of professional development
Difficulty working effectively with others

Mentoring and Teaching (20%)

Excellent (4):

Outstanding mentor to undergraduate researchers
Excellent teaching or TA performance
Actively supports peer learning and development
Demonstrates strong pedagogical understanding
Receives consistently positive feedback from mentees

Proficient (3):

Good mentoring skills with positive outcomes
Solid teaching or TA performance
Supports peers when asked
Shows understanding of effective teaching practices
Generally positive feedback from mentees

Developing (2):

Basic mentoring skills but needs development
Adequate teaching performance with room for improvement
Limited peer support or teaching involvement
Some understanding of pedagogical principles
Mixed feedback from mentees or students

Needs Improvement (1):

Poor mentoring skills or negative outcomes
Below-standard teaching performance
No involvement in peer support or teaching
Little understanding of effective teaching
Negative feedback from mentees or students

Lab Citizenship and Ethics (15%)

Excellent (4):

Exemplary lab citizenship and community building
Strong commitment to ethical research practices
Actively contributes to lab culture and operations
Demonstrates responsibility and accountability
Serves as positive role model for others

Proficient (3):

Good lab citizenship with positive contributions
Consistent adherence to ethical standards
Regular participation in lab activities
Generally responsible and accountable
Positive influence on lab culture

Developing (2):

Basic lab participation but could contribute more
Generally follows ethical guidelines
Inconsistent engagement with lab community
Sometimes needs reminders about responsibilities
Neutral impact on lab culture

Needs Improvement (1):

Poor lab citizenship or negative impact
Ethical concerns or violations
Minimal engagement with lab activities
Frequently irresponsible or unaccountable
Negative impact on lab culture or morale

Undergraduate Researcher Evaluation Rubric

Task Completion and Quality (35%)

Excellent (4):

Consistently completes tasks on time and exceeds expectations
Work quality is exceptional for undergraduate level
Shows attention to detail and thoroughness
Demonstrates understanding of task importance
Requires minimal supervision

Proficient (3):

Generally completes tasks on time with good quality
Work meets expectations for undergraduate level
Shows good attention to detail
Understands most aspects of assigned work
Requires moderate supervision and guidance

Developing (2):

Sometimes completes tasks but may need extensions
Work quality is acceptable but inconsistent
Some attention to detail but misses important aspects
Basic understanding of work requirements
Requires significant supervision and support

Needs Improvement (1):

Frequently fails to complete tasks or meet deadlines
Work quality below acceptable standards
Poor attention to detail and accuracy
Limited understanding of work requirements
Requires constant supervision and direction

Learning and Skill Development (30%)

Excellent (4):

Rapidly acquires new skills and knowledge
Demonstrates mastery of technical tools and methods
Shows strong problem-solving abilities
Actively seeks learning opportunities
Applies learning effectively to new situations

Proficient (3):

Steadily develops new skills and knowledge
Competent use of required tools and methods
Good problem-solving with some guidance
Participates in available learning opportunities
Generally applies learning to work tasks

Developing (2):

Slow but steady skill and knowledge development
Basic competency in required tools and methods
Problem-solving requires significant guidance
Limited engagement with learning opportunities
Difficulty applying learning to new situations

Needs Improvement (1):

Little evidence of skill or knowledge development
Struggles with basic tools and methods
Cannot solve problems independently
No engagement with learning opportunities
Cannot apply learning to work tasks

Communication and Collaboration (20%)

Excellent (4):

Excellent written and verbal communication
Proactively communicates progress and challenges
Outstanding collaboration and teamwork
Actively contributes to team discussions
Professional in all interactions

Proficient (3):

Good communication skills for undergraduate level
Regular communication about work progress
Works well with team members
Contributes to team when asked
Generally professional behavior

Developing (2):

Basic communication skills with room for improvement
Inconsistent communication about work
Some challenges in team collaboration
Limited contribution to team activities
Occasionally unprofessional behavior

Needs Improvement (1):

Poor communication skills affecting work
Fails to communicate about progress or problems
Difficulty working with team members
No meaningful contribution to team
Unprofessional behavior or attitude

Initiative and Professional Development (15%)

Excellent (4):

Shows exceptional initiative and self-direction
Actively seeks additional responsibilities
Strong commitment to professional growth
Excellent time management and organization
Demonstrates leadership potential

Proficient (3):

Shows good initiative within assigned work
Willing to take on additional tasks when asked
Some engagement with professional development
Good time management and organization
Shows potential for growth

Developing (2):

Limited initiative, mostly follows directions
Reluctant to take on additional responsibilities
Minimal professional development activities
Some time management or organization issues
Unclear about professional goals

Needs Improvement (1):

No initiative, requires constant direction
Unwilling to take on any additional work
No engagement with professional development
Poor time management and organization
No evidence of professional growth mindset

Postdoc Evaluation Rubric

Independent Research Leadership (35%)

Excellent (4):

Exceptional independent research program
Innovative approaches and significant contributions
Strong publication record and impact
Successful grant writing and funding acquisition
Recognition as emerging leader in field

Proficient (3):

Strong independent research program
Good research contributions and publications
Some success with funding applications
Growing reputation in research community
Demonstrates research leadership skills

Developing (2):

Developing independent research program
Some research contributions but limited impact
Limited success with funding applications
Basic recognition in research community
Shows potential for research leadership

Needs Improvement (1):

Weak or unfocused research program
Few or low-impact research contributions
No success with funding applications
Little recognition in research community
Limited evidence of leadership potential

Mentoring and Supervision (25%)

Excellent (4):

Outstanding mentoring of graduate and undergraduate students
Students show exceptional growth and achievement
Develops effective mentoring relationships
Contributes to lab mentoring culture
Receives excellent feedback from mentees

Proficient (3):

Good mentoring with positive student outcomes
Students show solid growth and development
Maintains supportive mentoring relationships
Participates in lab mentoring activities
Generally positive feedback from mentees

Developing (2):

Basic mentoring skills with mixed outcomes
Students show some growth but inconsistent
Developing mentoring relationships
Limited participation in mentoring activities
Mixed feedback from mentees

Needs Improvement (1):

Poor mentoring skills or negative outcomes
Students show little growth or development
Difficulty maintaining mentoring relationships
No contribution to lab mentoring culture
Negative feedback from mentees

Collaboration and Service (25%)

Excellent (4):

Exceptional collaboration within and outside lab
Significant service contributions to profession
Strong leadership in collaborative projects
Builds productive external partnerships
Excellent reputation as collaborator

Proficient (3):

Good collaboration and teamwork
Some service contributions to profession
Participates effectively in collaborative projects
Develops some external partnerships
Generally positive reputation as collaborator

Developing (2):

Basic collaboration skills
Limited service contributions
Minimal participation in collaborative projects
Few external partnerships
Mixed reputation as collaborator

Needs Improvement (1):

Poor collaboration skills
No service contributions
Difficulty participating in collaborative work
No external partnerships
Negative reputation as collaborator

Career Development and Transition (15%)

Excellent (4):

Clear career goals and strategic planning
Excellent preparation for next career stage
Strong professional network and visibility
Successful job market performance
Serves as model for career development

Proficient (3):

Good career planning and preparation
Adequate preparation for next career stage
Developing professional network
Some success in job market activities
Shows good career development progress

Developing (2):

Basic career planning with some gaps
Limited preparation for next career stage
Small professional network
Minimal job market activity
Slow career development progress

Needs Improvement (1):

No clear career planning or goals
Poor preparation for next career stage
No professional network development
No job market activity
No evidence of career development

Using This Rubric

Evaluation Process

Self-Assessment: Individual completes self-evaluation using rubric
Supervisor Assessment: Supervisor completes independent evaluation
Discussion: Meet to discuss ratings and develop improvement plans
Goal Setting: Establish specific goals for next evaluation period
Documentation: Record evaluation and goals in individual files

Evaluation Schedule

Graduate Students: Semester evaluations, annual comprehensive review
Undergraduate Researchers: Monthly check-ins, semester evaluation
Postdocs: Quarterly reviews, annual comprehensive evaluation

Improvement Planning

For any area rated "Developing" or "Needs Improvement":

Identify specific improvement goals
Develop action plan with timeline
Identify resources and support needed
Schedule follow-up check-ins
Document progress toward goals

Remember: This rubric is a tool for growth and development, not punishment. Use it to identify strengths to build on and areas for focused improvement.