ASEE Best Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Paper Rubric

ASEE BEST DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION PAPER RUBRIC

Research and practitioner-based manuscripts are valued equally.

		3 = Excellent	2 = Good	1 = Satisfactory	0 = Needs Improvement
CONTENT (50%)	Originality & Impact	Content contains highly original treatment of, or new perspective on a key diversity, equity, and/or inclusion topic. Highly Impactful Effort.	Content contains some original treatment of, or new perspective on a key diversity, equity, and/or inclusion topic. Impactful Effort.	Content contains moderately original treatment of, or new perspective on a key diversity, equity, and/or inclusion topic. Moderately Impactful Effort.	Content contains minimal original treatment of, or new perspective on a key diversity, equity, and/or inclusion topic. Weakly Impactful Effort.
	Research or Practitioner Approach	The research or practitioner approach is novel and/or sophisticated and appropriate, and is consistent with the perspective (quantitative, qualitative, mixed, reflective, other).	The research or practitioner approach is advanced and appropriate , and is consistent with the perspective (quantitative, qualitative, mixed, reflective, other).	The research or practitioner approach is basic, but still appropriate, and is consistent with the perspective (quantitative, qualitative, mixed, reflective, other).	The research or practitioner approach is inadequate and/or not appropriate for the purpose of the paper.
	Results or Outcomes	Data collection and assessment results/outcome descriptions are very clear and logical, strongly supporting the paper goals.	Data collection and assessment results/outcome descriptions are clear and logical, supporting the paper goals.	Data collection and assessment results/outcome descriptions are somewhat clear and logical, moderately supporting paper goals.	Data collection and assessment results/outcome descriptions need improvement.
	Scholarship or Context	Content reviews or builds on appropriate prior work or contextualizes practitioner purpose to a significant extent.	Content reviews and builds on appropriate prior work or contextualizes practitioner purpose to a moderate extent.	Content reviews and builds on appropriate prior work or contextualizes practitioner purpose to a limited extent.	Content does not review and build on appropriate prior work or contextualize practitioner purpose.
	Relevance	The paper makes a highly significant contribution to diversifying engineering.	The paper makes a significant contribution to diversifying engineering.	The paper makes a moderate contribution to diversifying engineering.	The paper makes a minimal contribution to diversifying engineering.
FOCUS (35%)	Goals	Diversity, equity, inclusion goals/objectives are strongly developed and explicitly stated.	Diversity, equity, inclusion goals/objectives are developed and explicitly stated.	Diversity, equity, inclusion goals/objectives are not fully developed and/or stated.	Diversity, equity, inclusion goals/objectives are not developed and/or stated.
	Order	Presentation order of ideas is explicitly and consistently clear, logical and effective.	Order of ideas is reasonably clear, logical and effective, but could be improved.	Presentation order of ideas is occasionally confusing.	There is little apparent structure to the flow of ideas, causing confusion.
	Conclusions	Conclusions, implications, and discussions are very well formulated and are strongly supported by the results/outcomes.	Conclusions, implications, and discussions are well formulated and are supported by the results/outcomes.	Conclusions, implications, and discussions are moderately effective and are only partially supported by the results/outcomes.	Conclusions, implications, and discussions are minimally effective and do not appear to be supported by the results/outcomes.
LANGUAGE (15%)	Style	The paper is clear, concise, and consistent. It is easily understandable and a pleasure to read.	The paper is mostly understandable, with occasional inconsistencies that could be improved.	Multiple sections of the paper are difficult to read/understand. The paper could be better structured or more clearly explained.	The paper is difficult to read/understand due to sentence/paragraph structure, word choices, lack of explanations, etc.
LANGUAGE (15%)	Mechanics	The writing is near perfect with little to no grammar or spelling errors.	Minor grammar or spelling errors are present, but do not detract from the content. Content is clear.	Some grammar or spelling errors are significant and detract from the content. Paper requires further editing.	Pervasive grammar or spelling errors distort meaning and make reading difficult.