One standard of excellence. Two audiences: writers and reviewers.
A shared, rubric-aligned working guide for St. Thomas University doctoral students and faculty. Each of the five modules names what an excellent chapter looks like — the same hallmarks a student aims for and a chair or committee member looks for. Every module includes a concept read, side-by-side rubric-scored examples, an AI coaching conversation, and a short knowledge check.
Grounded in and . See the glossary for definitions of key terms.
For doctoral students
Write toward the excellent version
See what "excellent" means before you draft. Learn the hallmarks of each chapter, practice against annotated exemplars, and use the AI coach to pressure-test your own writing against the same rubric your committee will apply.
Start as a studentFor faculty chairs & reviewers
Guide and review from a shared bar
Calibrate on the same excellence hallmarks students are trained against, so feedback is consistent across chairs and committees. Use the modules as a reference when advising students or scoring their manuscripts.
Start as facultyWhat each chapter must do
The STU rubric is precise about what belongs in each chapter — and what does not. Chapter 1 introduces the problem; Chapter 2 synthesizes the literature; Chapter 3 justifies the method; Chapter 4 reports results objectively; Chapter 5 interprets them. Confusing these boundaries (interpreting in Chapter 4, or introducing new data in Chapter 5) is one of the most common reasons chapters come back for revision.
| Chapter | Its job | Common rubric miss |
|---|---|---|
| 1 · Introduction | Establish the problem, purpose, RQs, and significance | Problem, purpose, and central RQ don't share the same essence |
| 2 · Literature Review | Synthesize the literature around themes; introduce framework | A chronological list of article summaries instead of thematic synthesis |
| 3 · Methodology | Justify the design; specify sampling, instruments, analysis, validity | Instruments used without reliability/validity evidence or permission |
| 4 · Data Analysis & Results | Report results objectively, organized by RQ or hypothesis | Interpreting results in Chapter 4 (that belongs in Chapter 5) |
| 5 · Conclusions & Discussion | Interpret findings; state limitations, implications, recommendations | Introducing new data or making recommendations untethered to findings |
Chapter 1
Introduction
Problem statement, background, purpose, research questions, significance, nature of the study, definition of terms, and assumptions/limitations/delimitations. The section every committee reads first.
Open moduleChapter 2
Literature Review
Theoretical framework, thematic organization, synthesis (not summary), and a transparent search process. The 20–30 page chapter that establishes your study's scholarly footing.
Open moduleChapter 3
Methodology
Justify your design, define your population and sample, specify your instruments and procedures, and pre-address threats to internal validity and ethics. The rigor chapter.
Open moduleChapter 4
Data Analysis & Results
Organize by RQ or hypothesis, report the required statistical or thematic components, use tables and figures with narrative — and stay strictly descriptive. Interpretation waits for Chapter 5.
Open moduleChapter 5
Conclusions & Discussion
Interpret findings against the literature, distinguish limitations from delimitations, draw implications for theory / practice / research, and derive recommendations that follow directly from what you found.
Open moduleInteractive practice
Diagnose the rubric flaw
Short dissertation excerpts across all five chapters. Identify which chapter's rubric criteria are being missed — then pick the revision that actually fixes it.
Frequently asked
Quick answers for both audiences
Common questions from doctoral students drafting their chapters, and from faculty chairs and committee reviewers calibrating on the same rubric.
For doctoral students
For faculty chairs & reviewers
ver 1.0.5 · View changelog