Grading Rubrics
Module 1: Describing Materials Grading Rubric
|
Criterion |
5 points |
3-4 points |
0-2 points |
|
Response Content |
5 or more properties per column that reflect understanding and thoughtful consideration. |
3-4 properties per column that reflect understanding and thoughtful consideration. |
Less than 3 properties per column. Attention to detail is not apparent. |
Module 1: Personalized Impact Paradigm Rubric
|
Criterion |
5 points |
3-4 points |
0-2 points |
|
Response Content |
Instructions for naming conventions are followed. A question is added to all 4 categories of the Impact Paradigm. |
Instructions for naming conventions are followed. A question is added to two categories of the Impact Paradigm. |
Instructions are not followed. Assignment is incomplete. |
Modules 2-6 and 8-12 Application Video Analysis Rubric
|
Criterion |
9-10 points |
6-8 points |
3-5 points |
0-2 points |
|
Response Content (10 Points) |
Responses are appropriate, thoughtful, and indicate engagement with the video. |
Responses have minor inconsistencies with the video or are not supported by content. |
Responses have major inconsistencies with the video or are not supported by content. |
Responses are inaccurate, careless, and/or opinions not supported by content. |
|
Mechanics (10 Points) |
Grammar, sentence structure and punctuation are correct and properly cited. |
Minor issues with grammar, punctuation and or sentence structure and citations. |
Significant issues with grammar, punctuation and or sentence structure and citations. |
Major issues with grammar, punctuation and or sentences and citations |
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
Modules 2-6 and 8-12 Impact Paradigm Reflection Essay Rubric
|
Criterion |
9-10 points |
6-8 points |
3-5 points |
0-2 points |
|
Response Content (10 Points) |
Responses are appropriate, comprehensive, and indicate thoughtful engagement with the information and concepts from the lecture, readings, and videos. Novel ideas, creativity, and attention to complexity are a plus. Tanglegram is fully supported by responses and image. |
Good effort. Responses and arguments are not as clearly presented, or as comprehensive and thoughtful as in a full credit answer. Tanglegram is fully supported by responses and images. |
Responses are less appropriate to the assignment, less thoughtful and engaged, with less complete information. Tanglegram is partially incomplete or unrelated to images and responses.
|
Responses are inaccurate, careless, and/or opinions not supported by content. Tanglegram is incomplete.
|
|
Mechanics (10 Points) |
Grammar, sentence structure and punctuation are correct. Works are cited properly when appropriate. |
Occasional grammar or mechanics issue or works are cited incorrectly. |
Some issues with grammar, punctuation and or sentence structure or chosen image or other works are not cited when appropriate. |
Major issues with grammar, punctuation and or sentences. Chosen image or other works are not cited when appropriate. |
Mid-Course Impact Paradigm Comparison Essay
|
Criterion |
A=17-20 points |
B=13-16 points |
C=8-12 points |
D=4-7 points |
E=0-3 points |
|
Application of Impact Paradigm (20 points) |
All of the evidence and examples are specific, relevant and explanations are given that show thoughtful application of the impact paradigm to both materials chosen. |
Most of the evidence and examples are specific, relevant and explanations are given that show thoughtful application of the impact paradigm to both materials chosen/one material analysis is more complete than the other. |
Some of the evidence and examples are specific, relevant and explanations are given that show thoughtful application of the impact paradigm. |
Evidence and examples are weak and application of the impact paradigm is incomplete. |
Evidence and examples are NOT relevant AND/OR thoughtful application of the impact paradigm is not evident |
|
Content of Essay (20 points) |
Fully compares/ contrasts both materials using of the Impact Paradigm Clearly articulates and compares the societal impact of both materials. |
Partially compares/ contrasts materials using of the Impact Paradigm. Attempts to articulate and compare the societal impact of both materials. |
Weakly compares/ contrasts materials. Articulation of societal impact is incomplete. |
Compares/ contrasts materials inconsistently. Articulation of societal impact is unclear. |
Writes about only one material. Doesn’t compare societal impact. |
|
Accuracy (20 points)
|
All supportive facts and statistics are reported accurately and cited when appropriate. |
Almost all supportive facts and statistics are reported accurately and cited when appropriate. |
Most supportive facts and statistics are reported accurately and cited when appropriate. |
Most supportive facts and statistics were inaccurately reported and/or improperly cited when appropriate. |
Supportive facts and statistics were inaccurately reported and/or improperly cited when appropriate. |
|
Mechanics (20 points) |
Author makes no errors in grammar or spelling that distract the reader from the content. Work is cited properly when appropriate.
|
Author makes 1-2 errors in grammar or spelling that distract the reader from the content. Most work is cited. |
Author makes 3-4 errors in grammar or spelling that distract the reader from the content. Work is not cited properly most of the time. |
Author makes more than 4-6 minor errors in grammar or spelling that distract the reader from the content. Citations are missing. |
Author makes more than 6 errors in grammar or spelling that distract the reader from the content. Citations are missing. |
|
Total-80 |
|
|
|
|
|
