University of Alabama at Birmingham, downloaded January 30, 2006 from http://main.uab.edu/soeng/Templates/Inner.aspx?pid=80936
-
Outcome 10b - Graduates will be able to communicate effectively in written (10b) form
|
|
Level 5
|
Level 3
|
Level 1
|
Articulation
|
Articulates ideas clearly and concisely
|
Articulates ideas, but writing is somewhat disjointed, superfluous or difficult to follow
|
Text rambles, points made are only understood with repeated reading, and key points are not organized
|
Organization
|
Organizes written materials in a logical sequence to enhance the reader's comprehension (paragraphs, subheading, etc.)
|
Material are generally organized well, but paragraphs combine multiple thoughts or sections and sub-sections are not identified clearly
|
Little or no structure or organization; no subheadings or proper paragraph structure used
|
Use of Supporting Graphs, Tables, etc
|
Uses graphs, tables, and diagrams to support points-to explain, interpret, and assess information
|
Uses graphs, tables, and diagrams, but only in a few instances are they applied to support, explain or interpret information
|
Graphs, tables or diagrams are used, but no reference is made to them
|
Neatness
|
Written work is presented neatly and professionally
|
Work is not neatly presented throughout
|
Work is not presented neatly
|
Grammar and Spelling
|
Grammar and spelling are correct
|
One or two spelling/grammar errors per page
|
Spelling/grammar errors present throughout more than 1/3 of the paper
|
Figure Formatting
|
Figures are all in proper format
|
Figures are present but are flawed-axes mislabeled, no data points, etc
|
No figures or graphics are used at all
|
Writing Style
|
Uses good professional writing style
|
Style is informal or inappropriate, jargon is used, improper voice, tense…
|
The writing style is inappropriate for the audience and for the assignment
|
Document Formatting
|
Conforms to the prescribed format (if any)
|
The prescribed format is only followed in some portions of the paper
|
The prescribed format is not followed
|
Teaching Philosophy Statement Scoring Rubric
Criterion
|
Undocumented
0
Unacceptable
|
Minimal
1
Unacceptable
|
Basic
2
Acceptable
|
Proficient
3
Acceptable
|
Advanced
4
Acceptable
|
Score
|
Idea
Development
|
The statement is incoherent or extremely brief or contains major logical inconsistencies
|
Statement expresses several ideas about teaching that are ambiguous or not connected
|
Statement meets one of the following criteria: logical, elaborated, consistent
|
Statement meets two of the following criteria: logical, elaborated, consistent.
|
Statement is logical, elaborated, and internally consistent
|
Score:__________Quality_of__Writing'>Score:__________Illustrative__Examples'>Score:
_____
|
Illustrative
Examples
|
No illustrative examples are included
|
The statement includes at least one example, but the relationship to teaching experience or plans is unclear
|
Examples from the writer’s experience show only one of
○ detail
○ clear
relevance,
○ vividness or memorability
|
Examples from the writer’s experience or plans are
○ detailed and
pertinent,
○ but not
memorable
|
Illustrative examples from the writer’s experience or plans are detailed, pertinent, and memorable
|
Score:
_____
|
Quality of
Writing
|
The statement is very difficult to read because of its style, usage, mechanics, or organization
|
Two of the following apply:
○ Organized,
○ Unified,
○ Free from errors of mechanics and usage,
○ Appropriate academic style,
○ Strongly suggestive of voice
|
Three of the following apply:
○ Organized,
○ Unified,
○ Free from errors of mechanics and usage,
○ Appropriate academic style,
○ Strongly suggestive of voice
|
Four of the following apply:
○ Organized,
○ Unified,
○ Free from errors of mechanics and usage,
○ Appropriate academic style,
○ Strongly suggestive of voice
|
Writing is clear, well organized, unified, free
from errors of mechanics and usage, an appropriate academic style, with a strong suggestion of the author’s individual voice
|
Score:
_____
|
Total: ______
Mean: ______
Comments:
Evaluator: ___________________________ Date: _________
Retrieved January 26, 2008 from page 7 of http://academics.uww.edu/cni/docs/Phase%203%20StdntPckt%20011007.pdf. This document contains detailed instructions for student preparation of their portfolio.
California State University East Bay MBA Rubrics
Retrieved January 3, 2007 from http://www.csuhayward.edu/ira/wasc/slo/SLO%20Bus%20Admin%20MBA.doc
Share with your friends: |
