Rubric Examples


Scoring Rubric for Reflection Papers



Download 0.64 Mb.
Page16/18
Date03.05.2017
Size0.64 Mb.
1   ...   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18

Scoring Rubric for Reflection Papers


(Compiled by California Polytechnic State University Service-Learning Program)
Retrieved March 14, 2007 from http://www.ccccd.edu/servicelearning/faculty-ref-paper-rubric.html

- Excellent Paper -

Civic Awareness and Responsibility


The paper demonstrates that the student:

  • understands the complex nature of social problems and has identified several of the causes leading to the social problem addressed by the agency;

  • understands that there are forces in action which may cause misfortune over which individuals have no control. (i.e. realizes that individuals are not always solely to blame when they are faced with misfortunes; that it's not just a matter of "pulling yourself up by the bootstraps;")

  • sees a relationship between the work of grass roots service agencies and local, state and national government;

  • can explain in great detail the programs and services provided by the agency;

  • is committed to continued involvement in the community and/or in political processes while in school or after graduation (OR makes a thoughtful argument against or questioning such involvement);

  • has identified ways in which he/she can contribute to the community, including both skills and knowledge;

  • grasps the concept of social justice;

  • made commitments to the agency that exceeded those required by the class and fulfilled all of them.

Critical Thinking


The paper shows that the author:

  • views situations from multiple perspectives; able to observe multiple aspects of the situation and place them in context;

  • perceives conflicting goals within and among the individuals involved in a situation and recognizes that the differences can be evaluated;

  • recognizes that actions must be situationally dependent and understands many of the factors which affect their choice;

  • makes appropriate judgments based on reasoning and evidence;

  • has reasonable assessment of the importance of the decisions facing clients and his or her responsibility as a part of the clients' lives;

  • began to think in new ways; about the clients served, society and social problems in general, him/herself as a person;

  • not only understands the purpose(s) and programs of the agency selected but uses critical thinking skills to evaluate its effectiveness and to develop recommendations for improvement;

  • realizes that he/she can learn outside the classroom because he/she has accessed information from a variety of sources in the field (i.e. observation, interview, reading materials, etc.) thereby demonstrating capacity for self-guided, life-long learning activities;

  • able to use many sources of information within a social environment;

  • sees how and where skills and information gained through service involvement can be applied to other situations;

  • reflects on and can articulate the meaning of a "real life" experience.

Personal Development


The paper indicates that the student:

  • realizes how much he or she can learn from others, including those considered to be "underprivileged;"

  • appreciates people whose values, lifestyles or cultures are different from his or her own;

  • has examined his own beliefs in light of the experience;

  • sees evidence that the author continues in the process of developing a philosophy of life;

  • sees how service involvement could impact his personal career development;

  • understands some of the factors that make the people who are served and/or agency staff different from him/herself.

- Proficient Paper -

Civic Awareness and Responsibility


The paper demonstrates that the student:

  • is likely to continue his interest in his issue area;

  • appreciates the complex nature of the social issue addressed by the agency and names at least two causes;

  • understands that there are forces in action which may cause misfortune over which individuals have no control. (i.e. realizes that individuals are not always solely to blame when they are faced with misfortunes; that it's not just a matter of "pulling yourself up by the bootstraps");

  • has fulfilled all commitments made to the agency including eight hours of service;

  • has a sense of the contributions that he/she can make in terms of his/her skills and knowledge;

  • is committed to working with the same or a similar agency at some point in his or her future (OR provides a well thought out argument against or questioning such involvement).

Critical Thinking


The paper shows that the author:

  • not only understands the purpose(s) and programs of the agency selected but uses critical thinking skills to evaluate its effectiveness and to develop at least two recommendations for improvement;

  • sees how and where skills and information gained through service involvement can be applied to other situations;

  • has accessed information from a variety of sources in the field (e.g. observation, interview, reading related materials, discussion groups), thereby demonstrating a capacity for applying "learn by doing" in the community as a method for life-long learning;

  • observations are fairly thorough and nuanced although they tend not to be placed in a broader context;

  • provides a cogent critique from one perspective, but fails to see the broader system in which the aspect is embedded and other factors which may change;

  • uses both unsupported, personal belief and evidence but is beginning to be able to differentiate between them;

  • perceives legitimate differences of view point;

  • demonstrates a beginning ability to interpret.

Personal Development


The paper indicates that the student:

  • realizes that he/she can learn from people whose values, lifestyles or cultures are different from his/her own;

  • understands some of the factors that make the people served and/or agency staff different from him/herself;

  • sees how service involvement could impact his/her personal and career development.

- Acceptable Paper -

Civic Awareness and Responsibility


The paper demonstrates that the student:

  • is aware at a general level of social problems and their complex nature;

  • recognizes a need for people to get involved;

  • demonstrates some idea of how and where his/her skills and knowledge can be used for community betterment.

Critical Thinking


The paper shows that the author:

  • understands the purpose(s) and programs of the agency selected and provides at least one idea of how its services might be improved;

  • has accessed information from a variety of sources in the field (i.e. observation, interview, reading related materials, discussion groups);

  • gives examples of observed behaviors or characteristics of the client or setting, but provides no insight into reasons behind the observation;

  • observations tend to be one-dimensional and conventional or unassimilated repetitions of what has been heard;

  • tends to focus on just one aspect of the situation;

  • uses unsupported personal beliefs frequently as "hard" evidence;

  • may acknowledge differences of perspective but does not discriminate effectively among them.

Personal Development


The paper indicates that the student:

  • realizes that he or she can learn from others, including those considered to be "underprivileged;"

  • is tolerant of people whose values, lifestyles or cultures are different from his or her own.

- Unacceptable Paper -

Civic Awareness and Responsibility


The paper demonstrates that the student:

  • lacks information about social problems and/or interest in addressing them;

  • demonstrates no personal commitment to helping find a solution for community problems;

  • has not fulfilled his/her commitments to the agency.

Critical Thinking


The paper shows that the author:

  • does not see how skills and information gained through service involvement can be applied to other situations.

Personal Development


The paper indicates that the student:

  • believes he or she has little to learn from others, including those considered to be "underprivileged;"

  • is not tolerant of individual differences and continues to rely on traditional stereotypes to describe and deal with people who are different from him/herself;

  • has undergone no examination of his/her own beliefs in light of the service experience.


Guide to Rating Critical & Integrative Thinking

Washington State University, Fall 2006
Retrieved April 24, 2008 from http://wsuctprojectdev.wsu.edu/ctr_docs/CIT%20Rubric%202006.pdf
For each of the seven criteria below, assess the work by:

a) circling specific phrases that describe the work, and writing comments

b) circling a numeric score
Note: A score of 4 represents competency for a student graduating from WSU.


    1. Identifies, summarizes (and appropriately reformulates) the problem, question, or issue.


Emerging Developing Mastering

1

2

3

4

5

6

Does not attempt to or fails to identify and summarize accurately.


Summarizes issue, though some aspects are incorrect or confused. Nuances and key details are missing or glossed over.

Clearly identifies the challenge and subsidiary, embedded, or implicit aspects of the issue. Identifies integral relationships essential to analyzing the issue.


Comments:




2. Identifies and considers the influence of context * and assumptions.
Emerging Developing Mastering

1

2

3

4

5

6

Approach to the issue is in egocentric or socio-centric terms. Does not relate issue to other contexts (cultural, political, historical, etc.).
Analysis is grounded in absolutes, with little acknowledgment of own

biases.
Does not recognize context or surface assumptions and underlying ethical implications, or does so superficially.



Presents and explores relevant contexts and assumptions regarding the issue, although in a limited way.
Analysis includes some outside verification, but primarily relies on established authorities.
Provides some recognition of context and consideration of assumptions and their implications.


Analyzes the issue with a clear sense of scope and context, including an assessment of audience. Considers other integral contexts.
Analysis acknowledges complexity and bias of vantage and values, although may elect to hold to bias in context.
Identifies influence of context and questions assumptions, addressing ethical dimensions underlying the issue.

Comments:


Contexts may include:



Cultural/social

Group, national, ethnic behavior/attitude



Educational

Schooling, formal training



Technological

Applied science, engineering



Political

Organizational or governmental




Scientific

Conceptual, basic science, scientific method



Economic

Trade, business concerns costs



Ethical

Values


Personal Experience

Personal observation, informal character





3. Develops, presents, and communicates OWN perspective, hypothesis or position.
Emerging Developing Mastering

1

2

3

4

5

6

Position or hypothesis is clearly inherited or adopted with little original consideration.
Addresses a single source or view of the argument, failing to clarify the established position relative to one’s own.
Fails to present and justify own opinion or forward hypothesis.
Position or hypothesis is unclear or simplistic.


Position includes some original thinking that acknowledges, refutes,

synthesizes or extends other assertions, although some aspects may have been adopted.


Presents own position or hypothesis, though inconsistently.
Presents and justifies own position without addressing other views, or

does so superficially.


Position or hypothesis is generally clear, although gaps may exist.


Position demonstrates ownership for constructing knowledge or framing original questions, integrating objective analysis and intuition.
Appropriately identifies own position on the issue, drawing support from experience, and information not available from assigned sources.
Clearly presents and justifies own view or hypothesis while qualifying or integrating contrary views or interpretations.
Position or hypothesis demonstrates sophisticated, integrative thought and is developed clearly throughout.

Comments:




4. Presents, assesses, and analyzes appropriate supporting data/evidence.
Emerging Developing Mastering

1

2

3

4

5

6

No evidence of search, selection or

source evaluation skills.


Repeats information provided without question or dismisses evidence without adequate justification.
Does not distinguish among fact, opinion, and value judgments.
Conflates cause and correlation; presents evidence and ideas out of sequence.
Data/evidence or sources are simplistic, inappropriate, or not related to topic.


Demonstrates adequate skill in searching, selecting, and evaluating sources to meet the information need.
Use of evidence is qualified and selective.
Discerns fact from opinion and may recognize bias in evidence, although attribution is inappropriate.
Distinguishes causality from correlation, though presentation may be flawed.
Appropriate data/evidence or sources provided, although exploration appears to have been routine.


Evidence of search, selection, and source evaluation skills; notable identification of uniquely salient resources.
Examines evidence and its source; questions its accuracy, relevance, and

completeness.


Demonstrates understanding of how facts shape but may not confirm opinion. Recognizes bias, including selection bias.
Correlations are distinct from causal relationships between and among ideas. Sequence of presentation reflects clear organization of ideas, subordinating for importance and impact.
Information need is clearly defined and integrated to meet and exceed

assignment, course or personal interests.




Comments:




5. Integrates issue using OTHER (disciplinary) perspectives and positions.
Emerging Developing Mastering

1

2

3

4

5

6

Deals with a single perspective and fails to discuss others’ perspectives.
Adopts a single idea or limited ideas with little question. If more than one idea is presented, alternatives are not integrated.
Engages ideas that are obvious or agreeable. Avoids challenging or discomforting ideas.
Treats other positions superficially or misrepresents them.
Little integration of perspectives and little or no evidence of attending to others’ views. No evidence of reflection or self-assessment.



Begins to relate alternative views to qualify analysis.
Rough integration of multiple viewpoints and comparison of ideas or perspectives. Ideas are investigated and integrated, but in a limited way.
Engages challenging ideas tentatively or in ways that overstate the conflict. May dismiss alternative views hastily.
Analysis of other positions is thoughtful and mostly accurate.
Acknowledges and integrates different ways of knowing. Some evidence of reflection and/or self-assessment.


Addresses others’ perspectives and additional diverse perspectives drawn from outside information to qualify analysis.
Fully integrated perspectives from variety of sources; any analogies are

used effectively.


Integrates own and others’ ideas in a complex process of judgment and justification. Clearly justifies own view while respecting views of others.
Analysis of other positions is accurate, nuanced, and respectful.
Integrates different disciplinary and epistemological ways of knowing. Connects to career and civic responsibilities. Evidence of reflection and self-assessment.


Comments:




6. Identifies and assesses conclusions, implications, and consequences.
Emerging Developing Mastering

1

2

3

4

5

6

Fails to identify conclusions, implications, and consequences, or conclusion is a simplistic summary.
Conclusions presented as absolute, and may attribute conclusion to external authority.


Conclusions consider or provide evidence of consequences extending beyond a single discipline or issue. Presents implications that may impact other people or issues.
Presents conclusions as relative and only loosely related to consequences. Implications may include vague reference to conclusions.


Identifies, discusses, and extends conclusions, implications, and consequences. Considers context, assumptions, data, and evidence. Qualifies own assertions with balance.
Conclusions are qualified as the best available evidence within the context. Consequences are considered and integrated. Implications are clearly developed, and consider ambiguities.


Comments:




7. Communicates effectively.
Emerging Developing Mastering

1

2

3

4

5

6

In many places, language obscures meaning.
Grammar, syntax, or other errors are distracting or repeated. Little evidence of proofreading. Style is inconsistent or inappropriate.
Work is unfocused and poorly organized; lacks logical connection of ideas. Format is absent, inconsistent or distracting.
Few sources are cited or used correctly.


In general, language does not interfere with communication.
Errors are not distracting or frequent, although there may be some problems with more difficult aspects of style and voice.
Basic organization is apparent; transitions connect ideas, although they may be mechanical. Format is appropriate although at times inconsistent.
Most sources are cited and used correctly.


Language clearly and effectively

communicates ideas. May at times be nuanced and eloquent.


Errors are minimal. Style is appropriate for audience.
Organization is clear; transitions between ideas enhance presentation. Consistent use of appropriate format. Few problems with other components

of presentation.


All sources are cited and used correctly, demonstrating understanding of economic, legal and social issues involved with the use of information.

Comments:




Overall Rating





Criteria

Score

1.

Identify problem, question, or issue




2.

Consider context and assumptions




3.

Develop own position or hypothesis




4.

Present and analyze supporting data




5.

Integrate other perspectives




6.

Identify conclusions and implications




7.

Communicate effectively




Comments:


Download 0.64 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18




The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2020
send message

    Main page