OPTIONAL SEMINAR (THIRD SEMESTER)

          RUBRICS FOR ASSESSING OF ASSIGNMENTS, PROJECTS, DEBATES, SEMINARS AND DISCUSSIONS.

          RUBRICS

                          A rubric is typically an evaluation tool or set of guidelines used to promote the consistent application of learning expectations, learning objectives, or learning standards in the classroom, or to measure their attainment against a consistent set of criteria. In instructional settings, rubrics clearly define academic expectations for students and help to ensure consistency in the evaluation of academic work from student to student, assignment to assignment, or course to course. Rubrics are also used as scoring instruments to determine grades or the degree to which learning standards have been demonstrated or attained by students.

TYPES OF RUBRICS

1. Analytic Rubrics
2. Developmental Rubrics
3. Holistic Rubrics

Analytic Rubrics

An analytic rubric resembles a grid with the criteria for a student product listed in the leftmost column and with levels of performance listed across the top row often using numbers and/or descriptive tags. The cells within the center of the rubric may be left blank or may contain descriptions of what the specified criteria look like for each level of performance. When scoring with an analytic rubric each of the criteria is scored individually.

Developmental Rubrics

Developmental rubrics are a subset of analytic trait rubrics. Generally, this type of rubric would be based on a theory of development.

 Holistic Rubrics

 A holistic rubric consists of a single scale with all criteria to be included in the evaluation being      considered together (e.g., clarity, organization, and mechanics). With a holistic rubric the rater assigns a single score (usually on a 1 to 4 or 1 to 6 point scale) based on an overall judgment of the student work. The rater matches an entire piece of student work to a single description on the scale.

RUBRICS FOR SCIENCE PROJECTS

   SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURES

*    A student should demonstrate that they followed the science project directions in a correct and timely manner. The student effectively used appropriate tools and technologies needed for the project.

    SCIENTIFIC DATA

*     The student effectively recorded appropriate data for the project and clearly noted findings during the project. All data are labelled with date, time, conditions and variables.

    SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS

*      A hypothesis was clearly stated and was demonstrably testable. The student used appropriate scientific terminology to support her conclusions.

    STRATEGIES

*      The student used scientific strategies effectively including developing appropriate tests for the hypothesis. All testing was done in similar conditions with supportable scientific reasoning.

    GRAMMAR AND SPELLING

*       The project is well written, with no spelling or punctuation errors. The written portion of the project should have good sentence structure, cohesiveness and be focussed on the topic from beginning to end. 

    APPEARANCE AND NEATNESS

*        The data should be displayed neatly and clearly labelled. Any displays should be organized and easy to read. The oral presentation of the project demonstrates knowledge with clear language.

    SCORING

*        A rubric is usually scored on a number scale. For example, the Ramapo college masters of science in Educational Technology department developed a science fair project rubric that evaluates the project on a scale of 1 to 5. A score of 5 indicates a project fulfilled all the rubric criteria. 

RUBRIC FOR DEBATES

                                                                Levels of Performance for AFFIRMATIVE Team

Criteria	4	3	2	1	Grade:
1. Organization & Clarity:  Main arguments and responses are outlined in a clear and orderly way.	Completely clear and orderly presentation	Mostly clear and orderly in all parts	Clear in some parts but not overall	Unclear and disorganized throughout
2. Use of Argument:  Reasons are given to support the resolution	Very strong and persuasive arguments given throughout	Many good arguments given, with only minor problems	Some decent arguments, but some significant problems	Few or no real arguments given, or all arguments given had significant problems
3. Use of cross-examination and rebuttal:  Identification of weakness in Negative team’s arguments and ability to defend itself against attack.	Excellent cross-exam and defense against Negative team’s objections	Good cross-exam and rebuttals, with only minor slip-ups	Decent cross-exam and/or rebuttals, but with some significant problems	Poor cross-exam or rebuttals, failure to point out problems in Negative team’s position or failure to defend itself against attack.
4. Presentation Style:  Tone of voice, clarity of expression, precision of arguments all contribute to keeping audience’s attention and persuading them of the team’s case.	All style features were used convincingly	Most style features were used convincingly	Few style features were used convincingly	Very few style features were used, none of them convincingly
					TOTAL SCORE:  _____

                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                     AVERAGE FOR AFFIRMATIVE TEAM:                   _______

                                                                Levels of Performance for NEGATIVE Team

Criteria	4	3	2	1	Grade:
1. Organization & Clarity:  Main arguments and responses are outlined in a clear and orderly way.	Completely clear and orderly presentation	Mostly clear and orderly in all parts	Clear in some parts but not overall	Unclear and disorganized throughout
2. Use of Argument:  Reasons are given against the resolution	Very strong and persuasive arguments given throughout	Many good arguments given, with only minor problems	Some decent arguments, but some significant problems	Few or no real arguments given, or all arguments given had significant problems
3. Use of cross-examination and rebuttal:  Identification of weakness in Affirmative team’s arguments and ability to defend itself against attack.	Excellent cross-exam and defense against Affirmative team’s objections	Good cross-exam and rebuttal, with only minor slip-ups	Decent cross-exam and/or rebuttal, but with some significant problems	Poor cross-exam or rebuttal, failure to point out problems in Affirmative team’s position or failure to defend itself against attack.
4. Presentation Style:  Tone of voice, clarity of expression, precision of arguments all contribute to keeping audience’s attention and persuading them of the team’s case.	All style features were used convincingly	Most style features were used convincingly	Few style features were used convincingly	Very few style features were used, none of them convincingly
					TOTAL SCORE: _______

                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                            AVERAGE FOR NEGATIVE TEAM:                   _______

RUBRIC  FOR SEMINARS

Content	Mechanics	Grade
Major research questions and context of literature are framed and discussed Critical background is mastered Clear and objective summary of the main points of the work under discussion is made A sophisticated understanding of the major strengths and weaknesses of the work under discussion is demonstrated; personal opinions communicated   Thoughtful responses offered to questions raised in discussion	Presentation is well organized Terminology is clearly described Visual aids are clearly designed, effectively used, and authoritatively cited  Group discussion of the important points is stimulated Very few (<2) factual mistakes	A
Major research questions and context of literature are framed and discussed Critical background is mastered Clear and objective summary of the main points of the work under discussion is made A basic understanding of the major strengths and weaknesses of the work under discussion is demonstrated   Thoughtful responses offered to questions raised in discussion	Presentation is organized Terminology is described Visual aids are clearly designed, effectively used, and authoritatively cited  Group discussion of the important points is stimulated Very few (<5) factual mistakes	B
Major research questions and context of literature not identified Critical background is not mastered Main points of the work under discussion not identified A basic understanding of the major strengths and weaknesses of the work under discussion not demonstrated   No response offered to questions raised in discussion	Presentation is disorganized Terminology not explained Visual aids unclear/not used effectively, and/or not cited Group discussion not stimulated Factual mistakes (5-10) distract from major points/discussion	C

RUBRIC FOR ASSIGNMENTS

RUBRIC FOR DISCUSSION