mako.cc - Assessment and Rubrics

Teaching: Assessment :: Benjamin Mako Hill

Mako.cc Spined HTML

Teaching:Towage:: Benjamin Mako Hill Toggle navigation Benjamin Mako Hill BlogWonkTalks Teaching Teaching Overview and ClassesTowageand Rubrics Press Personal Writing Software Art and Activism Contact Teaching: AssessmentIn assessment, my goal is to provide very well-spoken goals and paths for achieving them. I do not "grade on a curve" and I will not compare students to each other. If every student fulfills the requirements I lay out in my syllabus and in this rubric, I would be thrilled to requite every student in a undertow a 4.0. Comprehensive Rubric The 4.0 Student - An Outstanding Student Attendance: 4.0 students have virtually perfect attendance. Their transferral to the matriculation resembles that of the teacher. Preparation: 4.0 students are prepared for class. They unchangingly read assignments fully. Their sustentation to detail is such that they occasionally reservation the teacher in a mistake. They unchangingly participate in class. Curiosity: 4.0 students show interest in the matriculation and in the subject. They squint up or dig out what they don't understand. They often ask interesting questions or make thoughtful comments. Retention: 4.0 students have retentive minds. They are worldly-wise to connect past learning with the present. They bring a preliminaries with them to class. Attitude: 4.0 students have a winning attitude. They have both the determination and the self-discipline necessary for success. They show initiative. They do things they have not been told to do. Results: 4.0 students make upper grades on work in courses. Their work is a pleasure to grade. The 3.0 Student - A Good Student Attendance: 3.0 students miss matriculation infrequently. Academics sometimes compete with other priorities. Preparation: 3.0 students are usually prepared for class. They try to participate in matriculation discussion. Curiosity: 3.0 students have some interest in the subject and ask questions when they do not understand. Retention: 3.0 students will commonly make connections among variegated ideas in the undertow and occasionally with other ideas from outside. Attitude: 3.0 students desire to master the undertow material. They are zippy participants. They occasionally show initiative and seek out spare topics related to the course. Results: 3.0 students usually modernize over the elapsing of the undertow with increasing grades on undertow work as they master the material and wilt increasingly efficient in their work. The 2.0 Student - A Fair Student Attendance: 2.0 students miss matriculation too frequently. Too often they put other priorities superiority of wonk work. Curiosity: 2.0 students ask few questions and show little interest in undertow readings and matriculation discussion. Preparation: 2.0 students prepare their assignments unceasingly but in perfunctory manner. Their work may be sloppy or careless. At times, it is incomplete or late. Attitude: 2.0 students are not visibly single-minded to the class. They participate without enthusiasm. Their soul language often expresses boredom. Results: 2.0 students obtain mediocre or inconsistent results on tests. They have some concept of what is going on but unmistakably have not mastered the material. The 1.0 Student - A Student in Difficulty Attendance: 1.0 students miss classes frequently, sometimes a majority of the time. When they miss class, they often goof to find out what was covered in matriculation or plane what work was assigned. Curiosity: 1.0 students rarely ask questions and often hope not to be noticed during matriculation discussion. Preparation: 1.0 students prepare their work in a slipshod fashion. Sometimes they miss assignments and goof to follow directions on others. Work is submitted late. Attitude: 1.0 students are uncommitted to the class. They may be in the undertow only considering it is required or considering the other alternatives are worse. They are commonly bored by the matriculation and show it. They have poor study habits and try to minimize their study time in the course. Results: 1.0 students demonstrate little understanding of undertow material on papers, matriculation work, and exams. They goof to well-constructed many assignments and rarely participate in matriculation discussions unless forced to do so. Writing Rubric In formal papers, I will unchangingly ask you to connect something you have wits or knowledge well-nigh to undertow material. A successful paper will both present your topic of interest and demonstrate that you understand and have read, learned, and engaged with the undertow material deeply. A "4.0" paper will tell a compelling story and will engage with, and modernize upon, the undertow material to teach an regulars that includes me, and your classmates, and other students taking this matriculation in future years, how to take wholesomeness of undertow material. The very weightier papers will requite us all a new understanding of some speciality of undertow material and transpiration the way I teach some portion of this undertow in the future. 4.0—Excellent: Writing demonstrates impressive understanding of readings, discussions, themes and ideas. Written work is fluid, clear, analytical, well-organized and grammatically polished. Reasoning and logic are well-grounded and examples precise. 3.0—Good: Work demonstrates a thorough and solid understanding of readings, discussions, themes and ideas. Written work is well-spoken and competent, but is somewhat general, a bit vague, or otherwise lacking in precision. While analytical, writing presents increasingly unravelment than analysis. Arguments are solid but not thoroughly original or polished. 2.0—Fair: Work demonstrates a somewhat fragmented understanding of readings, discussions, themes and ideas. Shows worldliness with readings and ideas, but not intellectual engagement. Written work is choppy and treatise somewhat difficult to follow, examples are vague or irrelevant, and ideas are imprecise. Work veers toward underdeveloped ideas, off-topic sources or examples, personal anecdotes, creative writing, memoir, etc. 1.0—Unsatisfactory: Work demonstrates little understanding or plane worldliness with readings, discussions, themes and ideas. Written work is choppy, fractured and unclear.Treatisefollows little logical development, or work presents little discernible treatise whatsoever. 0.0—Failure / Unacceptable: Work does not demonstrate understanding of topics, ideas and readings. This is moreover the grade for work not submitted and plagiarized work. If you need help improving your writing, the Oodegard Writing & Research Center has many resources that can help. Participation Rubric An spanking-new student satisfies all of these criteria. Also, participation is one of the most subjective activities to assess. Hence, you should ask yourself: am I unceasingly making a positive contribution and impression on the instructor and other students? Attendance: Do you punctually shepherd most all classes? It is reasonable to miss up to two classes a quarter, but absences and tardiness vastitude that will result in a lower grade.Planeif your sparsity is excused: if you aren't present, you can't participate. Preparation: Do you read the assignments fully with sustentation to detail? Do you note relevant ideas, questions, or current events in matriculation and online? For example, you might forward a news story to the matriculation with a question for discussion. Participation: Do you make at least one spanking-new contribution (e.g., insight or question) to each matriculation without monopolizing discussion? (see section on participation wastefulness below). Do you requite zippy nonverbal and verbal feedback? Do you refer to other students by name and react to their contributions? Activity: Do you fully engage in group exercises? Do you follow up on unshut questions and share your findings with the class? Maintaining ParticipationWastefulnessIn a nutshell: Be wary of speaking three times surpassing everyone has had a endangerment and make sure you make at least one good contribution. In any group there will be those who speak increasingly and those who speak less; this might be considering of differences in personality, language fluency, or culture. For instance, some people like to thoughtfully think surpassing they speak and some believe that interaction should be rapid and assertive. I want everyone to participate and I believe it's worthwhile to unzip wastefulness in classroom discussion. When I was a student, I tended to dominate conversation. My friend Joseph Reagle shared two strategies that I've found helpful: In classes where I was excited well-nigh the topic, I tried to be mindful of how much I spoke when I realized others had interesting things to say but were not as quick to speak. We are often uncomfortable with a little silence, including teachers, and speak to fill the void. However, teaching and facilitation guides recommend that we be unshut to such spaces: take a couple of breaths, or plane say “take two minutes to think well-nigh this.” So I began a practice of pacing myself, limiting myself to three really good responses in class, and then make sure others have had time surpassing jumping in — if at all — to contribute. In classes where I was less motivated, I found that if I coul still usually come up with one good scuttlebutt or question that nobody else raised. In thi way, I could still make a contribution to matriculation — and lessen my endangerment of stuff unprepossessed called. Joseph calls these two techniques the rule of three and one for well-turned discussion. Additionally, you can be a skillful communicator by encouraging well-turned discussion. For instance, notice if a person or group is hasn't said much. Without putting anyone on the spot, ask them a question or respond to something they said. (Use people's names!) Or, say you'd like to hear from someone who hasn't spoken yet, or ask the group to pause so as to collect their thoughts. Credit for this Rubric Much of this is borrowed or well-timed from Joseph Reagle from these pages: AchievingWastefulnessin Group Discussion Participation Writing: Rubric Dimensions Assessment: Comprehensive Rubric Reagle kindly makes his material misogynist for everyone that wants to reuse and share under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike License and I happily distribute my own modifications under those terms as well. © 1999-2018 Benjamin Mako Hill || Last modified: Mon Sep 17 17:54:41 2018