A grading matrix or rubric is often useful when students implement a blog, participate in discussions, or must meet a particular standard. Students are required to interact with their peers, actively participating in accessing information, displaying the information, and discussing the information at various levels. The following are examples of grading rubrics, which can easily be adapted to suit your grading needs. The first is a matrix for grading Web Logs or BLOGS. The second example is a rubric for grading discussion participation, and third is an example of a rubric used for grading dispositions. The final example includes a general scale and rubrics for individual and group presentations. Or check out these samples.
Print |
BLOG Matrix |
Discussion Forum Rubric |
Rubric for Dispositions |
General Rubric |
Quality Matters Rubric |
CRITERIA |
5 |
4 |
3 |
2-1 |
0 |
| Regularity | Entries were made in the log book on the same day class was given or exposure to language occurred. | Entries in the log book were made respecting deadlines. | Entries often respect deadlines but some have been recorded afterwards. | Does not have records and work up to date. Notes are disorganized and do not reflect what was done in class. | Has opened logbook but has recorded very few entries. |
| Extra exposure to language | Student shows a great deal of exposure to target language outside classroom and always searches for different opportunities to be actively involved. (much active involvement) | Student shows evidence of exposure to target language outside classroom and often searches for opportunities to be actively involved. (some active involvement) | Some evidence of exposure to target language outside classroom. Student occasionally searches for opportunities to be involved. (mostly passive involvement) | Very little exposure to target language outside classroom. Exposure is accidental and depends on outside factors or pressure. (only passive involvement) | No exposure to target language outside classroom. |
| Reflection | Reflection indicates that student is listening well in different contexts and is able to relate what is heard to what is read | Reflection indicates that student is listening well in class and outside the classroom situation | Reflection alludes to what student has heard in class and outside the classroom situation | Student makes minimal reference to what is heard in class or outside class | Student makes no reference to what is heard in class or outside class |
| Organization and Vocabulary | Text is uniformly organized, and there is a consistent use of new vocabulary. Student attempts to use new expressions and complex structures. Details varied and vivid. | Text is generally organized, new vocabulary has been used and student tries to use synonyms. Some connectors are present. | Some organization is present but some no smooth transition between one sentence or the other. Vocabulary not appropriate at times. Endings may sometimes be awkward or abrupt. | Text lacks organization, and vocabulary is poor and there is a lot of repetition. Simple sentence patterns . | No development of narrative elements. No details. Incomplete sentences. Very simplistic vocabulary. |
Accuracy |
One or two minor errors.
No major errors. Writing has been checked for spelling and grammar. |
No more than six combined errors (major and minor).
Errors do not cause significant reader confusion. Writing has been checked for spelling and grammar. |
Some minor errors. Some major errors.
No fewer than five combined errors (major and minor). Some errors cause reader confusion. Writing has been checked for spelling |
Many minor errors. Many major errors.
Many errors cause reader confusion and interference with understanding. Writing has not been checked for spelling and grammar. |
Many major and minor errors causing reader confusion.
Difficult to read. No attempt was made to spell/ grammar check. |
Discussion Forum Grading Rubric
|
CRITERIA |
4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Case Study Prepared | All sections completed by due date. Several constructive thoughts in each section. |
not prepared by due date | Limited preparation: some sections more complete than others or limited information in all or some areas, but met due date | Did not meet due date |
| Citations | "2" and "3" AND cites from relevant professional journals with correct APA style | "2" AND cites other relevant texts (from recommended list or others within last 5 years) | good citations, correct format, but from required text only | opinion only; OR no citations |
| Group Dynamics or Netiquette |
"2" AND discusses with courtesy other's responses even if the student disagrees. Presents relevant information to support disagreement in a professional manner | discusses with courtesy other's responses that are in agreement with your own | socializes only; OR frequently gets group off task; OR rude or devalues other student's contributions |
Did not meet due date |
| Discussion Contribution (Relates to other's cases) | "3" AND raises new related issues and stimulates new discussion with support from the literature | raises opposing views with literature documentation; OR provides supporting views with new information | Builds on the same information as original post, and provides only similar supporting information | offers information from own clinical experience only without supporting documentation; OR only offers "I agree or disagree" statements |
Five Reasons to Use Peer Assessment in Groups
The use of graded group work continues to grow. Although by no means the perfect instructional method, it is an approach that includes many potential side benefits. A recent article contains a list of the justifications behind using peer assessments in groups.
- This policy removes faculty from the position where they are the “sole arbitrators of success or failure.” (p. 275) When part of the evaluation process is given to students, they experience a policy that operationalizes the shared responsibility that is inherently a part of learning in collective contexts.
- Teachers cannot be a part of everything that happens in all the groups. Students know firsthand what happened in their group, and that puts them in a “logical position to be able to judge... the individual contributions of their peers.” (p. 275)
- Peer feedback is specific — it assesses what an individual did in the context of a particular task. And usually in the case of peer assessment in groups, the feedback is delivered promptly when it stands to have the most impact.
- This approach builds accountability into the group process. It holds students accountable to others in the group. They may be able to pull the wool over a teacher’s eyes, but it is much more difficult to deceive fellow group members working jointly on a shared project.
- Students need to learn how to constructively deliver feedback to peers. It’s a skill required in many professional contexts. Peer assessment teaches them “valuable skills about the learning process and about teamwork efforts.” (p. 275)
This list is part of a much longer article on the design and assessment of group work. It includes several forms that can be used by students to assess overall group effectiveness as well as the contributions of fellow group members.
Reference: Willis, D. and Millis B. J. (2004). An international perspective on assessing group projects. To Improve the Academy, 22, 268-283.
The South Dakota Department of Education and the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education requires teacher education programs to develop and assess student knowledge, skills, and “attitudes” or “dispositions.” These attitudes or dispositions are outlined in ten standards developed by the Interstate New Teacher Assessment Support Consortium (INTASC). Each of the criteria listed below reflects one or more of the INTASC standards. For a complete description of each of these standards, please see http://www.ccsso.org/projects/Interstate_New_Teacher_Assessment_and_Support_Consortium/.
|
CRITERIA |
Acceptable | Moderately Concerning |
Significantly Concerning | Unacceptable |
| Integrity INTASC #10 |
Accepts responsibility for performance | Plagiarism, dishonesty | ||
| Response to feedback INTASC #8, #9 |
Is positive and reflective in response to feedback, discusses it with an open attitude, and attempts to integrate its observations into future performance | Tolerates feedback, but does not demonstrate genuine willingness to discuss it with a focus upon how it may be useful to future performance, shows marginal effort toward integrating observations of how possible improvements in performance may be achieved | Is negative in receiving feedback and discounts what is offered without considering its potential for improving performance | Is inattentive and hostile when feedback is provided, resists suggestions and does not attempt to integrate them into future performance |
| Respect and courtesy exhibited
in interactions with peers and faculty INTASC #3, #5, #7 |
Is polite, uses social etiquette in written and oral expression, demonstrates productive collaboration in cooperative ventures, is respectful of time sensitive expectations | Frequently fails to demonstrate social etiquette, fails to productively integrate personal efforts with group projects and is not timely in meeting expectations | Typically makes demands without social etiquette and responds to others in insensitive manner, contributes to group activities in an oppositional manner and impedes progress with disrespectful response to time requirements | Usually is abrasive and demanding and fails to demonstrate consideration of the feelings, perspectives, and concerns of others with whom interactions take place, sabotages group productivity and impedes achievement of its goal |
| Attitude toward learning INTASC #1, #4 |
Shows eager responsiveness and an enthusiastic response to material and experiences presented, expresses concern in a constructive manner | Appears interested in meeting minimum requirements for desired grade | Periodically is abrasive or oppositional to course requirements | Demonstrates negative response to academic expectations and subject matter presented |
| Expression of concerns INTASC #6 |
Communicates concerns directly with those involved with the difficulty experienced | Evades direct communication and discusses difficulties with those unrelated to concern and/or in a manner that does not accommodate expeditious remedies | ||
| Demonstration of accepted
behavioral norms of society INTASC #10 |
Complies with behavioral standards and norms of responsible citizenship in the classroom, university, community, and society at large | Defies, disrupts, or violates norms of accepted expectations of responsible behavior | ||
| Attitude towards children INTASC #2, #10 |
Utilizes developmentally appropriate approach to education, appreciates individual variation among children, articulates the significance of early childhood for the future of a child, family, and society | Fails to grasp understanding of the relevance of developmental processes when considering children | Shows lack of sensitivity and empathy when considering or interacting with children | Accepts approaches to interacting with young children that reflect maltreatment |
| Commitment to Profession INTASC #2. #10 |
Demonstrates interest in involvement in activities and events that foster professional development | Expresses negative response to involvement in opportunities for professional development required by class expectations | Questions relevance of opportunities for professional development | Refuses involvement with professional development activities |
Regardless of academic performance, evaluations of a student’s behavior with this rubric may affect his or her academic performance.
- Behaviors listed in the “acceptable” column indicate expectations of student behavior. Observations of these behaviors will not affect a student’s grade.
- Observations of behaviors described in the “moderately concerning,”
“significantly concerning,” and “unacceptable” columns will lead to
communication with the student by the course instructor during the semester.
Student failure to remedy the concerns raised will lead to discussion of him
or her when the student is routinely reviewed by the Early Childhood Education
Committee that assesses students for acceptance into the Early Childhood
Education Program and approves promotion to Pre Service Levels 3 and 4.
- Ongoing “moderate concerns” may affect a student’s grade.
- “Significantly concerning” or “unacceptable” dispositions will affect a
student’s grade or lead to failure in a course and arrest progression in the
major of Early Childhood Education.
Below is the general performance criteria that applies to the four categories provided for both individual and group evaluation. Scores range from 1 to 5, "minimal evidence..." to "all requirements met..."
|
CRITERIA |
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
| General Scale | all requirements met; excellent information presented; no elements missing; outstanding presentation and idea development | requirements met with informative, timely and adequately researched information; no elements missing; overall good level of performance | minimum requirement met; satisfactory completion of criterion; minor omissions of information | some evidence of meeting requirement; 1 or 2 minor elements missing | minimal evidence of having met the requirement; major deficiencies in performance; several key elements missing |
|
I. Overall Group Presentation and Scale |
|
|
Introduction included a reference to every speaker topic |
|
|
Gave clear evidence of a central theme |
|
|
Flowed in a logical sequence |
|
|
Used helpful visual aids |
|
|
Conclusion followed logically from the facts presented |
|
|
II. Individual Presentations (1-5) Name _______________________ |
|
Introduction contained appropriate information for project |
|
Gave clear evidence of a central theme |
|
Flowed in a logical sequence |
|
Used helpful visual aids |
|
Conclusion followed logically from the facts presented |
|
Spoke clearly and gave evidence of preparation |
|
|
III. Group Paper |
|
Presented neatly and all appropriate pages typed |
|
Grammar and spelling checked and corrected |
|
Introduction includes all topics in the proposal |
|
Conclusion agrees with the materials presented |
|
All required elements are present |
|
|
IV. Individual Paper Contributions |
|
Presented neatly and typed |
|
Grammar and spelling checked and corrected |
|
Main theme clear in the individual report |
|
At least three main ideas in report |
|
Each idea is explained in a separate paragraph |
|
Ideas developed in a logical sequence |
|
Conclusion is in agreement with the topic presented |
|
References listed supporting the topic |
|
Contributed to the overall final project proposal |
|