(903) 892-2020

Rubrics

Rubrics to be used by WISR faculty –in evaluating each written assignment submitted by students (e.g., module assignments, course term paper, student self-assessments) as well as for evaluating student participation: 

These rubrics are guidelines, for evaluating written assignments and student participation, and some faculty may emphasize some areas more than others, depending on the course and the particular assignment they are evaluating. Also, it is expected that faculty will discuss these guidelines, over time, informally, and in faculty meetings. To compare notes on the usefulness, relative importance, and meaning of different areas, and that they will likely be re-interpreted and even modified, as indicated. as well as each written assignment submitted by students (e.g., module assignments, course term paper, student self-assessments).

For each of the 4 Areas, and two sub-areas of each area, below there are three levels of performance. These rubrics are especially relevant in evaluating written assignments (e.g., module assignments, course term paper, student self-assessments), but some of them are also likely to be useful in evaluating student performance in collaborating with other students (and alumni), in evaluating oral discussions that faculty have with students, and in evaluating student performance in internships, action-research labs, and other action-oriented contexts.

Quite importantly, also, students are to be evaluated with reference to the relevant specific, course outcomes and degree program outcomes are specific.

In addition, in evaluating each assignment, the rubrics are only guidelines, and WISR faculty are expected to use their extensive expert/academic/professional judgement to assess the student’s learning and performance in achieving course and degree program outcomes.

If a student disagrees with the faculty member’s assessment, they have the right to ask that another WISR faculty member, who is qualified in their area of study, review their work. There are also procedures whereby a student may file a grievance (see below). These instances are extremely rare at WISR over more than 40 years, because students and faculty are able to work out any differences by involving another faculty member to bring their perspective to the evaluation process.

There are different standards of expectations for student work, depending on the degree level—BS, MS or EdD—these are embedded in the stated course and degree program outcomes.

Learning Goals and Outcomes for Each WISR Degree Program: https://sites.google.com/wisr.edu/evaluatinglearningatwisr/mission-goals-objectivesoutcomes[to access this page, one must be an enrolled student with a wisr.edu email account]

Levels of Performance

Level 1: requires revisions

Level 2: solid, meets requirement(s), but improvements recommended for future work

Level 3: outstanding, minimal or no improvements recommended

The rubrics below give faculty and student guidance on how student work is to be evaluated at WISR.

Although we do not record letter grades at WISR, we do require that Master’s and Doctoral Students get the equivalent of a B or higher in each course. This would mean that the student is solidly in the #2 level in each area below. To achieve an overall rating of “outstanding” on any particular assignment, the student must receive a “3” in each of the three areas within the rubrics.

For Bachelor’s students, it is required that the student get at least a C in each course. Undergraduates who get a “2” have earned the equivalent of a “B” or “C” in that area of evaluation.  Level 3 is roughly equivalent to A work in that area.

Students are given feedback on how to improve any assignment that is rated #1 category/level in any area below, so that they can make the necessary improvements to earn credit in the course.

Furthermore, students who earn credit in a course, whether they are rated as “2” or “3” in a particular area, are still given feedback on the most important ways in which they further excel, as well as the most important ways in which they should work hard to improve in their future studies.

RUBRICS

33% value of project: Relevance (Addresses Assigned Work and Outcomes)

Relevance of Submitted Assignment to Instructions

  1. Insufficiently relevant
  2. Relevant to the most important and necessary aspects of the assignment
  3. Relevant to all details of the assignment; may have gone beyond requirements for course

Relevance to Course Outcomes and to Degree Program Outcomes

  1. Relevance to required course/degree program outcomes is unclear or not well articulated
  2. Demonstrates relevance to required course/program outcomes
  3. Demonstrates relevance to required course/program outcomes in considerable detail and/or in a number of ways.

 

***

33% value of project: Production (Clarity & Evidence)

 

Clarity of Communication

  1. Can read, but is poorly written, and/or vague
  2. Mostly clear, although some parts could benefit from greater detail and/or explanation
  3. Very engaging, clear, with vivid illustrations and detailed explanations

Evidence Provided by Student to Support their Assertions

  1. Evidence is vague or not well-connected to analysis
  2. There is substantiating evidence, but there could have been greater detail/more evidence, and/or more clearly articulated connection to the points being made.
  3. There is great detail and significant evidence provided, and the connections between the evidence and the analysis/conclusions are clear and persuasive.

 

***

33% value of project: Sophistication (Depth & Engagement)

 

Depth of Analysis

  1. Analysis is somewhat superficial, and/or neglects important considerations regarding perspectives, contexts, and/or facets regarding the topic.
  2. Substantial analysis that considers more than one perspective, and/or more than one context, and/or more than one facet of the topic.
  3. In depth analysis of complexities and subtleties; considers a number of perspectives/angles, and/or dimensions/facets, and/or contexts regarding the topic.

Student engagement in learning (extent to which they student is emotionally involved in learning from the materials as contrasted to “going through the motions”)

  1. The student needs to do some further work in order to demonstrate that they were substantially engaged in learning during the course.
  2. There is evidence that the student was significantly engaged in most aspects of the course.
  3. There is evidence that the student was highly engaged in all aspects of the course.

 

Rubric to be used by WISR faculty as a guide in Oral Exams at WISR (course, mid-program, Comprehensive EdD Oral Exam, and Graduation Review Board exams).

This Rubric is to be used as a guide by WISR faculty, in evaluating student performance in Course Oral Exams, Mid-Program Oral Exams, EdD Comprehensive Oral Exams, and Graduation Review Boards.  These rubrics are to be used to evaluate student oral exam performance when students are discussing their completed assignments (e.g., written papers, theses/dissertations, self-assessments, etc.), and with faculty also being mindful of assessing whether or not students have achieved course outcomes and/or degree program outcomes.

 

Faculty need not fill out these forms, unless requested to do so by the student (in which case the faculty member must comply with the request).

PASSING STANDARDS:  In any case faculty should use these forms to communicate clearly with students how and why they either fail to meet outcome standards, or when they need to make significant improvements going forward (see below):

    • if Student receives a “0” or “1” in any outcome area (1 = a “C”, 0 =”D/F”). in any category, they fail the exam, and must meet with faculty to discuss the work they must do in order to repeat the exam and pass the course, and/or move forward in their studies.
    •  if Student receives a “2” in any outcome area on a course or “mid-program” exam (that is, not the Graduation Review Board or not the Oral Comprehensive Exam for EdD students), they will still pass the exam. However, faculty are to discuss explicitly with the student, and inform the student of special efforts they should take, going forward in that outcome area, in order to progress toward acceptable achievement of degree program outcomes and eventual graduation.
    • In the Oral Comprehensive Exam for EdD Students, and in Graduation Review Boards for students in every degree program, students are expected to receive “3’s” in relation to most topics discussed, and in relation to most outcomes assessed. Students who perform in the “high range” of a “2” on some outcomes, or in relation to some topics, will pass the exam, so long as the student’s performance is clearly most often deserving of a score of “3” with regards to most topics discussed, and so long as there are no outcomes where there are questions about the student’s having achieved that outcome.
    • Further, there are additional rubrics, to be used along with these basic WISR rubrics, that are specifically designed to evaluate EdD student performance on the written and oral comprehensive exams, and the dissertation proposal. For more details, go to the online course site for EDD 693—the Comprehensive Assessment of Student Learning and Plans for the Dissertation:  https://sites.google.com/wisr.edu/edd693comprehensiveassessment/home

[to access this page, one must be an enrolled student with a wisr.edu email account]

 [to access this page, one must be an enrolled student with a wisr.edu email account]

 

 

  3

Outstanding

2

Generally Adequate

1

Still Developing, with Deficiencies

0

Unsatisfactory

Dimensions:
 

 

Overall Understanding

 

Shows a deep/robust understanding of the topic with a fully developed argument per the categories below Shows a partial understanding of the topic, and/or not quite a fully developed argument per the categories below Shows a superficial understanding of the topic, argument not developed enough per the categories below Shows no understanding of the topic and no argument per the categories below
 

Argument

Clearly articulates a position or argument

 

Articulates a position or argument that is somewhat incomplete or limited in scope Articulates a position or argument that is unfocused or ambiguous Does not articulate a position or argument
 

 

 

Evidence

Presents evidence that is relevant and accurate

 

Presents sufficient amount of evidence to support argument

 

Presents evidence that is mostly relevant and/or mostly accurate, but that has some gaps.

And/or

Presents only limited evidence to support argument

Presents evidence that is somewhat inaccurate and/or irrelevant, but corrects when prompted

 

Does not present enough evidence to support argument, but augments when prompted

Presents a lot of inaccurate and/or irrelevant evidence

 

Doesn’t present enough evidence to support argument, even when prompted repeatedly

 

 

Implications

Fully discusses the major implications of the argument or position Adequately discusses some of the major implications of the position Discusses minor implications (missing the major ones) OR does not discuss major implications adequately Doesn’t discuss the implications of the argument or position
 

 

Structure

There is logic in the progression of ideas There are a few areas of disjointedness or intermittent lack of logical progression of ideas Ideas are somewhat disjointed and/or do not always flow logically, making it a bit difficult to follow Ideas are disjointed and/or do not flow logically, hence argument is very difficult to follow
 

Prompting

Did not have to prompt with probing questions at all

 

Prompted minimally to aid their oral presentation and discussion (one or two probing questions) Prompted a lot (a series of probing questions)

 

 

(*Adapted from Grading Rubric for Upper Division History Course, Susan Ambrose, Carnegie Mellon University—Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence, Carnegie Mellon University:  https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/designteach/teach/rubrics.html )

 

 

Learning Goals, Outcomes and Measures for Each WISR Degree Program: https://sites.google.com/wisr.edu/evaluatinglearningatwisr/mission-goals-objectivesoutcomes

[to access this page, one must be an enrolled student with a wisr.edu email account]

parajumpers pas cher parajumpers pas cher parajumpers pas cher parajumpers pas cher parajumpers pas cher parajumpers pas cher golden goose outlet golden goose outlet golden goose outlet golden goose outlet golden goose outlet golden goose outlet nike tn pas cher nike tn pas cher nike tn pas cher nike tn pas cher nike tn pas cher nike tn pas cher stone island outlet stone island outlet stone island outlet stone island outlet stone island outlet stone island outlet tn pas cher moschino outlet moschino outlet moschino outlet moschino outlet moschino outlet moschino outlet valentino outlet valentino outlet valentino outlet valentino outlet valentino outlet valentino outlet cheap nfl jerseys moschino outlet online stone island outlet pandora outlet