(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): 

These rubrics are guidelines, 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

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.

 

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

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