The following rubrics and guidelines are the
ones that I use most often. I always
assess grammar, spelling and writing conventions as part of your mark
allocation.
1.
Essay-type
questions:
Structure, register
|
Language use,
mechanics
|
|
70+
|
Academic essay addressing the task in depth and in all aspects.
|
Superior vocabulary, complex sentences, academic ‘tone’, sub-headings.
Sources are integrated and referenced correctly.
|
60
|
Coherent argument addressing aspects of the task in a competent
manner.
|
Everyday vocab, sentence structure is language appropriate, few slips
of the pen/ keyboard. No colloquialisms, fairly formal tone, structure clear
if not always signposted. Sources superficially integrated.
|
50
|
Direct answer to task, point by point, rather than one argument.
Response requires focus and particularity.
|
Simple, short sentences, colloquial language slipping in, evidence of
L1 sentence structure, spelling/ grammar errors. No integration of sources
and irrelevant quoting.
|
40
|
Misunderstood the task, focus vague, irrelevant aspects.
|
Spelling/ grammar errors dominate and interfere with understanding. No
or confusing referencing.
|
2.
Grammar
presentations (/25):
Good
|
Average
|
To be re-done
|
|
Quality of the presentation:
/10
|
Legible, properly spaced,
well-structured. Effects (if used) support the content. Presenters talk to
the slides and don’t read the slides. (8 – 10)
|
Font too small, use of
colours makes reading difficult, dysfunctional fussiness. Presenters seem
unsure of content, inaudible. (5 -7)
|
Presentation
not ready, structure not clear, group members disorganised or absent. (0)
|
Quality of the
explanation: /10
|
Clear, logical and
sufficient: explanation is succinct and covers the main points. (8 – 10)
|
Explanation unbalanced,
partial explanation, misunderstanding/ incorrect elements. (5 - 7)
|
Serious
misunderstanding evident. (Below 5)
|
Language use in
presentation: /3
|
Presentation was proofread,
no distracting errors. (3)
|
Grammar/ spelling errors
distracting. (2)
|
More than 5
grammatical or spelling errors in the presentation. (1)
|
Quality of exercise: /2
|
Exercise tests the
particular grammar point; some fill-in elements but also contextualised
exercises. (2)
|
Fill-in, decontextualized
exercise, not addressing the topic. (1)
|
Exercise does
not deal with the topic. (0)
|
3.
Materials
development assignments
Please see the course outline: The way in which
I will assess your shorter assignments and group work will be by means of credits:
10 if you fulfilled the requirements of the task, 5 if you almost made it and 0
if you missed the boat completely. For materials development I sometimes double
these marks, so that I can give better feedback. A good, but not necessarily
brilliant literature lesson may get 15/20 and an average one, 10/20, etc.
4.
Developing
questions for grammar, reading comprehension, etc.
The mark allocation is usually given per
question, with marks allocated for your instruction (what, and how learners
should answer, as well as how much and where they should answer); the
formulation of the question, the mark allocation and the memorandum. I subtract
up to 50% of the marks for incorrect language use (spelling, grammar errors,
etc) because the one place that you CANNOT make mistakes, is when setting tests
and assignments.
5.
Interactive
notebook assessment
Your notebook will be graded at the
end of the first and second semester unless otherwise noted.. The rubric below
will be used to grade your notebook. Check your notebook before each notebook
check to be sure you can receive the maximum number of points.
Category
|
A
Your Goal!
|
B or C
|
D or F
|
Notebook
Organization
(5 points)
|
All pages
have numbers, dates, & titles. Table of contents is up to date. It is
neat and organized properly.
|
Missing a
few page numbers, dates and titles. Table of Contents is up to date. It is
fairly neat and organized.
|
Missing
many page numbers, dates and titles. Table of Contents is missing many
entries. Notebook is not neat and organized
|
Points Earned
|
5
|
4 3 2
|
1 0
|
Right side
“Input”
(15
points)
|
All notes
and inserts are present. Notes are neat, detailed and accurate.
|
Most notes
and inserts are present. Notes are legible/mostly complete.
|
Missing
many notes and inserts. Notes are sloppy/ incomplete.
|
Points Earned
|
15 14
|
13 12 11
|
10 9 8
7 6 5 4 3
2 1 0
|
Left Side
Note-taking & Note-making Activities
(15
points)
|
Evidence
of sustained note-taking and note-making. Writes with adequate detail that
shows much evidence of thinking/ knowing and self-monitoring.
|
Evidence
of note-taking and note-making. Detail shows good evidence of thinking/ knowing,
but self-monitoring is lacking.
|
Little
evidence of note-taking and note-making. Shows limited evidence of
thinking/knowing.
|
Points Earned
|
15 14
|
13 12 11
|
10 9 8
7 6 5 4 3
2 1 0
|
Total
Points Earned: 35. For the final assessment, the last category will be added.
|
|||
Reflection:
to be aligned with the evidence presented in the first 3 categories.
(15
points)
|
Final
reflection clearly demonstrates awareness of the purpose of the notebook and
of self-assessment and growth of understanding. Reflection links up with
activities and notes in the notebook. It illustrates the ability to
effectively critique work meaningfully.
|
Reflection
demonstrates some awareness of the
purpose of the notebook and of self-assessment and growth of
understanding
There is
evidence of the ability to effectively critique work (linking up with
evidence of self-monitoring), but this is not supported by the evidence
provided in the first three categories.
|
Reflection
is general and is not connected meaningfully to the evidence presented in the
notebook. Critique of own work is disproportionate to the evidence of
self-monitoring. Links to notebook are clearly to activities inserted after
the class was presented.
|
Points Earned
|
15
14
|
13 12
11
|
10 9
8 7 6 5 4
3 2 1
0
|
Total
Points Earned
(50
Possible)
|
|||
Comments:
