Jennie, I think you did a really nice job choosing the evaluative criteria for your assignment. You chose enough to encompass the activity but not too many to be overwhelming.
I am curious about your quality levels, though. Is there a reason you chose to make the middle levels "1-2" and "3-4" instead of just doing a scale that is 0-3? For many students, the difference between a 3 out of 5 and a 4 out of 5 would be a big deal. Since there is little clarity in the rubric about what the distinction between a 3 and a 4 is, I could see this being frustrating to some students and potentially to you as you try to assign your evaluations fairly.
Jennie, your rubric is well written and comprehensive. It is straight forward and objective in places where it needs to be (Prompts & format/grammar dimensions) and subjective with good descriptions where it is useful (other dimensions). I like the specific delineations of things that distinguish the levels on your scale such as the prior knowledge and research in the alternatives dimension. One thing I would add is a prompt to have the students present their predictions on the experiment. In the rubric you are assessing them on it, but in the task description they are not told to list them out, just to compare them to the conclusions. I suggest changing the first prompt to ask students to present their predictions and conclusions. Overall, I think your students would clearly understand how they are being assessed, and what they need to work on as a result of this rubric.
Jennie, your rubric is written with clear descriptions which allows students to understand what is expected from them. I like how you gave specific examples, "the discussion contained up to contained up to 5 errors in APA format, spelling, and grammar". This gives a very clear picture to students of your expectations. I feel like the values, 3-4 and 1-2 are awkward, which is the same issue I had when creating my rubric. My reasoning behind this was to give students some wiggle room, but after thinking about this, I feel like students don't really need this room. It opens up a debate on whether a student deserved the 3 or the 4, especially since there is no criteria for what differentiates a 3 from a 4. I am interested in hearing your thoughts on why you chose a range versus a single value. I think you did a good job with this rubric and enjoyed reading your interpretation.
Jennie, I think you did a really nice job choosing the evaluative criteria for your assignment. You chose enough to encompass the activity but not too many to be overwhelming.
ReplyDeleteI am curious about your quality levels, though. Is there a reason you chose to make the middle levels "1-2" and "3-4" instead of just doing a scale that is 0-3? For many students, the difference between a 3 out of 5 and a 4 out of 5 would be a big deal. Since there is little clarity in the rubric about what the distinction between a 3 and a 4 is, I could see this being frustrating to some students and potentially to you as you try to assign your evaluations fairly.
Jennie, your rubric is well written and comprehensive. It is straight forward and objective in places where it needs to be (Prompts & format/grammar dimensions) and subjective with good descriptions where it is useful (other dimensions). I like the specific delineations of things that distinguish the levels on your scale such as the prior knowledge and research in the alternatives dimension.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I would add is a prompt to have the students present their predictions on the experiment. In the rubric you are assessing them on it, but in the task description they are not told to list them out, just to compare them to the conclusions. I suggest changing the first prompt to ask students to present their predictions and conclusions.
Overall, I think your students would clearly understand how they are being assessed, and what they need to work on as a result of this rubric.
Jennie, your rubric is written with clear descriptions which allows students to understand what is expected from them. I like how you gave specific examples, "the discussion contained up to contained up to 5 errors in APA format, spelling, and grammar". This gives a very clear picture to students of your expectations. I feel like the values, 3-4 and 1-2 are awkward, which is the same issue I had when creating my rubric. My reasoning behind this was to give students some wiggle room, but after thinking about this, I feel like students don't really need this room. It opens up a debate on whether a student deserved the 3 or the 4, especially since there is no criteria for what differentiates a 3 from a 4. I am interested in hearing your thoughts on why you chose a range versus a single value. I think you did a good job with this rubric and enjoyed reading your interpretation.
ReplyDelete