Case Studies
Examples
Scenarios

Adaptation to the Discipline

References
Specific teaching methods
Key Books

Rubric Scenarios

Following are a number of samples of rubrics, which can be adapted for use with a variety of courses, particularly when qualitative assessment measures are appropriate, for example, when assessing a process as well as a product as in the case of a presentation. Rubrics are also useful in assessing student work that is somewhat difficult to measure, such as a performance, a written paper, or a portfolio. A good rubric is a matrix consisting of appropriate criteria along one axis and degrees of quality along the other. The criteria may be spelled out in a separate column or row, or may be inferred via the descriptions contained in each box of the matrix. By describing what each criterion looks like at various degrees of qualities, the instructor not only creates a framework for fair, objective grading, but also conveys expectations to the students, who are then able to choose and work toward the level of quality (and grade) that they desire. Rubrics can be quantified by assigning a categorical grade to each level of quality (A, B, C, etc.) or actual points to each intersection of criterion and quality.

The sample rubrics presented have been organized into three general categories:

rubrics used to assess the quality of the process of students’ participation and interaction with their peers, including course participation, class discussion, group work, and teamwork in a field setting;
rubrics used to assess the products of individual assignments; and
rubrics used to assess the quality of processes/products that represent major instructional aspects of the course, such as a case study, field lab, presentation, and portfolio, or an individual investigation which constitutes the entire course.

Process rubrics: participation and interaction

Course participation

In some courses, such as those involving smaller size classes in which discussion and/or cooperative group work and student presentations play a prominent role, participation is a key element, and is therefore, considered a requirement for successful completion of the course. On-line courses that expect students to communicate with each other electronically are included in this category. The following rubric illustrates a framework for assessing the satisfaction of the participation requirement in a course. Wherever blank lines appear, instructors should use specific numbers based on department guidelines and appropriateness within the context of the course, number of times the class meets, etc. Quality of group participation can be assessed via teacher observation and written feedback from members of the group.

Sample Participation Rubric

Non-participant

Participant

Active Participant

· Missed ____ of the class sessions (including on-line chats)

· Was late for ___ of the class sessions (including on-line chats)

· Did not post required number of times per week

· Did not work well as a team member during face-to-face or on-line group activities (e.g., during group activities, the participant did not participate equally; refused to contribute; was controlling and did not share tasks)

· Did not contribute ideas, input, or content to group products

· Very little consideration or effort was made by the participant to factor in diverse or individual learning styles or to actively listen during group discussions and presentations

o Did not listen actively by commenting or asking follow-up questions during most discussion and panel presentations

· Was not supportive of other participants by encouraging critical thinking and diverse ideas

· Attended ___ of the class sessions (including on-line chats)

· Was late for only one or two class sessions (including on-line chats)

· Posted ___ of the required number of times

· Worked well as a team member during most face-to-face or on-line group activities, but at times did not contribute or was controlling

· Ideas, input, and content incorporated in the majority of group products

· Participant was a responsive team member, but at times forgot to attend to diverse or individual learning styles of other members or to listen actively during group discussions and presentations.

o Listened actively by commenting or asking follow-up questions during some discussion and panel presentations

· Was supportive of most other participants by encouraging critical thinking and diverse ideas

· Attended all but one of the class sessions (including on-line chats)

· Was rarely late for only one or fewer class sessions (including on-line chats)

· Posted at least the minimum number of times required per week

· Worked consistently as a collaborative team member during face-to-face and on-line group activities (e.g., during group activities, the participant consistently participated equally, was rarely controlling, and encouraged the participation of others)

· Ideas, input, and content incorporated into all group products

· Participant was a responsive team member, and attended to diverse or individual learning styles of other members and listened actively during group discussions and presentations.

o Listened actively by commenting or asking follow-up questions during most discussion and panel presentations

· Was supportive of all other participants and the facilitators and guest presenters by encouraging critical thinking and diverse ideas

Leading class discussion.

Group or Team Project Discussion Rubric

(Assignment worth ___ Points)

Your team will be evaluated according to preparedness as follows.

Ineffective	Emerging	Effective
Not all members of the team were present; Team unable to present plan; Presentation did not follow most directions	All team members attended class but presentation did not follow all directions	Team attended class and presented/discussed their plan
Team did not have needed materials (e.g., mentioned materials they did not bring) and was disorganized	Team had needed materials but difficulty in sharing them with others (e.g., the materials were hard to see or understand)	Team had relevant materials, shared and discussed the materials effectively and was well organized

Individual Speaker Presentation Rubric (Assignment worth ___ Points)

Turn in Outline including comments on:

Overview of journey (e.g., where you started, where you ended, how you got there)
Identification of strategies planned for informing/persuading

You will be evaluated according to preparedness and presentation skills as follows.

Ineffective

Emerging

Effective

Not present on day scheduled. Presentation was completely unorganized and did not follow most directions.

Present as scheduled but not ready. Presentation was somewhat unorganized and did not follow all directions.

Ready to present as scheduled.

Presentation was organized, assignment directions followed.

Did not have needed materials (e.g., mentioned materials they should have brought).

Had needed materials but were hard to see or understand.

Had relevant materials, shared and discussed the materials effectively.

Rubrics in this example developed by Kristie Pretti-Fronczak with modifications by Jerry Feezel

Group Work

Group Evaluation Rubric

Criterion	4	3	2	1
Effort	Produced additional resources for the group; extraordinary effort demonstrated	Fully prepared; completed all agreed tasks; competent, but not extraordinary	Minimal preparation; superficial knowledge of resources; minimal effort	Little or no evidence of preparation; no effort shown
Attitude	Exceptionally positive and constructive; encourages other group members	Positive; supportive; mostly constructive and upbeat	Neutral; neither encouraging nor discouraging; disinterested in the performance of others	Disparaging; negative, withdrawn or belligerent; absent
Contribution	Outstanding contribution; above-and-beyond; work is excellent in form and substance	Good quality work; few revisions or additions are necessary	Poor quality work; substantive errors; much revision and editing is required	Poor quality; little, if any, contribution to group goals

Group Member	Group	Effort	Attitude	Contribution	Total

Teamwork in a field setting

Rubric for Evaluating Assessment Lab: Student/Team Ratings

__ Points Total

Required Elements

Attend Home Visit/Observe child in home setting
Complete Formal Family Assessment (i.e., Family Report) - submit
Attend PBA/Observe child in center-based setting
Administer the AEPS and another instrument (standardized and/or normed) – submit both protocols
Video Tape home visit and play-based assessment
Complete AEPS Data Recording Form (including area percentage graphs)
Completed Child Progress Record
Summarize findings (i.e., Present Level of Performance)
E-mail reflection

Student/Team Ratings

Group Work – As a group, how well did members of your group work together? For example, was the workload distributed fairly, did all members fully participate, and did the team present a clear and organized front to families?
Dysfunctional	Middle Management	Functional, Productive, and Happy
· All members were not included and did not participate equally · Certain members refused to contribute · Certain members were controlling and did not share tasks · Very little consideration or effort was made by team members to factor in diverse or individual learning styles · Products do not represent input or ideas from all team members	· All members were included, but at times, the work was not divided fairly or equitably · Team members were responsive, but at times forgot to attend to diverse or individual learning styles · Some of the products represent consensus of ideas and options · Some of the products were created with input from all team members	· Each member of the team was responsive to other members’ diverse or individual learning styles and pace · All members participated equally – good division of labor · Products represent consensus of ideas and options · Products were created with input from all team members
Total # of points for group work: ______ Comments:

Name of group member:______________________________________

Individual Collaboration – Based upon the perspective of each student, how well did each member of your group work together? For example, was the workload distributed fairly, did all members fully participate, and did each member present a clear and organized front to families? Complete one rating for yourself and one for each of the team members.
Needs Improvement	Satisfactory Understanding	Good Understanding	Thorough Understanding
· Works toward group goals only when prompted · Contributes to the group only when prompted · Needs occasional reminders to be sensitive to the feelings of others · Participates in needed changes when prompted and encouraged	· Works toward group goals with occasional prompting · Contributes to the group with occasional prompting · Shows sensitivity to the feelings of others · Participates in making necessary changes with occasional prompting	· Works toward group goals without prompting · Accepts and fulfills individual role within the group · Contributes knowledge, opinions and skills without prompting · Show sensitivity to the feelings of others · Willingly participates in needed changes	· Consistently and actively works toward group goals · Is sensitive to the feelings and learning needs of all group members · Willingly accepts and fulfills individual role within the group · Consistently and actively contributes knowledge, opinions and skills · Values the knowledge, opinion and skills of all group members and encourages their contribution · Helps group identify necessary changes and encourages group action for change
Total number of points for individual collaboration: _____ Comments:

Instructions for Completion of Evaluation

As a group, please complete the following sections: Collaboration and Group Work.

Consider the team as a whole when considering the various elements in each category. Considerations for an individual team member’s performance are included in the category descriptions where appropriate. Please circle the category in each section that you feel best represents the team’s performance. Place the actual number of points given in the space provided in the comments section. Space is provided at the end of each section for further comments if necessary. Additionally, each member of the group will award points to every individual on the team for his/her contribution to the collaboration effort. Thus, each team member will rate him/herself and the other three members of the team for a total of a possible 100 points.

Individual assignment product rubrics

Learning logs/reflective journals

As part of their Professional Development Project, the students in my Inquiry into Teaching and Learning classes were expected to complete weekly learning logs on their field experience. The questions to be addressed were as follows:

What activities did I perform this week and what did I observe?
What did I learn and how will this information help me?
What do I still need to know and what will I do to learn more?
In what ways did I observe integration of theory and practice?

In the previous semester, student suggestions for improving the course included reducing the number of logs required; and in final course evaluations, some students complained about “busy work”. In addition, the quality of many of the logs left much to be desired. In spite of my explanation that reflection is an important part of teaching, and in spite of my numerous comments on logs asking for insights and thoughtful reflection, many of the students just didn’t seem to be getting the message.

Therefore, besides providing feedback only (no grade) on the first log as I had done in previous semesters, I made three major changes.

The total number of graded logs would be five (5), with the students choosing on which weeks they wanted to write logs. In this way, we would emphasize quality, rather than quantity, hopefully transforming the writing of the logs from a tedious chore to a thoughtful learning experience.
The students participated in a brief class exercise in which they described (out loud) their chairs, for the purpose of illustrating Wenger’s Principle of Description: that which we describe in detail, we become more aware of. The connection was then made with the learning logs, in that the students were expected to observe carefully what was happening in the field setting, and describe their observations in sufficient detail so that the reader would get a clear, specific picture of their experience.
I developed and discussed in class the Inquiry II Professional Development Project Learning Log Rubric so that the students could clearly see my expectations and understand what a quality product would look like.

[rubric needs to be copied from PDF file or click on icon]

Other examples of rubrics for individual assignments

Performance on other types of assignments can also be assessed using rubrics. The following Controversial Therapies Assignment Rubric was developed to judge how well students in a special education class described a low incidence disability and two or more therapies used to address that disability, providing relevant background information and weighing the pros and cons of the therapies they described. The students were also expected to report, in APA style, the sources they used in completing the assignment. When developing a rubric for an assignment, it is important that the requirements included in the rubric match those specified in the course syllabus. . Please note the use of points, which introduces a quantitative element.

The Big Idea Rubric, also shown below, was created to assess how well students performed on an assignment which required them to develop an original early intervention activity plan and then revise that plan, incorporating knowledge regarding recommended practice and related information learned in class as well as from outside resources. Although these two rubrics were created for education majors, these matrices could be adapted for use in a variety of disciplines.

Rubric for Controversial Therapies Assignment

30 Points

Required Elements:

· Description of chosen low incidence disability (including information about assessing and intervening)

· Description of at least one controversial therapy

· Description of one supported therapy (must have empirical evidence)

· Pros and cons of the different therapies

· Resources on both the disability and the therapies (presented in APA vol.5 format)

Task Completion – Measures how thoroughly the student completed the required tasks of the assignment following directions specified in the description of assignments and course policies.

Minimal attempt to complete the task and/or content frequently inappropriate

(Fewer than 6 pts)

Partial completion of the task, content mostly appropriate, ideas are undeveloped

(6-7.5 points)

Completion of the task, content appropriate, ideas adequately developed

(8-9.5 Points)

Superior completion of the task, content appropriate, ideas well developed and well-organized (9-10 Points)

· Several required elements were missing.

· Plagiarized substantial portions of other’s work and/or did not cite the work of other appropriately.

· Responses are unrelated to the assigned task

· Most of the required elements present

· Did not consistently cite the work of others and some evidence or plagiarism

· Responses somewhat relevant but lack appropriate details.

· All of the required elements present

· Adhered to all course policies in completing the assignment (e.g., did not plagiarize)

· Responses directly relate to the task as given and are well organized and cohesive

· All of the required elements present and expanded upon.

· Adhered to all course policies in completing the assignment (e.g., did not plagiarize)

· Student is able to use a variety of learned expressions to provide detail.

Professionalism and Critical Thinking – Measures the overall degree to which the assignment was well organized, accurate, usable by others in the field; represented students’ ability to identify basic elements of thought (e.g., purpose, question, inform, interpret, state point of view) and their ability to synthesize multiple perspectives or sources of information.

Novice (12-13.5 Pts)

Apprentice (14-15.5 Pts)

Proficient (16-17.5 Pts)

Distinguished (18-20 Pts)

· Text is almost impossible to understand, even by a sympathetic reader.

· Errors of vocabulary, grammar and/or spelling are frequently made.

· Text requires reader to “figure out” what the student is trying to say.

· Does not seek outside sources of information upon which to draw conclusions.

· A sympathetic reader should be able to “figure out” most of the text.

· Minimal original thoughts and expansion of ideas or hypotheses development

· Collects information from a single source and/or descriptions of an instrument only from the test manual.

· Heavy reliance upon direct quotes to provide information, make key points, and justify conclusions.

· A sympathetic reader should be able to understand all of the text with very brief pauses.

· Collects evidence from a couple of sources, but primary reliance on the WWW

· Accurately interprets evidence collected, but interprets mostly from past experience or options.

· Appropriate reliance on direct quotes to provide information, make key points, and justify conclusions.

· Any reader should be able to understand all of the text with very brief pauses and with little background knowledge.

· Ideas/thinking and examples have originality, depth, and are elaborated upon (i.e., interprets, analyzes and describes new insight).

· Collects evidence from a wide variety of sources.

· Accurately interprets evidence collected.

· Appropriate reliance on direct quotes to provide information, make key points, and justify conclusions.

Rubric for Big Idea

___ Points

Required Elements:

Original and revised version of Product(s)
E-mailed copy of activity plan to everyone in the class
Brief contextual statement regarding changes made and rationale for doing so

Task Completion – Measures how thoroughly the student completed the required tasks of the Big Idea following directions specified in the description of assignments and course policies.

Minimal attempt to complete the task and/or content frequently inappropriate

Partial completion of the task, content mostly appropriate, ideas are undeveloped

Completion of the task, content appropriate, ideas adequately developed

Superior completion of the task, content appropriate, ideas well developed and well-organized

· Several required elements were missing.

· Plagiarized substantial portions of other’s work and/or did not cite the work of other appropriately.

· Responses are unrelated to the assigned task

· Most of the required elements present

· Did not consistently cite the work of others and some evidence or plagiarism

· Responses somewhat relevant but lack appropriate details.

· All of the required elements present.

· Adhered to all course policies in completing the assignment (e.g., did not plagiarize)

· Responses directly relate to the task as given and are well organized and cohesive

· All of the required elements present and expanded upon.

· Adhered to all course policies in completing the assignment (e.g., did not plagiarize)

· Student is able to use a variety of learned expressions to provide detail.

Growth– Measures the overall degree to which the Big Idea represents a clear change or level of growth from the original product. Measures the degree to which feedback and suggestions were incorporated into the revised product. Extent to which revised product is well-organized, accurate, usable by others in the field; and represented student’s ability to synthesize multiple perspectives or sources of information.
Novice	Apprentice