Rubric

Find Rubric
Keep in mind that 49 students have already been assessed using this rubric. Changing it will affect their evaluations.
Scholarship in Practice--Modified
Scholarship in Practice--Modified
Criteria Ratings Pts  
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome 1. Selecting and Evaluating
view longer description
threshold: 2.0 pts
Advanced: Engages in in-depth research and insightful evaluation to determine key resources. Explores a broad range of potential resources including non-standard and cross-disciplinary resources. Critically evaluates credibility, multiple view points, common assumptions, complexities and ambiguities.
3.0 pts
Proficient: Engages in in-depth research. Considers credibility, multiple view points, common assumptions, complexities and ambiguities.
2.0 pts
Beginning: Engages in limited research that results in a superficial selection of resources. Considers credibility of resources but illumination of complexities and ambiguities is limited.
1.0 pts
Unacceptable: No exploration of resources or selection of irrelevant resources. Does not consider credibility or multiple viewpoints common assumptions, complexities or ambiguities.
0.0 pts
pts
3.0 pts
--
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome 2. Application
view longer description
threshold: 2.0 pts
Advanced: All relevant elements of the methodology or frameworks are skillfully and accurately applied.
3.0 pts
Proficient: Critical elements of methodology or frameworks are appropriately applied although more subtle elements are missing.
2.0 pts
Beginning: Critical elements of the methodology or framework are missing, incorrectly applied or unfocused.
1.0 pts
Unacceptable: Demonstrates a misunderstanding of the methodology or framework.
0.0 pts
pts
3.0 pts
--
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome 3. Critique / Analysis / Evaluation
view longer description
threshold: 2.0 pts
Advanced : Analysis of project or practice is deep and elegant. Results are reviewed relative to the goals with thorough, specific consideration of need for further work. Discusses in detail relevant and supported limitations and implications.
3.0 pts
Proficient: Analysis of project or practice is adequate. Reviews results relative to goals with some consideration of need for further work. Discusses relevant and supported limitations and implications.
2.0 pts
Beginning: Analysis of project or practice is brief and lacks depth. Reviews results in terms of the goals with little, if any, consideration of need for further work. Presents relevant and supported limitations and implications.
1.0 pts
Unacceptable: Analysis of project or practice is superficial. Reviews results superficially in terms of the goals with no consideration of need for further work. Presents limitations and implications, but they are possibly irrelevant and unsupported.
0.0 pts
pts
3.0 pts
--
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome 5. Presentation
view longer description
threshold: 2.0 pts
Advanced: Purpose, relevance and central point of presentation are obvious. The presentation is discipline appropriate as gauged by style, format, theoretical premise, and recognition of sources and done at a professional level.
3.0 pts
Proficient: Purpose, relevance and central point of presentation are evident. The presentation is discipline appropriate as gauged by style, format, theoretical premise, and recognition of sources and done at a near-professional level.
2.0 pts
Beginning: Purpose, relevance and central point of presentation are implied. The presentation is discipline appropriate as gauged by style, format, theoretical premise, and recognition of sources and done at a novice level.
1.0 pts
Unacceptable: Purpose, relevance and central point of presentation are neither evident nor implied. The presentation reflects a lack of understanding of the discipline-appropriate norms.
0.0 pts
pts
3.0 pts
--
Total Points: 0.0 out of 0.0