Grading rubrics

Grading plan

[revised 4/21/04]

Assignment	Peer evaluations	Mike's evaluation
Session summaries	--	100
Draft written proposal	100	100
Evaluation of peer evaluations		100
Oral proposal presentation	100	100
Final written proposal	--	100
Total points		600

Grading rubrics

[revised 4/28/04]

What is a grading rubric? A grading rubric is a set of criteria for evaluating your classwork and for giving you feedback.

Why a grading rubric?

To let you know performance expectations and grading standards in advance
To give you constructive feedback
To help you evaluate and improve your work

Proposal Draft: Grading Rubric

Content	Mechanics	Grade
Clear identification of the science problem Imaginative and appropriate selection of appropriate paleotools to address science problem Clear logical argument is outlined Expected products of proposed research are outlined and directly address the science problem	Draft is well organized: basic proposal structure in place Terminology is clearly described Sources of information are authoritative and are cited; figures/tables labeled Questions yet to be addressed are identified for comment by peers and instructor	A
Basic identification of the science problem Straightforward, appropriate use of appropriate paleotools to address question Logical argument is basically complete; some logical gaps Expected products of the proposed research are outlined and address the science problem, if indirectly	Draft is well-organized; basic proposal structure in place Terminology is clear; writing could be clearer Sources of information are authoritative and are cited; figures/tables labeled Most questions yet to be addressed are identified for comment by peers and instructor	B
Science problem not clearly identified Use of selected paleotools is unjustified Logic of the proposal is undeveloped How the proposed research will address the science problem is unclear	Draft is disorganized; major components of proposal structure missing Terminology and writing are opaque Sources of information are not acknowledged or not authoritative; figures/tables not clearly labeled Many questions yet to be addressed are not identified for comment by peers and instructor	C

Evaluation of peer evaluations of draft proposals: Grading Rubric

Content	Mechanics	Credit
Science question clearly identified and described Major strengths and weaknesses of the approach identified Thoughtful constructive criticism offered Adds important ideas, facts, figures or points for consideration in the proposal	Science question concisely paraphrased Criticisms are clearly stated and specific Respect shown for proposer in all comments	A
Science question clearly identified and described Strengths and weaknesses of the approach identified Adds relevant ideas, facts, figures or points for consideration in the proposal	Science questions basically well-paraphrased Criticisms are clearly stated and general Respect shown for proposer in all comments	B
Science question unidentified Strengths and weaknesses of the approach not identified Superficial criticisms offered	Science question misrepresented Criticisms are trivial or too general to be of use Respect shown for proposer in all comments	C

Proposal Presentations: Grading Rubric

An evaluation sheet to be used during the presentation session is here.

Content	Mechanics	Grade
Larger context for the proposed research is framed Science question clearly identified and described Logical and well-structured argument is developed; focus is on major points A sophisticated understanding of the major strengths and weaknesses of the paleotools to be employed is demonstrated Strengths and weaknesses of the proposed work are clearly illustrated and objectively discussed Thoughtful responses offered to questions raised in discussion	Presentation is well organized Science problem clearly posed Terminology is clearly described Visual aids are clearly designed and effectively used Sources of information are authoritative and are cited Audience discussion of the important points is stimulated Very few (<2) factual mistakes	A
Science question clearly identified and described Logical and well-structured argument is developed; focus is on major points A basic understanding of the major strengths and weaknesses of the paleotools to be employed is demonstrated Strengths and weaknesses of the proposed work are brought up Questions answered clearly	Presentation is well organized Science problem clearly posed Terminology is clearly described Visual aids mainly clear and effective Sources of information are authoritative and are cited Very few (<5) factual mistakes	B
Science question unclear; no larger context Logic of the proposal argument is unclear; logical steps missing Incomplete understanding of major strengths and weaknesses of the paleotools to be employed is demonstrated Strengths and weaknesses of the proposed work are not addressed Questions not satisfactorily answered	Presentation is disorganized Science problem not clearly posed Terminology not explained Visual aids unclear/not used effectively Sources of information are not acknowledged or not authoritative Factual mistakes (5-10) distract from major points/discussion	C

Final Written Proposals: Grading Rubric

Content	Mechanics	Grade
Larger context for the proposed research is framed Science question clearly identified and described Logical and well-structured argument is developed; focus is on major points A sophisticated understanding of the major strengths and weaknesses of the paleotools to be employed is demonstrated Strengths and weaknesses of the proposed work are clearly illustrated and objectively discussed Constructive criticism from draft and presentation is addressed	Proposal is well organized and clearly written All written proposal product requirements are met Few (<2) factual errors Few (<2) grammatical/spelling/typo errors	A
Science question clearly identified and described Logical and well-structured argument is developed; focus is on major points A basic understanding of the major strengths and weaknesses of the paleotools to be employed is demonstrated Strengths and weaknesses of the proposed work are brought up	Proposal is well organized and clearly written Most written proposal product requirements are met Few (<5) factual errors Few (<5) grammatical/spelling/typo errors	B
Science question unclear; no larger context Logic of the proposal argument is unclear; logical steps missing Incomplete understanding of major strengths and weaknesses of the paleotools to be employed is demonstrated Strengths and weaknesses of the proposed work are not addressed	Proposal is disorganized and writing is unclear Many written proposal product requirements are not met Factual errors are numerous (>5) and distracting Grammatical/spelling/typo errors are numerous (>5) and distracting	C

Sources:

Rubric Basics
Field-tested Learning Assessment Guide
Tewksbury, B., 1996, Teaching without exams - the challenges and the benefits. Journal of Geoscience Education 44: 366-372, referenced in: Course Notes, National Association of Geoscience Teachers (NAGT) Workshop for Early Career Faculty in the Geosciences: Teaching, Research and Managing your Career, June 1-6, 2002, Williamsburg, VA.
B. Tewksbury, pers. comm., August 2002.

Back to TTT04 syllabus.