|
Robertson, Wendy (Gwen). Transforming Familiar Assignments for the Web, or Teaching An Old Dog New Tricks. Appendix B.
Appendix B: Grading Rubric for Webliographies
|
Below Standard |
Standard |
Outstanding |
| Thesis |
There is no clear focus for the project. Projects in this category may lack clear topics or focus, and do not clearly provide information about the ideas or Websites. The project lapses into simple description with little evaluation. |
Project has clear focus on a particular theme, but does not fully develop a concrete frame of analysis related to topic. Project strays and may drift into other topics. |
Project is clearly organized around well-stated, well-reasoned themes or ideas about a specific feature of a topic or specific historical (or other) issue. The project does not stray from its focus, and evidence of the theme is strong throughout. |
| Development |
The project does not make use of compelling Websites and little analysis is present. General statements are made but not supported with evidence. If details are used, generally simple description or summary information. |
At least cursory reference to theme in Website discussions but project needs to explain how examples help support overall argument. Project does not adequately interpret the evidence it provides. |
This project makes productive use of contextual and/or formal evidence to support and to develop themes. It explains and interprets the evidence and demonstrates why it is relevant to the overall topic of the Webliography. |
| Organization |
Project jumps around from point to point without making connections between ideas and theme. Webliography lacks coherence and seems like a series of claims rather than a focused consideration of an idea. Webliography leaves reader with many unanswered questions. |
Some claims unrelated to overall focus so lack of coherence. Project needs stronger transitions connecting each entry. Entries need more work in terms of their overall completeness. May be able to identify each "writer" rather than reading as an integrated whole. |
Each entry is focused, developed, and related to others as well as to the main theme. Project makes smooth transitions and generally satisfies the questions of skeptical readers. |
| Presentation |
Grammar errors seriously influence understanding (run-ons, fragments, etc.) of entries. Wording and sentence structure are awkward and interfere with understanding. Project has many typos, spelling, and diction errors. |
Entries are generally clear, but sentence structure may be simplistic and/or repetitive in places. There are some grammatical errors. Word choice may be confusing or even inappropriate in places. |
Sentences are complete, vocabulary is sophisticated, and voice is coherent. Structure and word choice are creative and help to establish tone, meaning. Voice of paper is confident. May find small grammar errors, but no pattern of problems. |
Posted February 10, 2005.
All material appearing in this journal is subject to applicable copyright laws.
Publication in this journal in no way indicates the endorsement of the content by the California State University, the Institute for Teaching and Learning, or the Exchanges Editorial Board.
©2005 by Wendy (Gwen) Robertson.
|
