Rubric for assessment of the text: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Jana Dlouha (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Jana Dlouha (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Used for Case study assessment in 2010/2011 course | Used for Case study assessment in 2010/2011 course | ||
{| border=1 | {| border=1 | ||
| '''Criteria/levels of fulfillment''' || 10 || 5 | | '''Criteria/levels of fulfillment''' || max points: 10 || max points: 5 || points: 0 || '''Assessment''' || | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''Content'''|| quality of resources &well-founded argumentation: | | '''Content'''|| '''quality of resources &well-founded argumentation''': text shows knowledge, provides real(measurable) information; details go beyond the obvious or predictable; arguments are based on reliable resources found specifically for research; theories or statistical data presented || insufficient information; details are more or less predictable; sometimes reliable but some of the argument is biased || information is limited,repeated, no specific or original details; the author is just trying to sell an idea or opinion || || | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''Context''' || | | '''Context''' || '''wide context & core of the problem identified''': problems understood in their inter-relationships, interlinked with similar themes, specific information fits into the whole picture; hidden causes of described phenomena are understood || || narrow context: problems not interrelated, random facts presented; specific information out of context || || | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''Practical relevance''' || | | '''Practical relevance''' || combines '''general, theoretical knowledge''' and global features with '''practical consequences''' and local context: shows concrete examples and has practical conclusions || theoretical/practical knowledge and global/local perspective is not sufficiently balanced || from either a purely global or the prevailing local perspective; examples from practice versus generalizations do not work; no practical relevance || || | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''Focus''' || strong conclusions: values behind the topic are clear; | | '''Focus''' || '''strong conclusions''': values behind the topic are clear; main problem identified and discussed (analyzed); narrowing of topics -> channeled towards practical conclusions(at the end of the writing process) || several topics with +- clear priorities; text is sometimes focused on minor problems and neglects importantones || value orientation not certain; numerous topics with noclear priority; weak or totally impractical conclusions || || | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''Clarity''' || logical structure of the text: ideas are clear, (every) paragraph declares a separate point; detail adds to the main idea, elements are in the right place | | '''Clarity''' || '''logical structure''' of the text: ideas are clear, (every) paragraph declares a separate point; detail adds to the main idea, elements are in the right place || ideas & focus of (every)paragraph need to be more specific; details need to be used in proper context(of other elements and main idea) || ideas unclear, seem scrambled, jumbled, and disconnected; structure not logical; details do not fit with the main idea || || | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''Critical approach''' || balanced text: opposing views presented || | | '''Critical approach''' || '''balanced text''': opposing views presented || || one-sided ideology promoted || || | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | | '''Commitment ''' || '''ethics (writing) &length (text)''': writing process basedon ethical values; time spent on writing above average || || ethical principles in writing not satisfactorily respected & time or attention paid to the writing not sufficient || || | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''Individual input & risk-taking ''' || initiative in researching topic: originality of the theme, independent work with resources || some new perspectives, but some are replicated, insufficient initiative | | '''Individual input & risk-taking ''' || '''initiative in researching topic''': originality of the theme, independent work with resources || some new perspectives, but some are replicated, insufficient initiative || description of the problem does not bring any new perspectives; conclusions not original; insufficient resources || || | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | | '''Formal features ''' || respecting '''academic genre''': proper length of paragraphs, sufficient titles and subtitles, sources properly cited in the text and in the list of references – citation format respected || no clear genre and structure, citation +/- OK || mixed genre, titles and subtitles insufficient, sources not properly cited in the text, citation format not correct || || | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | | '''Reaction on the peer review ''' || '''reviewer’s comments respected''' fully – or left out those which are not relevant – in which case an explanation is provided in the discussion || || reviewer’s comments not respected || || | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''Total (points)''' || | | '''Total (points)''' || || || || '''max 100''' || | ||
|} | |} | ||
Revision as of 09:19, 26 November 2010
Used for Case study assessment in 2010/2011 course
| Criteria/levels of fulfillment | max points: 10 | max points: 5 | points: 0 | Assessment | |
| Content | quality of resources &well-founded argumentation: text shows knowledge, provides real(measurable) information; details go beyond the obvious or predictable; arguments are based on reliable resources found specifically for research; theories or statistical data presented | insufficient information; details are more or less predictable; sometimes reliable but some of the argument is biased | information is limited,repeated, no specific or original details; the author is just trying to sell an idea or opinion | ||
| Context | wide context & core of the problem identified: problems understood in their inter-relationships, interlinked with similar themes, specific information fits into the whole picture; hidden causes of described phenomena are understood | narrow context: problems not interrelated, random facts presented; specific information out of context | |||
| Practical relevance | combines general, theoretical knowledge and global features with practical consequences and local context: shows concrete examples and has practical conclusions | theoretical/practical knowledge and global/local perspective is not sufficiently balanced | from either a purely global or the prevailing local perspective; examples from practice versus generalizations do not work; no practical relevance | ||
| Focus | strong conclusions: values behind the topic are clear; main problem identified and discussed (analyzed); narrowing of topics -> channeled towards practical conclusions(at the end of the writing process) | several topics with +- clear priorities; text is sometimes focused on minor problems and neglects importantones | value orientation not certain; numerous topics with noclear priority; weak or totally impractical conclusions | ||
| Clarity | logical structure of the text: ideas are clear, (every) paragraph declares a separate point; detail adds to the main idea, elements are in the right place | ideas & focus of (every)paragraph need to be more specific; details need to be used in proper context(of other elements and main idea) | ideas unclear, seem scrambled, jumbled, and disconnected; structure not logical; details do not fit with the main idea | ||
| Critical approach | balanced text: opposing views presented | one-sided ideology promoted | |||
| Commitment | ethics (writing) &length (text): writing process basedon ethical values; time spent on writing above average | ethical principles in writing not satisfactorily respected & time or attention paid to the writing not sufficient | |||
| Individual input & risk-taking | initiative in researching topic: originality of the theme, independent work with resources | some new perspectives, but some are replicated, insufficient initiative | description of the problem does not bring any new perspectives; conclusions not original; insufficient resources | ||
| Formal features | respecting academic genre: proper length of paragraphs, sufficient titles and subtitles, sources properly cited in the text and in the list of references – citation format respected | no clear genre and structure, citation +/- OK | mixed genre, titles and subtitles insufficient, sources not properly cited in the text, citation format not correct | ||
| Reaction on the peer review | reviewer’s comments respected fully – or left out those which are not relevant – in which case an explanation is provided in the discussion | reviewer’s comments not respected | |||
| Total (points) | max 100 |