Rubric for assessment of the text

From VCSEwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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
Creative Commons Author: Jana Dlouhá. This article was published under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. How to cite the article: Jana Dlouhá. (12. 08. 2022). Rubric for assessment of the text. VCSEWiki. Retrieved 15:36 12. 08. 2022) from: <>.