`Teaching Portfolio`

Grading Rubric Explanation

Overview of My Grading Criteria

Purpose of Course Assessments

The grading system described in this document is appropriate for all the different types of assessments that I use in my classes. It is important that students carefully read this grading rubric to successfully pass the course.

In general, questions, activities, and problems are designed to assess a moderate amount of material at a reasonably deep level of understanding. Specifically, questions that ask students to generate examples, integrate ideas, compare/contrast research findings, or apply a concept to a unique situation always tap a deeper level of understanding than those that simply ask students to repeat back definitions, lists, examples, or answers to highly similar questions.

Assessing Levels of Performance on Criteria

Regardless of the task you are asked to complete (such as explaining a theory, solving a statistical problem, or providing an example), the same three basic, interrelated indicators of quality apply to the content of your response:

Appropriateness – The extent to which the ideas or method are relevant to the question
Correctness – The extent to which the statements or work is correct and accurate
Completeness – The extent to which a complete or integrated answer is given

Similarly, there are interrelated indicators of quality of the technical Implementation of your work, whether communicated in writing or speech:

Format – The extent to which formal conventions are followed
Usage – The extent to which the language is correct and clear
Consistency – The extent to which mechanics are applied uniformly and reliably

In general, your level of performance in achieving these indicators of quality can be judged on the following general rubric. For each task involved in an answer, performance on that task will be rated as being one of the following:

Unacceptable – Performance does not meet the quality expectations for the task
Problematic – Performance meets low quality expectations for the task
Satisfactory – Performance meets normal quality expectations for the task
Commendable – Performance meets high quality expectations for the task

Application of the Performance Standards

Content of the Response

Most often, I am interested in your ability to provide solid explanations or applications of theories and concepts, research evidence and everyday examples, methodological and statistical procedures, or conclusions and future directions. For each of these components, the levels of performance apply as follows:

Category	Unacceptable (0 Points)	Problematic (1 Point)	Satisfactory (2 Points)	Commendable (3 Points)
Specific Component (0-3 Points)	Response has irrelevant, incorrect, or incomplete information.	Response has vague relevance, major inaccuracies, or insufficient detail.	Response has implied relevance, minor inaccuracies, or broad detail.	Response has explicit relevance, no inaccuracies, and thorough detail.

In the case of sorter course assessments – such as simple self-assessments or other preparatory work – the response involves less effort or less explanation and, thus, generally take less weight in grading.

Category	Unacceptable (0 Points)	Acceptable (1 Point)
Specific Component (0-1 Points)	Response has unclear relevance, major inaccuracies, or insufficient detail.	Response has clear relevance, few or no inaccuracies, and good detail.

Technical Mechanics of the Response

At the same time, submitted work should be more than a bulleted list or disorganized jumble of statements and claims. This refers to technical aspects such as the clarity and structure of both written and verbal presentations, use of professional style in writing and speaking, and use of visual aids and other technology. For each of these components, the levels of performance apply as follows:

Category	Unacceptable (0 Points)	Problematic (1 Point)	Satisfactory (2 Points)	Commendable (3 Points)
Specific Component (0-3 Points)	Implementation has improper format, serious errors, or lacks consistency.	Implementation has inadequate format, major errors, or poor consistency.	Implementation has acceptable format, minor errors, or adequate consistency.	Implementation has proper format, minimal errors, and good consistency.

In the case of sorter course assessments – such as in-class essays – the quality of the mechanics may become less of an emphasis than it was for longer assessments.

Category	Unacceptable (0 Points)	Acceptable (1 Point)
Specific Component (0-1 Points)	Implementation has inadequate format, major errors, or poor consistency.	Implementation has acceptable format, minor or no errors, and has adequate consistency.

Combining the Criteria for Specific Course Assessments

Most course assessments involve multiple criteria. In these cases, each of the components would be assessed using a version of tasks and rubric categories above. The appropriate combined rubric for the course assessment will simply stack the separate categories to create a final rubric and the point total will be determined similarly. Some assessments are relatively simple and will contain only a couple of rubric categories, whereas other assessments – such as exams, papers, projects, etc. – are relatively complex tasks that contain many components.

Specific Criteria for Shorter Essays

Short essays are generally appropriate for exams. Here the purpose is to assess your ability to explain a specific concept, either in a general sense or through examples. Because it is an essay question, it will be expected to have a proper written form (i.e., sentence and paragraph structure, APA style, etc.).

Category	Unacceptable (0 Points)	Problematic (1 Point)	Satisfactory (2 Points)	Commendable (3 Points)
Theories & Concepts (0-3 Points)	☐ Inappropriate ☐ Incorrect ☐ Incomplete	☐ Vague Relevance ☐ Major Inaccuracies ☐ Insufficient Detail	☐ Implied Relevance ☐ Minor Inaccuracies ☐ Broad Detail	☐ Explicit Relevance ☐ No Inaccuracies ☐ Thorough Detail

Category	Unacceptable (0 Points)	Acceptable (1 Point)
Grammar & Organization (0-1 Point)	☐ Improper Format ☐ Incorrect Usuage ☐ Poor Consistency	☐ Proper Format ☐ Few or No Errors ☐ Good Consistency

Specific Criteria for Statistics Problems

A similar version is used for a typical story-based problem in Statistics, where I am specifically interested in your ability reasonably implement the relevant procedure and to communicate a correct answer. And because I always ask for a short, written interpretation of the solution, there is an expected of proper written form as well (i.e., sentence structure, APA style for Results, etc.).

Category	Unacceptable (0 Points)	Problematic (1 Point)	Satisfactory (2 Points)	Commendable (3 Points)
Procedure & Solution (0-3 Points)	☐ Inappropriate ☐ Incorrect ☐ Incomplete	☐ Vague Relevance ☐ Major Inaccuracies ☐ Insufficient Detail	☐ Implied Relevance ☐ Minor Inaccuracies ☐ Broad Detail	☐ Explicit Relevance ☐ No Inaccuracies ☐ Thorough Detail

Category	Unacceptable (0 Points)	Acceptable (1 Point)
Style & Conventions (0-1 Point)	☐ Improper Format ☐ Incorrect Usuage ☐ Poor Consistency	☐ Proper Format ☐ Few or No Errors ☐ Good Consistency

Specific Criteria for Worksheets

Worksheets provide you with an opportunity to practice identifying appropriate examples of a concept or describing research evidence. They often require some preparatory work like taking a self-assessment or identifying a research article. They also typically have multiple sections for describing evidence and for reflecting on the meaning. Because these typically exist as pre-organized worksheets, formal writing style has less weight; however, some level of proper writing (i.e., sentence and paragraph structure, etc.) would be necessary for clarity.

Category	Unacceptable (0 Points)	Problematic (1 Point)	Satisfactory (2 Points)	Commendable (3 Points)
Applications & Evidence (0-3 Points)	☐ Inappropriate ☐ Incorrect ☐ Incomplete	☐ Vague Relevance ☐ Major Inaccuracies ☐ Insufficient Detail	☐ Implied Relevance ☐ Minor Inaccuracies ☐ Broad Detail	☐ Explicit Relevance ☐ No Inaccuracies ☐ Thorough Detail
Evaluation & Conclusions (0-3 Points)	☐ Inappropriate ☐ Incorrect ☐ Incomplete	☐ Vague Relevance ☐ Major Inaccuracies ☐ Insufficient Detail	☐ Implied Relevance ☐ Minor Inaccuracies ☐ Broad Detail	☐ Explicit Relevance ☐ No Inaccuracies ☐ Thorough Detail

Category	Unacceptable (0 Points)	Acceptable (1 Point)
Preparation & Attachment (0-1 Point)	☐ Unclear Relevance ☐ Major Inaccuracies ☐ Insufficient Detail	☐ Clear Relevance ☐ Few or No Inaccuracies ☐ Good Detail
Grammar & Organization (0-1 Point)	☐ Improper Format ☐ Incorrect Usuage ☐ Poor Consistency	☐ Proper Format ☐ Few or No Errors ☐ Good Consistency

Specific Criteria for Longer Papers

As a final example, a relatively longer essay/paper would be generally appropriate for take-home essays or papers. Here the purpose is to assess your ability to fully describe a concept, the evidence for its relevance, and conclusions about the topic. Because it is paper, it will be expected to have a proper written form (i.e., sentence and paragraph structure, etc.) and proper citations and references, with these aspects having considerable weight.

Category	Unacceptable (0 Points)	Problematic (1 Point)	Satisfactory (2 Points)	Commendable (3 Points)
Theories & Concepts (0-3 Points)	☐ Inappropriate ☐ Incorrect ☐ Incomplete	☐ Vague Relevance ☐ Major Inaccuracies ☐ Insufficient Detail	☐ Implied Relevance ☐ Minor Inaccuracies ☐ Broad Detail	☐ Explicit Relevance ☐ No Inaccuracies ☐ Thorough Detail
Applications & Evidence (0-3 Points)	☐ Inappropriate ☐ Incorrect ☐ Incomplete	☐ Vague Relevance ☐ Major Inaccuracies ☐ Insufficient Detail	☐ Implied Relevance ☐ Minor Inaccuracies ☐ Broad Detail	☐ Explicit Relevance ☐ No Inaccuracies ☐ Thorough Detail
Evaluation & Conclusions (0-3 Points)	☐ Inappropriate ☐ Incorrect ☐ Incomplete	☐ Vague Relevance ☐ Major Inaccuracies ☐ Insufficient Detail	☐ Implied Relevance ☐ Minor Inaccuracies ☐ Broad Detail	☐ Explicit Relevance ☐ No Inaccuracies ☐ Thorough Detail
Grammar & Organization (0-3 Points)	☐ Improper Format ☐ Serious Errors ☐ Lacks Consistency	☐ Inadequate Format ☐ Major Errors ☐ Poor Consistency	☐ Acceptable Format ☐ Minor Errors ☐ Adequate Consistency	☐ Proper Format ☐ Minimal Errors ☐ Good Consistency
Style & Conventions (0-3 Points)	☐ Improper Format ☐ Serious Errors ☐ Lacks Consistency	☐ Inadequate Format ☐ Major Errors ☐ Poor Consistency	☐ Acceptable Format ☐ Minor Errors ☐ Adequate Consistency	☐ Proper Format ☐ Minimal Errors ☐ Good Consistency