EDN 501 Project Rubric

*Authentic Assessment Project (Compensatory) Rubric**

Criteria	Approximate Weights	Less than Adequate	Adequate	Very Good	Excellent
Standards
Individual Standards	x3	Met the criteria less than 70% of the time	Approximately 70-80% of the time the criteria are met	Approximately 80-90% of the time the criteria are met	With very few exceptions, standards capture meaningful** demonstration of what students should know and be able to do are clearly stated reflect appropriate breadth are observable and measurable are written in language suitable for intended audiences
Group of Standards		Met the criteria less than 70% of the time	Approximately 70-80% of the time the criteria are met	Approximately 80-90% of the time the criteria are met	With very few exceptions, as a whole, standards align with intent of unit(s) or subject matter do not overlap significantly with each other includes at least two process standards
Authentic Tasks		Less than Adequate	Adequate	Very Good	Excellent
Individual Tasks	x8	Met the criteria less than 70% of the time	Approximately 70-80% of the time the criteria are met	Approximately 80-90% of the time the criteria are met	With very few exceptions, tasks effectively reveal authentic and significant application of knowledge and skills are aligned with one or more standards are written clearly and in sufficient detail for audience are realistic engage students
Formative Tasks		Met the criteria less than 70% of the time	Approximately 70-80% of the time the criteria are met	Approximately 80-90% of the time the criteria are met	The formative tasks building towards the summative assessment clearly address the criteria in the summative rubric build systematically towards the summative assessment provide sufficient practice, feedback, and reflection on knowledge and/or skills are realistic engage students
Group of Tasks		Met the criteria less than 70% of the time	Approximately 70-80% of the time the criteria are met	Approximately 80-90% of the time the criteria are met	With very few exceptions, as a whole, tasks adequately address the standards are multiple and varied are meaningful and manageable
Criteria	x3	Met the criteria less than 70% of the time	Approximately 70-80% of the time the criteria are met	Approximately 80-90% of the time the criteria are met	With very few exceptions, criteria are clearly stated are observable and measurable are written in consistent language are written in language suitable for intended audiences focus on most essential elements of task
		Less than Adequate	Adequate	Very Good	Excellent
Rubrics	x6	Met the criteria less than 70% of the time	Approximately 70-80% of the time the criteria are met	Approximately 80-90% of the time the criteria are met	With very few exceptions, rubrics contain relevant criteria use consistent wording are easy to read and apply for intended audiences identify appropriate and challenging levels of performance indicate appropriate weighting of criteria

Traditional Assessments (optional)		Less than Adequate	Adequate	Very Good	Excellent
Individual Items		Met the criteria less than 70% of the time	Approximately 70-80% of the time the criteria are met	Approximately 80-90% of the time the criteria are met	With very few exceptions, items are aligned with standards are designed following rules of good construction
Whole Test		Met the criteria less than 70% of the time	Approximately 70-80% of the time the criteria are met	Approximately 80-90% of the time the criteria are met	With very few exceptions, the test is aligned with standards contains a sufficient number of items is internally consistent
Portfolios (optional)		Less than Adequate	Adequate	Very Good	Excellent
Purpose and Audience		Not well identified	Fairly well identified		Clearly identified and worthwhile
Contents		Met the criteria less than 70% of the time	Approximately 70-80% of the time the criteria are met	Approximately 80-90% of the time the criteria are met	Required and/or optional contents are clearly specified for students aligned with purpose(s)
Processes		Met the criteria less than 70% of the time	Approximately 70-80% of the time the criteria are met	Approximately 80-90% of the time the criteria are met	With few exceptions, processes are clearly delineated are meaningful and manageable align with purpose(s)
Management		Met the criteria less than 70% of the time	Approximately 70-80% of the time the criteria are met	Approximately 80-90% of the time the criteria are met	Management of portfolio is clearly described is realistic is well-designed for context
Communication and Evaluation		Met the criteria less than 70% of the time	Approximately 70-80% of the time the criteria are met	Approximately 80-90% of the time the criteria are met	Processes of communication and evaluation are clearly described appropriate for intended audiences aligned with standards
Organization		Not well organized	Fairly well organized		Project is put together in a coherent manner with sufficient context for audiences to make sense of individual components
		Less than Adequate	Adequate	Very Good	Excellent
Presentation	x3
Ease of Use		Not user friendly	Fairly user friendly		Audiences can easily navigate project to find and compare individual components
Well Written		Met the criteria less than 80% of the time	Approximately 80-85% of the time the criteria are met	Approximately 85-90% of the time the criteria are met	With very few exceptions, text is clearly stated well organized free of mechanical errors
Scope of Project	x8	Insufficient number and type of assessments for subject matter	70-80% of number and type of assessments for subject matter	80-90% of number and type of assessments for subject matter	Project contains a sufficient number and type of assessments for subject matter
Compensatory -- Although the rubric contains approximate weights, there are no score values associated with each criterion because I intend to grade the project in a compensatory manner. That means that although one component of the project (e.g., rubrics) might be somewhat weak, another component (e.g., standards) might compensate for the weaker component because the stronger one is exceptionally strong. Or, the reverse may be true. Thus, I may adjust the weights given above depending upon the quality of each component to arrive at an overall score that best captures the overall quality of the project. Meaningful -- By meaningful, I mean that the tasks and standards should address the application of knowledge and skills that are essential to future learning and life*.