Back to syllabus
Back to Nolen's home page

Grading for Term Projects

EDPSY 526: Metacognition Seminar    Spring 2007

 Minimum criteria

 If any of the following criteria are not met, the paper will receive a 0.0.

    - Problem or question clearly concerned with  metacognition in formal or informal education.
    - Use of relevant theories and ideas from assigned course readings.
    - Use of material from outside readings specifically related to your question or problem.

 Scoring Rubric

If the paper meets the minimum criteria listed above, I will use the rubric below to assign grades. The following descriptions are "ideal-types" provided to give you a sense of the grading scheme. No one paper will exactly fit any one description. These represent points on a scale: intermediate grades will also be given. Each anchor description begins with general characteristics for all papers. Additional descriptions applicable to specific types of projects appear at the end of each anchor description.

 4.0    

Problem/question clearly described and relevant to metacognition in formal or informal education.

Theories and ideas from multiple course readings are used in ways appropriate to the problem/question. Course readings are central to the analysis, argument, or position. Readings are used critically, in the service of exploring the problem/question within the chosen structure (see guidelines for research proposals, lit reviews, etc.) Paper makes connections between course readings and outside readings.

Paper goes beyond class discussions/assigned readings in important ways--extending the ideas and/or challenging them from additional perspectives (your own, other authors').

The potential or actual contribution of your project to what we know about this aspect of  metacognition in formal or informal education is supported and clearly described. Implications for practice or future research well-grounded in your project and clearly described.

Paper makes a coherent and well-supported argument for a particular stance or interpretation, including consideration of alternate viewpoints or interpretations, and drawing on both empirical and theoretical work.

For literature reviews: review is focused but broad enough to get a sense of the main positions taken by current researchers on the issue. These positions are clearly described. Questions posed for future research arise from the literature review.

For research proposals and case studies: Literature review focused, sets up research problem, questions, and/or hypotheses well. Analysis of data shows a good grasp of problem complexity and theoretical implications.

In the following descriptions, talics indicate changes from the score level above.

3.5     

Problem/question clearly described and relevant to metacognition in formal or informal education. Theories and ideas from course readings are used in ways appropriate to the problem/question. Course readings tend to be peripheral to the analysis, argument, or position. Readings are used critically, in the service of exploring the problem/question within the chosen structure. Paper makes connections between course readings and outside readings.

Paper goes beyond class discussions/assigned readings in important ways- extending the ideas and/or challenging them from additional perspectives (your own, other authors').

Potential or actual contribution of your project to what we know about this aspect of metacognition is described, but connections to the paper's central arguments may not be completely clear.

Paper makes a coherent argument for a particular stance or interpretation, including consideration of alternate viewpoints or interpretations.  Support for the argument is generally good, though support from either empirical or theoretical work may be weak.

For literature reviews: review is focused but broad enough to get a sense of the main positions taken by current researchers on the issue, but these positions may not always clearly described OR support may be weak (see above). Questions posed for future research arise from the literature review.

For research proposals and case studies: Literature review focused, sets up research problem, questions, and/or hypotheses fairly well, but the critical link between the literature and the research questions, justifying their importance, may not be completely clear. Analysis of data (or analysis plan) shows a good grasp of problem complexity and theoretical implications.

3.0     

Problem/question clearly described and relevant to metacognition in formal or informal education. Use of theories and ideas from course readings appropriate to the problem/question and the chosen structure. Readings are sometimes used critically--review may include some summaries without regard to the strengths or limitations of the sources. Paper uses outside materials, but does not go beyond course materials in exploring the question/problem in important ways.

Contributions and implications of the project clearly described, but may not always be clearly supported. Paper makes an coherent argument, but support is weak in spots; may fail to consider alternate viewpoints or interpretations.

For literature reviews: review may be somewhat unfocused or too narrow to get a sense of the main positions taken by current researchers on the issue OR these positions may not be clearly described. Connections between literature reviewed and some questions posed for future research may not be clear.

For research proposals and studies: Literature review is somewhat unfocused, OR relationship to research problem, questions, and/or hypotheses may not be clearly described. Analysis of data (or analysis plan) shows a grasp of problem complexity and theoretical implications.

2.0    

Problem/question described and is relevant to metacognition in formal or informal education but this may not be clearly stated.

Use of theories/ideas from course generally appropriate, but may show some misunderstandings. Use of readings tends to be uncritical or minimal. Problem/question not thoroughly explored, or paper does not make a coherent and well-supported argument.

For literature reviews: review is unfocused or too narrow to get a sense of the main positions taken by current researchers on the issue, or these positions not clearly described. Questions posed for future research seem unconnected to the literature review.

For research proposals and studies: Literature review is unfocused, or relationship to research problem, questions, and/or hypotheses not clearly described. Analysis of data shows weak grasp of problem complexity or theoretical implications.

1.0    

Problem/question described, relevance to metacognition in formal or informal education may not be clearly stated.

Major misconceptions as demonstrated by misuse of theories, ideas, or readings. Support for argument is weak or missing.

Back to syllabus
Back to top