EDTEP 561B Rubric for SLP

Dilemmas of Teaching and Learning

Scoring Rubric for Student Learning Projects (SLPs)

Minimum Criteria

Before your SLP paper is evaluated, you must:

Observe at least three days of instruction, interviewing at least two students, and at least one student must be interviewed twice (once on each day).
Include in your paper all sections described in "Section 6: Writing it Up" in the Complete Directions for SLPs.
The paper should be double-spaced, with reasonable font size (12 point) and at least 1 inch margins.
Create a descriptive title for the paper that reflects the central theme.
Use pseudonyms for all people, schools, and districts mentioned in the paper. Include a note on the first page of the body of your paper that states that all names used in the paper are pseudonyms.
Put your student ID number on the cover page; DO NOT put your name on the paper. Although this does not ensure anonymity, it makes it easier for us to ignore who you are and focus on what you have written as we evaluate your paper.

If these criteria are not met, your paper will be returned ungraded.

Your paper may be submitted electronically or in hard copy. If electronically, please scan in any artifacts. If possible, paste the scans into a single document, rather than submitting them all separately.

Grading Criteria ("Rubric") for SLP

The descriptions in this rubric are broad categories that describe certain characteristics of papers at different levels of accomplishment. They are idealized portraits that will not match any given paper exactly. Intermediate grades will also be given; the rubric provides anchor points. For example, if a paper shares some characteristics with a 3.0 paper and some characteristics of a 2.0 paper, it will likely receive a 2.5. Underlined characteristics mark important changes from one level to the next.

4.0

Paper is cohesive and organized around a central theme or main story which arises from the data. This theme is reflected in the title of the paper.
Paper presents a clear argument for your interpretation of what you observed and what students learned. This includes an analysis of what students learned about the subject matter or discipline and a discussion of the teaching-learning process.
Snippets of interview data are presented as evidence for assertions. When assertions go beyond the data, this fact is acknowledged.
Examples are explained in detail, and your path from classroom observation to inferences about those observations is clear and easy to follow.
Uses readings selectively from across the course to support your arguments, not as a proxy for explanation. Authors' names clearly mark use of readings. Terms and concepts are correctly used and the analysis demonstrates an understanding of major concepts from the course.
To generate good data on student learning, you probed student understanding by devising thinkaloud or extension tasks that go beyond the context of the lesson, and followed up on interesting or provocative student comments.
Paper is well-written and free from proofreading and grammatical errors.

3.5

Paper is primarily organized around a central theme or main story which arises from the data. This theme is reflected in the title of the paper.
Paper presents an argument for your interpretation of what you observed and what students learned. This includes a discussion of the teaching-learning process. Analysis of what students learned about the subject matter or discipline may be unclear.
Snippets of interview data are presented as evidence for assertions. When assertions go beyond the data, this fact is acknowledged.
Examples are explained in detail, and your path from classroom observation to inferences about those observations is clear and easy to follow.
Uses readings to support your arguments, but may be too narrowly focused, missing opportunities to explore important aspects of the data. Authors' names clearly mark use of readings. Terms and concepts are correctly used and the analysis demonstrates an understanding of major concepts from the course.
To generate good data on student learning, you probed student understanding by devising thinkaloud or extension tasks that go beyond the context of the lesson, and followed up on interesting or provocative student comments.
Paper is well-written and free from proofreading and grammatical errors.

3.3

Paper is primarily organized around a central theme or main story which arises from the data. This theme is reflected in the title of the paper.
Paper presents an argument for your interpretation of what you observed and what students learned. This includes a discussion of the teaching-learning process. Analysis of what students learned about the subject matter or discipline may be unclear.
Snippets of interview data are presented as evidence for assertions. Some assertions may go beyond the data.
Examples are explained, and your path from classroom observation to inferences about those observations is generally clear
Uses readings to support your arguments, but this may sometimes be "matching" a reading to an observation, rather than using the idea or theory to explain the observation. [This often shows up as: "Paul talked about quadratic equations in this way....This is a misconception (Gardner)," with little or no elaboration on this point.] Authors' names clearly mark use of readings. Terms and concepts are correctly used and the analysis demonstrates an understanding of major concepts from the course.
To generate good data on student learning, you probed student understanding by devising thinkaloud or extension tasks that go beyond the context of the lesson.
Paper is well-written and free from proofreading and grammatical errors.

3.0

Central theme may be vague, too general, or not clearly related to the data.
Paper presents an argument for your interpretation of what you observed and what students learned, though the path from data to inference (and thus support for the interpretation) may not always be clear.
The paper describes at least one important aspect of student learning and the associated teaching-learning process, and has analyzed this aspect in some depth.
Uses readings by matching them to what you observed, rather than using readings to probe and analyze what you observed. Authors' names mark use of readings.
Terms and concepts are generally correctly used, but terms tend to be invoked as explanations, rather than being used to further explain what you observed.
Interview questions were linked to the observed lessons, but there are indications of missed opportunities for probing and delving into student understanding.

2.0

Central theme may be vague or not clearly related to the data.
The analysis of the teaching-learning process is not well-supported. In some cases, the analysis is free-floating, rather than being rooted in student interviews or classroom observations.
Paper tends to be vague when discussing student learning. Examples often lack the details that would make them intelligible to the reader.
This paper misapplies ideas from readings or doesn't take the application of these ideas far enough. You either misunderstood the import of some readings or connect readings to observations in inappropriate, misleading, or cursory ways.
Interview data may be weak because you stuck primarily to general questions, rather than probing student learning of the specific lesson.
There is a tendency to interpret students' ability to paraphrase points of a lesson as an indication of genuine understanding, without further proof of the depth of understanding.

1.0

This paper focuses on description rather than analysis. Little emphasis on student learning, emphasizes instead classroom life other than what went on in students' heads.
May go far beyond the data to make unjustified assertions about student learning.