Alpha biography rubric
Re-imagining narrative writing and assessment: a post-NAPLAN craft-based rubric for creative writing
References
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives: Complete edition. Longman.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2010). Writing narrative marking guide, National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy. https://www.nap.edu.au/_resources/2010_Marking_Guide.pdf
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2019a). National Literacy Learning Progression. https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/resources/national-literacy-and-numeracy-learning-progressions/national-literacy-learning-progression/writing/?subElementId=50747&searchTerm=imaginative+texts#dimension-content
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2019b). NAPLAN writing results. https://nap.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/2019-naplan-national-report.pdf?Status=Temp&sfvrsn=2
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2019c). Critical and creative thinking.https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/general-capabilities/critical-and-creative-thinking/
Bonett, D. G. (2002). Sample size requirements for estimating intraclass correlations with desired precision. Statistics in Medicine, 21(9), 1331–1335.
Article Google Scholar
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2003). The theoretical status of latent variables. Psychological Review, 110(2), 203–219.
Article Google Scholar
Brolin, C. (1992). Kreativitet och kritiskt tandande: Redsckap for framtidsberedskap [Creativity and critical thinking tools: Tools for preparedness for the future’] Krut, 53, 64–71.
Caldwell, D., & White, P. (2017). That’s not a narrative; this is a narrative: NAPLAN and pedagogies of storytelling. Australian Journal of Language and
Biography Report Rubric: Student Name: Category 4 3 2 1
0 ratings0% found this document useful (0 votes)46 viewsThis rubric evaluates biography reports based on four categories: 1) Ideas and content, ensuring inclusion of early life, significant events, contributions, character traits, and introduction/conclusion. 2) Organization with varied transitions and properly ordered details and paragraphs. 3) Sentence fluency with varied sentence types and lengths that flow well. 4) Conventions regarding capitalization, punctuation, spelling and grammar. Higher scores are given for fewer errors that don't impede readability.Copyright:
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd0 ratings0% found this document useful (0 votes)46 views1 pageThis rubric evaluates biography reports based on four categories: 1) Ideas and content, ensuring inclusion of early life, significant events, contributions, character traits, and introduction/conclusion. 2) Organization with varied transitions and properly ordered details and paragraphs. 3) Sentence fluency with varied sentence types and lengths that flow well. 4) Conventions regarding capitalization, punctuation, spelling and grammar. Higher scores are given for fewer errors that don't impede readability.Original Title
Copyright
Available Formats
DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdShare this document
Share or Embed Document
Did you find this document useful?
Is this content inappropriate?
This rubric evaluates biography reports based on four categories: 1) Ideas and content, ensuring inclusion of early life, significant events, contributions, character traits, and introduction/conclusion. 2) Organization with varied transitions and properly ordered details and paragraphs. 3) Sentence fluency with varied sentence types and lengths that flow well. 4) Conventions regarding capitalization, punctuation, spelling and grammar. Higher score- You will be writing
Applying an information literacy rubric to first-year health sciences student research posters
Abstract
Objective
This article describes the collection and analysis of annotated bibliographies created by first-year health sciences students to support their final poster projects. The authors examined the students’ abilities to select relevant and authoritative sources, summarize the content of those sources, and correctly cite those sources.
Methods
We collected images of 1,253 posters, of which 120 were sampled for analysis, and scored the posters using a 4-point rubric to evaluate the students’ information literacy skills.
Results
We found that 52% of students were proficient at selecting relevant sources that directly contributed to the themes, topics, or debates presented in their final poster projects, and 64% of students did well with selecting authoritative peer-reviewed scholarly sources related to their topics. However, 45% of students showed difficulty in correctly applying American Psychological Association (APA) citation style.
Conclusion
Our findings demonstrate a need for instructors and librarians to provide strategies for reading and comprehending scholarly articles in addition to properly using APA citation style.
INTRODUCTION
Information literacy instruction provides an essential foundation for students who are contemplating careers in the health sciences. Throughout their undergraduate experiences, health sciences students engage with health sciences and scientific literature in increasingly sophisticated ways. Evidence shows that first-year students entering university environments struggle with the content of scholarly and scientific literature [1–3]. These students also lack sophisticated research skills to help them navigate resources that are available through university libraries [1–5]. Thus, first-year health sciences students must build foundational skills to help them develop critical thinking and lifelong learning skil
Initial Validation of a Technical Writing Rubric for Engineering Design
Authors
- Cheryl Bodnar Rowan University 201 Mullica Hill Road Glassboro, NJ USA 08028 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8665-9839
- Jennifer Kadlowec Rowan University 201 Mullica Hill Road Glassboro, NJ USA 08028
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v8i1.7728Keywords:
desigh, written communication, rubric, validation,Abstract
Engineering design serves as the capstone experience of most undergraduate engineering programs. One of the key elements of the engineering design process is the compilation of results obtained into a technical report that can be shared and distributed to interested stakeholders including industry, faculty members and other relevant parties. In an effort to expand the tools available for assessment of engineering design technical reports, this study performed an initial validation of a previously developed Technical Writing rubric. The rubric was evaluated for its reliability to measure the intended construct, inter-rater reliability and external validity in comparison to an existing generalized written communication rubric. It was found that the rubric was reliable with Cronbach’s alpha for all dimensions between 0.817 and 0.976. The inter-rater reliability for the overall instrument was also found to be excellent at 0.85. Finally, it was observed that there were no statistically significant differences observed between the measurements obtained on the Technical Writing rubric in comparison to the more generalized Written Communication Value rubric. This demonstrates that although specific to engineering design environments the Technical Writing rubric was able to measure key constructs associated with written communication practice. Thi- This writing project follows common core
- This rubric evaluates student