- Username
- Password
forgot?

iRubric: Reading Circle Rubric

edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...
Reading Circle Rubric Reading Circle Rubric Assesses students productivity and participation within literature circles. Rubric Code: MXW5AA9 By kquinn1 Ready to use Public Rubric Subject: English Type: Reading Grade Levels: 6-8

Literature Circles
	Good 5 pts	Fair 3 pts	Poor 1 pts
Question Writer	Good Wrote at least 3 interesting questions to discuss with the group. The questions were challenging and thought provoking.	Fair Wrote 3 questions to share with the group. The questions weren't challenging and had simple answers.	Poor Provided less that 2 questions. Questions had simple and/or yes/no answers.
Word Finder	Good Found 5 or more new, unique, or interesting words to discuss and provided page numbers and clear, easy to understand definitions for each word.	Fair Found 3-4 new unique, or interesting words. providing page numbers and definitions for each word.	Poor Found 2 or fewer new, unique or interesting words. Page numbers missing and/or unclear definitions.
Story Mapper	Good Created a story map or graphic organizer and successfully mapped the story.	Fair Created a story map or graphic organizer and successfully mapped the story with some support from the teacher.	Poor Was unable to create a story map or graphic organizer.
Summarizer	Good Created a concise summary including only the important characters and events.	Fair Created a summary including only the important characters and events with some support from the teacher or group members/	Poor Was unable to create a concise summary including only the important characters and events.
Discussion Participant	Good Was a positive contributor in discussions. Provided insightful comments and questions. Listened to others and didn't dominate the discussion.	Fair Contributed to group discussions. Comments and questions weren't always thought out. Either dominated the discussion or needed to participate more at times.	Poor Poor contributor to discussions. Comments were off-task and distracting to group.