iRubric: Stereotyping Project rubric

(draft) edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...

Stereotyping Project

After viewing the movie Crash, in small groups, students will discuss and analyze the characters personalities, biases, language/language barriers, dialogue, fears, and connections. Then they will create a project/creative representation of the movie's theme including the use of text vocabulary and strategies for addressing/identifying stereotypes. Finally, the group will create a connective acronym for "Crash" and present their work to the class.

Rubric Code: BB53B8

By morton6

Draft

Public Rubric

Subject: Communication

Type: Assessment

Grade Levels: 9-12

Stereotyping Project
	Excellent 5 pts	Good 4 pts	Fair 3 pts	Poor 2 pts
Discussion/Collaboration	Excellent Observation of students showed consistent and active participation and collaboration by all members. Members were interacting, asking questions of group members, and using each other to assist in project progression.	Good Observation of students showed somewhat consistent and active participation and collaboration by most members. Most members were interacting, asking questions of group members, and using each other to assist in project progression.	Fair Observation of students showed partially active participation and collaboration by some members. Some members were interacting, asking questions of group members, and using each other to assist in project progression.	Poor Observation of students showed little active participation and collaboration by members. Members were not interacting, asking questions of group members, and using each other to assist in project progression.
Character Analysis	Excellent Presented an in-depth and accurate analysis and interpretation of a minimum of ten major characters using logical and insightful references. Evidence strongly and insightfully supports interpretations.	Good Presented an in-depth and accurate analysis and interpretation of a minimum of ten major characters using logical references. Evidence is somewhat strong with few insights to support interpretations.	Fair Presented a mostly accurate analysis and interpretation of a some characters using logical references. Evidence to support interpretations is weak.	Poor Presented inaccurate analysis's and interpretations of a few characters without references. Evidence to support interpretations is weak and/or nonexistent.
Identifying Stereotypes	Excellent Numerous forms of stereotypes and racial biases are identified and clear connections are made in reference to their root. Personal connections are also included.	Good Several forms of stereotypes and racial biases are identified and clear connections are made in reference to their root. Personal connections are also included.	Fair Few forms of stereotypes and racial biases are identified and vague connections are made in reference to their root. Personal connections may or may not be included.	Poor Forms of stereotypes and racial biases are vaguely identified with no connections in reference to their root. Personal connections are not included.
Lessons/Conclusions	Excellent A conclusion is made and explained sufficiently to connect character to the plot. Life lessons are defined for numerous characters.	Good A conclusion is made, but explanation may be unclear and difficult to understand and sufficiently to connect character to the plot. Life lessons are defined for at least two characters.	Fair A conclusion is made, but explanation is brief and insufficient in connecting character to the plot. Life lessons are defined for at least two characters.	Poor Minimal conclusions are drawn and are illogical and not connective to the plot.
Creativity	Excellent Representation includes aspects of IPC learning; paints a clear picture of stereotyping harms and roots; provides incentives for tolerance; is neat, legible, and presented professionally.	Good Representation includes few aspects of IPC learning; paints some pictures/images of stereotyping harms and roots; may or may not provide incentives for tolerance; is neat, legible, and presented professionally.	Fair Representation includes few aspects of IPC learning; paints some pictures/images of stereotyping harms and roots; does not provide incentives for tolerance; may or may not be neat, legible, and presented somewhat professionally.	Poor Representation does not include aspects of IPC learning; does not provide incentives for tolerance; is not neat, legible, and is presented somewhat professionally or not at all.
Adherence to Requirements	Excellent All requirements have been fulfilled including; discussion questions recored, vocabulary and text learning expressed, acronym created, effective use of grammar and spelling. Work is complete and on time.	Good Most requirements have been fulfilled including all except for one aspect of; discussion questions recored, vocabulary and text learning expressed, acronym created, effective use of grammar and spelling. Work is complete and on time.	Fair Some requirements have been fulfilled including all except for two aspects of; discussion questions recored, vocabulary and text learning expressed, acronym created, effective use of grammar and spelling. Work may be one class late.	Poor Few requirements have been fulfilled. Work is more than one class late.

Subjects:

Communication

Types:

Assessment

Discuss this rubric