iRubric: Final Reflection Paper rubric

Student rushes through or does not include any evaluation of his/her past perspective on human nature, including, but not limited to, claiming that nothing has changed, but neglecting to show support for the statement.

Student does include information about Reflection Paper 1 and/or his/her previous view of human nature, but should explore in much greater detail. Student may or may not use a thinker from class, but if used it might be misunderstood or only tangential. Student might mention details from life, but does not relate them to human nature.

Student references previous view as articulated in Reflection Paper 1, pointing to places that have changed, places that have remained the same, and places that have been nuanced. Student relates previous view to a thinker from class in a way that is obviously relevant and topically interesting.

Student logically, eloquently, and empathetically articulates his/her views of human nature at the beginning of the semester (and earlier, if relevant), and traces the changes either in content or articulation (or both) between that point and the present, including the things from class (and beyond) that prompted or coincided with any changes. Student includes details of what created this previous view, based partially on Reflection Paper 1.

Student fails to include future orientation in the paper, or rushes through it.

Student mentions what his/her view of human nature indicates about how one ought to live, or his/her ambitions for the future, but the two are not explicitly or logically connected.

Student theorizes concerning what his/her view of human nature would dictate about how one ought to live one’s life, including to what extent this is or is not reflected in the student’s own ambitions for the future. Connected are well-made and logical.

Student logically, eloquently, and empathetically explores what his/her view of human nature would dictate about how one ought to live one’s life, including details of to what extent this is or is not reflected in the student’s own ambitions for the future. Student makes specific connections that help further nuance both his/her view of human nature and his/her hopes for the rest of his/her life.

Paper appears sloppy and/or unfinished. The paragraphs do not connect to one another. The student does not engage with the topics in a significantly meaningful manner.

The flow of the paper is somewhat disjointed, but attempts to tie everything together are made. Student mentions some difficulties around human nature and/or his/her own view of human nature, but should explore them more explicitly. Some ideas were presented logically, and perhaps a good faith effort was made to engage the topic. A philosopher from class was mentioned but not used.

The student shows clear and mostly successful attempts to deal with the difficulties of human nature as a whole. Ideas were presented in a logical order and some connections were made between all of the topics. One or more philosophers from class were used in a real way.

Student logically, eloquently, and empathetically traces the various complications of human nature as they are relevant for his/her view of human nature and future ambitions in life. Student brings in sources from class and beyond when appropriate to support, complicate, and/or challenge his/her points.