- Username
- Password
forgot?

iRubric: Explanation Paper rubric

edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...
Explanation Paper Accompanying document for module development project Rubric Code: K2AA92 By kelvin_thompson Ready to use Public Rubric Subject: (General) Type: Assignment Grade Levels: Graduate

Explanation Paper
	Poor 575.25 pts	Fair 672.75 pts	Good 770.25 pts	Excellent 867.75 pts	Superior 975 pts
Effectiveness 40 %	Poor Fails to convey designer's thinking or address development issues	Fair Very ineffective as complement to module by conveying designer's "thinking" and addressing development issues	Good Somewhat ineffective as complement to module by conveying designer's "thinking" and addressing development issues	Excellent Somewhat effective as complement to module by conveying designer's "thinking" and addressing development issues	Superior Very effective as complement to module by conveying designer's "thinking" and addressing development issues
Completeness 30 %	Poor More than half of the paper components not incorporated	Fair Up to half of the paper components not incorporated	Good Two or more paper components not incorporated	Excellent 1 paper component not incorporated	Superior All required components incorporated into paper
Supporting Documentation 20 %	Poor No supporting documentation or none complete	Fair Very little supporting documentation complete and included in or attached to paper	Good Some supporting documentation complete and included in or attached to paper	Excellent Most supporting documentation complete and included in or attached to paper	Superior All supporting documentation complete and included in or attached to paper
Surface Features 10 % (e.g., formatting, correct spelling, grammar, complete sentences, and appropriate citation of sources if necessary	Poor Lacks acceptable control of surface features (i.e., numerous distracting flaws in formatting, spelling, grammar, etc.)	Fair Very lax in control of surface features (i.e., formatting, spelling, grammar, typographical errors, etc.)	Good Somewhat lax in control of surface features (i.e., formatting, spelling, grammar, typographical errors, etc.)	Excellent Controls somewhat well for surface features (i.e., formatting, spelling, grammar, typographical errors, etc.)	Superior Controls very well for surface features (i.e., formatting, spelling, grammar, typographical errors, etc.)