iRubric: Social Networks Evaluation rubric

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

Social Networks Evaluation

Students will assess the arguments of Jeremy Rifkin on the "empathic civilization" and Jon Hamilton on Gossip, the Brain, and Evolutionary Psychology in connection to our class conversations about Facebook.

Rubric Code: L57A2W

By Titania24G

Draft

Public Rubric

Subject: Humanities

Type: Writing

Grade Levels: (none)

Enter rubric title
	Poor 10 pts	Fair 20 pts	Good 30 pts
Thesis	Poor Thesis is not identifiable.	Fair Thesis is identifiable, but too general or sticks to platitudes.	Good Thesis (in the introductory paragraph) contains a single, provable statement which is supported throughout the reflection.
Arguments	Poor Topic sentences are hard to identify and deal mostly in platitudes.	Fair Topic sentences are identifiable, but are too broad or general. The argument is vague and indecisive.	Good Topic sentences are identifiable and clearly introduce clear and specific arguments for each paragraph. Each argument works to support the thesis of the reflection.
Evidence	Poor Each paragraph attempts to support each argument, but falls short or is unclear. Evidence is not organized or well-thought out. Evidence does not use the RSA lecture, the NPR article, the class discussion about Facebook, or other specific real-world examples.	Fair Each paragraph is supported by evidence, although the evidence is inconsistent, contradictory to the thesis, or unclear. Evidence can include the RSA lecture, the NPR article, the class discussion about Facebook, or other specific real-world examples.	Good Each paragraph is supported by evidence from the RSA lecture, the NPR article, the class discussion about Facebook, or other specific real-world examples.