Skip to main content
sign in
Username
Password
forgot?
Sign up
Share
help_outline
help
Pricing
Request Info
Please enable JavaScript on your web browser
menu
iRubric: EAT: Restaurant Review rubric
find rubric
Your browser does not support iframes.
(draft)
edit
print
share
Copy to my rubrics
Bookmark
test run
assess...
delete
Do more...
EAT: Restaurant Review
Film Evaluation and Review
The assignment is to review a restaurant ----exploring points of inclusivity, diversity, and conflict from varied audience perspectives.. Write a personal response and reflection of the experience..
Rubric Code:
X232A7C
By
broylesk
Draft
Public Rubric
Subject:
Humanities
Type:
Writing
Grade Levels:
Undergraduate
Your browser does not support iframes.
Desktop Mode
Mobile Mode
Qualities and Criteria
Excellent
4 pts
Proficient
3 pts
Developing
2 pts
Poor
1 pts
Did Not Attempt
(N/A)
Summary of Observations
Excellent
Gives reader a clear and detailed understanding of the venue, the nature of the hospitality extended, and the menu including highlighted offerings.Careful observation and logical inferences reported.
Proficient
Gives reader somewhat detailed understanding of the venue, the nature of the hospitality extended, and the menu. .Careful observation and logical inferences reported.
Developing
Gives reader a general understanding of the venue. Mention of the nature of the hospitality extended, or the menu may be missing or under-developed. Observations reported, but few inferences logically supported by observations.
Poor
Fails to provide reader a clear and detailed understanding of the venue, the nature of the hospitality extended, and/or the menu. No careful observation, nor informed inference a part of the review.
Did Not Attempt
No clear understanding of the experience is offered.
Analysis of Experience
Excellent
Addresses all aspects of the prompt
Provides evidence of critical thinking
Avoids simple explanations of cultural cues and audiences needs, Exercises insight with phrasing, terminology, and when offering faith-based insight.
Proficient
Addresses most aspects of the prompt, with minor lapses
Provides evidence of critical thinking and mostly avoids over simplifying audience needs, Exercises insight with phrasing, terminology, and when offering faith-based insight.
Developing
Addresses some aspects of the prompt, with some major lapses
Provides limited critical thinking about the purposes of the observations or the needs of the audience.
Poor
Does not address the prompt
Provides no critical thinking and only a summary of what occurred
No audience-focused insight is attempted.
Did Not Attempt
No analysis is apparent
Personal Reflection
Excellent
Reflection flows well and integrates learning from the coursework as well as the field experience. Expression of some personal reaction to the experience with a clear recommendation -- whether negative, positive, or somewhere in between to audience.
Proficient
Good overall reaction is presented. Reflection of what was personally learned from the field work in relation to the course in evidence. Clear recommendations offered chosen constituency.
Developing
Some reflection, but lacks in ability to relate to what was learned through the field work. No clear insight into why there is or isn't a recommendation offered.
Poor
Little to no personal reaction included. No recommendation based on personal experience.
Did Not Attempt
No personal reaction included
Grammar & Formatting
Excellent
Very clear and organized ideas
Correct length (3-4 paragraphs)
Uses complete sentences throughout
Virtually free of grammar and spelling errors
Proficient
Organization is clear in presentation of ideas Appropriate length (3-4 paragraphs or the equivalent multi-modal artifact and script)
Uses complete sentences, with minor lapses. Few errors
in grammar and usage
Developing
Some outline attempted in organization of ideas
Length is not met ( 1-2 paragraphs or the equivalent multi-modal artifact and script)
Lapses in grammar and syntax. Errors may interfere with meaning.
Poor
Does not follow an organized outline of ideas
Length is too short (1 page or the equivalent multi-modal artifact and/or script is missing)
Difficulty understanding ideas due to improper grammar
Significant punctuation errors
Did Not Attempt
No adherence to formatting expectations in evidence.
Subjects:
Humanities
Social Sciences
Types:
Writing
Discuss this rubric
You may also be interested in:
More rubrics by this author
More Humanities rubrics
More Writing rubrics
Do more with this rubric:
Preview
Preview this rubric.
Edit
Modify this rubric.
Copy
Make a copy of this rubric and begin editing the copy.
Print
Show a printable version of this rubric.
Categorize
Add this rubric to multiple categories.
Bookmark
Bookmark this rubric for future reference.
Assess
This rubric is still in draft mode and cannot be scored. Please change the rubric status to
ready to use
.
Share
Publish
Link, embed, and showcase your rubrics on your website.
Email
Email this rubric to a friend.
Discuss
Discuss this rubric with other members.
Do more with rubrics than ever imagined possible.
Only with iRubric
tm
.
Copyright © 2024
Reazon Systems, Inc.
All rights reserved.
n16
Your browser does not support iframes.
Your browser does not support iframes.
Your browser does not support iframes.