iRubric: “Tell me about yourself” Critical Auto-ethnography RUBRIC

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

“Tell me about yourself” Critical Auto-ethnography RUBRIC

Research the approved topic. Submit an autoethnography in one of several modalities . Include a bibliography citing at least 3 resources used researching the topic. Project will be graded on quality of research to support the topic, effective use of information gained through research in addition to students personal narration , credibility of sources, content, grammar and mechanics, and bibliography.

Rubric Code: Z233XW4

By chefjude

Ready to use

Public Rubric

Subject: Education

Type: Project

Grade Levels: Undergraduate

Autoethnography
	Excellent 5 pts	Good 4 pts	Fair 3 pts	Poor 2 pts	Unsatisfactory 1 pts
Content	Excellent --Clear and appropriate organization, with effective transitions, introduction, and conclusion. --All researched information is analyzed thoughtfully, not just summarized. --Narratives are written with effective technique, well-chosen details, and subtle organization. --Vignettes are shared with descriptive elements, well-chosen details, and subtle organization.	Good --Organization, transitions, introduction, and conclusion slightly lacking clarity and/or appropriateness. --Most researched information is analyzed, some just summarized. --Narratives are written with acceptable technique, good details, and effective organization. --Vignettes are shared with acceptable elements, some details, and effective organization.	Fair --Organization, transitions, introduction, and conclusion lacking clarity and/or appropriateness. --Some information is analyzed, much is just summarized. --Narratives are written with fair technique, good details, and fair organization --Vignettes are shared with fair elements, good details, and fair organization.	Poor --Organization, transitions, introduction, and conclusion lacking clarity and/or appropriateness. --Information is merely stated or summarized. ---Narratives are written with poor technique, minimal details, and poor organization. --Vignettes are shared with inconsistent elements, minimal details, and poor organization.	Unsatisfactory --Unclear and inappropriate organization, lacking transitions, introduction, and conclusion. --All researched information is merely summarized. --Narratives are written with ineffective technique, ill-chosen details, and little or no organization. --Vignettes are shared with missing elements, minimal details, and no organization.
Formatting	Excellent --Video introduction to begin paper is present. --Paper/project is at least 5 full typed pages. --Title page is properly formatted. --double spaced. --12 pt., Times New Roman. --1" margins. --Visually exceptional	Good --Video introduction to begin paper is present. --Paper is at least 4 typed pages in length/8 digital slides/pages. --Title page is properly formatted. --double spaced. --12 pt., Times New Roman. --1" margins --Visually pleasing	Fair --Video introduction to begin paper is present. --Paper is at least 3 typed pages in length. --Title page is close to the proper format. -- font and margins partially correct. --Visually fair	Poor --Video introduction to begin paper is incomplete or confusing. --Paper/project is less than 2 typed pages in length. --Title page is missing. --font and margins not correct. --Not visually pleasing	Unsatisfactory --Video introduction to begin paper is missing. --Project is not in final-draft form --does not meet assignment criteria
Grammar and Mechanics	Excellent --No run-on sentences --No fragments --No spelling errors --No errors in subject/verb agreement, pronouns or tense -- No punctuation or capitalization errors	Good --Only one run-on sentence OR only one fragment --4 or less spelling errors --4 or less errors in agreement, pronouns or tense -- 4 or less punctuation or capitalization errors	Fair --2 run-on sentences OR fragments --5 or more spelling errors --5 or more errors in agreement, pronouns or tense --5 or more punctuation or capitalization errors	Poor --8 or more run-on sentences OR fragments --More than 8 spelling errors --More than 8 errors in agreement, pronouns or tense -- More than 8 punctuation or capitalization errors	Unsatisfactory --Grammar and mechanical errors interfere with conveyance of message
Quality of Self-Reflection	Excellent --Creative representation of data (incl. creative writing, images, collage, etc.) --Multiple representations of different data in product (multiple writings, multiple visuals) --Project shows thorough, thoughtful representation of research data and findings, as well as evidence of self-reflection and critique. --Project synthesizes learning pathways in educational history and connection to teaching philosophy	Good --Moderate representation of data (incl. creative writing, images, collage, etc.) --Some representations of different data in product (multiple writings, multiple visuals) --Project shows thoughtful representation of research data and findings, as well as evidence of self-reflection and critique. --Project synthesizes learning pathways in educational history and connection to teaching philosophy	Fair --Basic representation of data (incl. creative writing, images, collage, etc.) --Minimal representations of different data in product (multiple writings, multiple visuals) --Project shows incomplete representation of research data and findings, as well as evidence of self-reflection and critique. --Project incompletely describes learning pathways in educational history and connection to teaching philosophy	Poor --Basic representation of data. --No representations of different data in product (multiple writings, multiple visuals) --Project shows no representation of research data and findings, as well as evidence of self-reflection and critique. --Minimal synthesis of educational history and teaching philosophy.	Unsatisfactory --No evidence of self-reflection, synthesis, or critique.
Quality of Philosophy Statement	Excellent --Shows evidence of personal opinion in teaching philosophy. --Shows evidence of theoretical perspectives in teaching philosophy. --Cited 3 or more sources --Sources are reliable and properly evaluated. --All information relevant to topic --Sufficient information provided to support all elements of topic.	Good --Shows evidence of personal opinion in teaching philosophy. --Shows evidence of theoretical perspectives in teaching philosophy. --Cited 3 sources --Sources mostly reliable. --Citation errors minor. --Most information relevant to topic. --Sufficient information provided to support all elements of topic.	Fair --Shows little evidence of personal opinion in teaching philosophy. --Shows little evidence of theoretical perspectives in teaching philosophy. --Failed to cite 3 sources --Source reliability questionable. --Information provided to support some elements of topic	Poor --Shows minimal/incomplete evidence of personal opinion in teaching philosophy. --Shows minimal/incomplete evidence of theoretical perspectives in teaching philosophy. --Failed to cite sources --Source reliability questionable. --Information provided to support some elements of topic	Unsatisfactory --No evidence of teaching philosophy --No evidence of research
Works Cited/Citations	Excellent --All sources properly cited in both paper and bibliography. -- No errors in format or punctuation.	Good --All sources properly cited in both paper and bibliography. -- 2 errors in format or punctuation.	Fair --Not all sources properly cited in both paper and bibliography. -- More than than 3 errors in format or punctuation.	Poor --No sources properly cited in paper and/or bibliography.	Unsatisfactory --No source citations

Keywords:

Research, autoethnography, language, literacy, education

Subjects:

Types:

Discuss this rubric