GEOS 597e Spatiotemporal Data Analysis Workshop: Grading rubrics  [last revised 10/27/06]

What is a grading rubric?  A grading rubric is a  set of criteria for evaluating your classwork and for giving you feedback.

Why a grading rubric?
Before completing and turning in each assignment, ask yourself:
Jump to:
Prework
Classwork
Independent projects
Rubric references



Prework: Grading Rubric
Content
Mechanics
Grade
  • A sophisticated understanding of the material is demonstrated; 'big picture' drawn from assignment
  • prework products completed before class
  • active participation in discussion of main and finer points
A



  • A basic understanding of the material is demonstrated
  • prework products completed before class
B
  • Basic understanding of the material is not demonstrated
  • prework products not completed before class
C-E


Classwork: Grading Rubric
Content
Mechanics
Grade
  • A sophisticated understanding of the material is demonstrated; thoughtful links to prework and class discussion may be explored
  • Products handed in on time as clean, easy-to-follow hard copy
  • Analytical (paper and pencil exercises), computational, and interpretational questions all fully answered
A
  • A basic understanding of the material is demonstrated
  • Products handed in on time as clean, easy-to-follow hard copy
  • Analytical (paper and pencil exercises), computational, and interpretational questions all fully answered
B
  • A basic understanding of the material is not demonstrated
  • Products not handed in on time as clean, easy-to-follow hard copy
  • Analytical (paper and pencil exercises), computational, and interpretational questions not fully answered
C-E



Independent Projects Grading plan [revised 10/27/06]

Assignment
Peer evaluations
Mike's evaluation Total points
Oral presentation
 (7 x 50) = 350
350
700

Oral Presentations: Grading Rubric
An evaluation sheet to be used during the presentation session is here.
Content
Mechanics
Grade
  • Larger context for the data analysis is framed (why analyze this dataset? A motivating scientific question is described).
  • Experimental procedure is logical and is clearly laid out (why you performed the analyses you performed).
  • Major results of the analyses are clearly illustrated using figures and/or tables; focus is on major points.
  • Additional analyses effectively used to clarify major points.
  • A sophisticated understanding of the major strengths and weaknesses of the analytical tools employed is demonstrated. 
  • Major findings are summarized and used, if possible to address the motivating scientific question. 
  • Thoughtful responses offered to questions raised in discussion.
  • Presentation is well organized, within 15 minute time limit, and leaving time for questions.
  • Science problem and analysis strategy clearly posed.
  • Terminology is clearly described.
  • Visual aids are clearly designed and effectively used; graphs and tables have correct titles, axis labels; numbers have units.
  • External sources of information are authoritative and are referenced.
  • Audience discussion of the important points is stimulated.
  • Very few (<2) factual or analytical mistakes.
A
  • Larger context for the data analysis is framed (why analyze this dataset? A motivating scientific question is described).
  • Experimental procedure is logical and is clearly laid out (why you performed the analyses you performed).
  • Results of the analyses are clearly illustrated using figures and/or tables.
  • A basic understanding of the major strengths and weaknesses of the analytical tools employed is demonstrated. 
  • Major findings are summarized. 
  • Questions answered clearly.
  • Presentation is well organized, within 15 minute time limit, and leaving time for questions.
  • Science problem and analysis strategy adequately posed.
  • Terminology is clearly described.
  • Visual aids are clearly designed and effectively used; graphs and tables have correct titles, axis labels; numbers have units.
  • External sources of information are authoritative and are referenced.
  • Audience has understood the main points of the presentation.
  • Very few (<5) factual or analytical mistakes.
B
  • Larger context for the data analysis and motivating scientific question not clearly framed.
  • Experimental procedure is flawed, or is not clearly laid out.
  • Results of the analyses are not clear from figures and/or tables.
  • Weak or flawed understanding of the major strengths and weaknesses of the analytical tools employed is demonstrated. 
  • Major findings are not summarized. 
  • Questions not answered clearly.
  • Presentation is disorganized and/or over time limit.
  • Science problem and analysis strategy not clearly posed.
  • Terminology not explained.
  • Visual aids unclear/not used effectively.
  • Sources of information are not acknowledged or not authoritative.
  • Audience has not understood major results.
  • Factual and analytical mistakes (5-10) distract from major points/discussion.
C

Sources:

Rubric Basics
Field-tested Learning Assessment Guide
Tewksbury, B., 1996, Teaching without exams - the challenges and the benefits.  Journal of Geoscience Education 44: 366-372, referenced in: Course Notes, National Association of Geoscience  Teachers (NAGT) Workshop for Early Career Faculty in the Geosciences: Teaching, Research and Managing your Career, June 1-6, 2002, Williamsburg, VA.
B. Tewksbury, pers. comm., August 2002.

Back to STDA syllabus.