Extension:PeerEvaluation/RubricFormat

About

This rubric format is based on experience from the OCL4Ed prototype and will be in use for the Peer Evaluation extension in WikiEducator. For more details please visit this page on rubric proposals.

Criterion referenced rubric

Criterion referenced rubric comprises objectively verifiable criteria of the Yes/No type. It is typically used to assess the completeness of a submission.

type=1

This type of rubric has a default assignment (e.g Not Achieved if the criterion are Not Achieved, Achieved and Merit). There can be two higher levels of assignment referred to as Level 1 and Level 2 in the format. There can be any number of conditions for an evaluation to fall at a particular level. If any of the condition of Level 1 are not met or if the post is unrelated the Default is assigned. If all of the Level 1 conditions are met then the assignment can be Level 1 or Level 2. It is Level 2 only if all conditions of Level 2 are met as well. The data about each answer marked is always stored.

Format

*Name of the activity <!--type-->
*Default assignment
*Level 1
**Q1 for the evaluation to be marked Level1
**Q2
**Q3
*Level 2
**Q1
**Q2
<!--End-->

Example

*Activity 3.1 <!--1-->
*Not Achieved
*Achieved
**Does the post contain two MCQ questions?
**Does the post indicate which options are the correct answers?
**Does the post provide formative feedback for correct and incorrect answers?
*Merit
**Does the post embed or link to authentic examples on the Internet, eg images, rich media etc?
<!--End-->

Analytic rubrics

Analytic rubrics provide descriptors for each criterion at every level of the rubric. There can be any number of sub rubrics/questions (Rubric1 and Rubric2 in below format). Each of them have an weightage which has to be an integer between 1 and 99. There should be at least 2 of them and the total weightage should add up to 100. There must be pointers for each of Beginner, Intermediate and Advanced for every subrubric.

Format

*Name of the activity <!--type-->
*Rubric1 <!--weightage-->
<!--grade=nameofGrade-->
**Pointers for assigning above Grade
#More information as a numbering - optional - there can be any number of them
<!--grade=nameofGrade-->
**Pointers for assigning above Grade
#More information as a numbering - optional - there can be any number of them
<!--grade=nameofGrade-->
**Pointers for assigning above Grade
#More information as a numbering - optional - there can be any number of them
*Rubric2 <!--weightage-->
<!--grade=nameofGrade-->
**Pointers for assigning above Grade
#More information as a numbering - optional - there can be any number of them
<!--grade=nameofGrade-->
**Pointers for assigning above Grade
#More information as a numbering - optional - there can be any number of them
<!--grade=nameofGrade-->
**Pointers for assigning above Grade
#More information as a numbering - optional - there can be any number of them
*Rubric3 <!--weightage-->
<!--grade=nameofGrade-->
**Pointers for assigning above Grade
<!--grade=nameofGrade-->
**Pointers for assigning above Grade
<!--grade=nameofGrade-->
**Pointers for assigning above Grade
<!--End-->

Example

*Activity 3.1 <!--2-->
*Knowledge of copyright <!--70-->
<!--grade=Beginner-->
**A number of errors suggesting that the learner does not understand the basics of how copyright functions.
<!--grade=Intermediate-->
**One or two errors interpreting the application of copyright in the context of the MQC questions.
<!--grade=Advanced-->
**Exemplary answer. No errors in the application of copyright as demonstrated by identifying the correct answer and quality of the feedback on correct and incorrect answers. Learner has provided sufficient information relating to context to facilitate answering the question and/or avoiding ambiguity.
*Learning value of questions <!--30-->
<!--grade=Grade 1-->
**Questions were confusing and many contraventions of suggested good practice for MCQ items, for example:
#Ambiguity created by using double negatives
#Instructions are unclear - respondent does not know what is required
#It appears that the author is trying to "trick" the respondent
#Distractors for wrong answers are not plausible	
<!--grade=Grade 2-->
**Learner provides adequate context for the MCQ questions and has done a satisfactory job of implementing the requirements for good MCQ items. Only a few errors or suggested improvements to achieve an exemplary question.
<!--grade=Grade 3-->
**Exemplary answer. No errors in the application of copyright as demonstrated by identifying the correct answer and the quality of the feedback on correct and incorrect answers. Learner has provided sufficient information relating to context to facilitate answering the question and/or avoiding ambiguity.
<!--End-->

Rating scale rubrics

A rating scale rubric lists the criteria and corresponding descriptions Respondents rate the quality of the item using a 5 point star system. It is useful to provide examples of what constitutes which type of answer (example: a weak or strong answer) but not a requirement depending on the format of the descriptor.

Here also like Analytic rubrics, each of the rubrics/questions have a weightage and the total should add up to 100.

type=3

Format

*Name of the activity <!--type-->
*Rubric1 <!--weightage-->
**Description
***More information 1 - optional - there can be any number of them
***More information 2 - optional - there can be any number of them
*Rubric2 <!--weightage-->
**Description
***More information
*Rubric3 <!--weightage-->
**Description
<!--End-->

Example

*2nd Learning reflection <!--3-->
*Relevance <!--20-->
**Is the reflection relevant and meaningful to the learner and the aims of the course?
***Weak: Reflection is not related to the aims of the course and/or does not justify why the learning is relevant or meaningful
***Strong: Learner justifies why the learning is relevant and meaningful in relation to the aims of the course.
*Connection with prior experience <!--20-->
**Does the answer provide example(s) of connection(s) with prior experience (what the learner already knows)?
***Weak: Learner has omitted to provide a connection with prior experience
***Strong: Learner provides relevant examples from prior experience which are related to the topic of study.
*Evidence of new learning <!--20-->
**Does the answer provide evidence of new learning?
***Weak: Learner has omitted to reference new things learned
***Strong: Learner provides examples of new insights and new things learned related to the topic of study.
*Critical thinking <!--40-->
**Does the learner think critically about the topic at hand?
***Very Poor: It's a copied post.
***Weak: Learner has omitted to provide evidence of critical thinking or accepts things at face value without questioning or analysis.
***Strong: Learner assesses and evaluates perspectives and opinions and links these evaluations with own perspectives on the issue.
***Extra ordinary: Learners thoughts are original. 
<!--End-->