| Course Code | Class Code | Assignment Title | Total Points |
| SEC-516 | SEC-516-O500 | Benchmark – Humanities Comprehensive Assessment Plan | 300.0 |
| Criteria | Percentage | No Submission (0.00%) | Insufficient (69.00%) | Approaching (74.00%) | Acceptable (87.00%) | Target (100.00%) | Comments | Points Earned |
| Criteria | 100.0% |
| Formative Assessment: Demonstrate Learning in Different Ways | 10.0% | Not addressed. | Formative assessment is ineffective and provides insufficient ways students can demonstrate learning. | Formative assessment provides minimal, shallow ways students can demonstrate learning. | Formative assessment provides multiple, effective ways students can demonstrate learning. | Formative assessment provides multiple, innovative ways students can demonstrate learning. |
| Formative Assessment: Alignment with Content Standard and Objective, and Bias | 10.0% | Not addressed. | Formative assessment is inadequately aligned with content standard and learning objective. Bias in formative assessment is not addressed. | Formative assessment is artificially aligned with content standard and learning objective. Bias in formative assessment is vaguely addressed. | Formative assessment is logically aligned with content standard and learning objective. Bias in formative assessment is relevantly addressed. | Formative assessment is expertly aligned with content standard and learning objective. Bias in formative assessment is thoroughly addressed. |
| Formative Assessment: Student Feedback (C 3.3; NV 3.3) | 10.0% | Not addressed. | Description of how feedback will be provided to students for formative assessment is unconvincing. | Description of how feedback will be provided to students for formative assessment is limited. | Description of how feedback will be provided to students for formative assessment is descriptive. | Description of how feedback will be provided to students for formative assessment is insightful. |
| Summative Assessment: Demonstrate Learning in Different Ways (C 1.2 ;NV 1.2) | 10.0% | Not addressed. | Summative assessment is ineffective and provides insufficient ways students can demonstrate learning. | Summative assessment provides minimal, shallow ways students can demonstrate learning. | Summative assessment provides multiple, effective ways students can demonstrate learning. | Summative assessment provides multiple, innovative ways students can demonstrate learning. |
| Summative Assessment: Alignment with Content Standard and Objective | 10.0% | Not addressed. | Summative assessment is inadequately aligned with content standard and learning objective. | Summative assessment is artificially aligned with content standard and learning objective. | Summative assessment is logically aligned with content standard and learning objective. | Summative assessment is expertly aligned with content standard and learning objective. |
| Summative Assessment: Potential Bias (C 3.1; NV 3.1) | 10.0% | Not addressed. | Explanation of potential bias in summative assessment is unfitting and/or ideas to minimize bias are insufficient. | Explanation of potential bias in summative assessment is ambiguous and ideas to minimize bias are weak. | Explanation of potential bias in summative assessment is detailed and ideas to minimize bias are appropriate. | Explanation of potential bias in summative assessment is thought provoking and ideas to minimize bias are compelling. |
| Summative Assessment: Student Feedback | 10.0% | Not addressed. | Description of how feedback will be provided to students for summative assessment is implausible. | Description of how feedback will be provided to students for summative assessment is incomplete. | Description of how feedback will be provided to students for summative assessment is reasonable. | Description of how feedback will be provided to students for summative assessment is intuitive. |
| Remediation and Re-Assessment Activity (C 3.2; NV 3.2) | 10.0% | Not addressed. | Description of remediation and reassessment activity is irrelevant in helping student achievement of content and meeting standards. | Description of remediation and reassessment activity is unconnected to helping student achievement of content and meeting standards. | Description of remediation and reassessment activity is realistic in helping student achievement of content and meeting standards. | Description of remediation and reassessment activity is innovative in helping student achievement of content and meeting standards. |
| Organization | 10.0% | Not addressed. | An attempt is made to organize the content, but the sequence is indiscernible. The ideas presented are compartmentalized and may not relate to each other. | The content may not be adequately organized even though it provides the audience with a sense of the main idea. | The content is logically organized. The ideas presented relate to each other. The content provides the audience with a clear sense of the main idea. | The content is well-organized and logical. There is a sequential progression of ideas that relate to each other. The content is presented as a cohesive unit and provides the audience with a clear sense of the main idea. |
| Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) | 10.0% | Not addressed. | Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction are used. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistent language or word choice is present. Sentence structure is lacking. | Submission includes some mechanical errors, but they do not hinder comprehension. A variety of effective sentence structures are used, as well as some practice and content-related language. | Submission is virtually free of mechanical errors. Word choice reflects well-developed use of practice and content-related language. Sentence structures are varied and engaging. |
| Total Weightage | 100% |
KitaG
Rubric_Print_Format.xlsx
