ELT502 Assessment Task 1 2009- Original criteria sheet
Criteria / High Distinction (HD) / Distinction (DN) / Credit (CR) / Pass (PP) / Fail (NN)Describe the peer observation process undertaken. / The description of the peer observation process is a systematic account that: is detailed in scope; covers all stages of the process; is cohesive in structure; and is sensitive to and respectful of peer’s context and perspective. Demonstrated capacity to both analyse (identify themes) and synthesise (distil/refine) ‘raw data’ from journal and experience. / The description of the peer observation process is detailed in scope, cohesive in structure and covers all stages of the process. An attempt is made to analyse (identify themes) and/or synthesise (distil/refine) ‘raw data’ from journal and experience, although not necessarily a balanced selection from these two sources. / The peer observation process is described in some detail and all stages of the process are addressed. Structure would benefit from greater cohesion. Some evidence of analysis (identifying themes) and/or synthesis (distilling/refining) ‘raw data’ from journal and experience. / The peer observation process is described, but lacks detail and/or does not include balanced reference to all stages of the process. Description is fragmentary and lacks cohesion. Limited or no evidence of analysis (identifying themes) and/or synthesis (distilling/refining) ‘raw data’ from journal and experience. / The peer observation process is not described in detail.
Critically appraise the peer observation process. / Aware of the complexities of the peer observation process – what is pivotal and what is peripheral, and the limits as well as the benefits. Critiques and justifies a position on the peer observation process. / Identifies the benefits as well as the limitations of the peer observation process. Justifies a position on the peer observation process. / Identifies the benefits as well as the limitations of the process, although not necessarily in balance. Some evidence of a position on the peer observation process, although not explicitly articulated or justified. / Peer observation process is described more than critically appraised. Limited insight into the complexities of the process. Limited critique and/or justification of a position on the peer observation process. / Limited or no critical appraisal of the peer observation process.
Critically analyse and reflect upon own teaching practice. / Engages in a process of critical reflection that: is informed by literature; reflects intellectual honesty and open-mindedness through questioning own convictions; is receptive to feedback/criticism; reflects a genuine desire to improve practice; discriminates between habit/belief and warranted knowledge; and recognises the strengths and limitations of one’s own and others’ understanding. Articulates how personal histories and institutional requirements can affect professional practice. / Engages in a process of critical reflection that is critical in nature and informed by literature. Recognises the strengths and limitations of one’s own and others’ understanding. Is receptive to feedback/criticism. Shows some insight into how personal histories and institutional requirements can affect professional practice. / Engages in a process of reflection, although not necessarily critical in nature nor informed by literature. Some evidence of an awareness of the strengths and limitations of one’s own and others’ understanding and how personal histories and institutional requirements can affect professional practice. Some evidence of responsiveness to feedback/criticism. / Engages in reflection on own teaching practice, although this is brief and not critical in nature or informed by literature. Reflection tends to be descriptive rather than analytical. Limited awareness of the strengths and limitations of one’s own and others’ understanding and how personal histories and institutional requirements can affect professional practice. Limited evidence of responsiveness to feedback/criticism. / Limited or no critical analysis and/or reflection on own teaching practice.
Provide evidence of theory and reflection informing future teaching practice. / Explicitly articulates how new knowledge (both literature-based and experiential) informs future teaching practice. Adapts new understandings to own authentic teaching context in a way that is predictive and reflects sensitivity to the locally and historically-situated nature of that context. Consistently justifies decisions about future practice. / Explicitly articulates how new knowledge (both literature-based and experiential) informs future teaching practice. Adapts new understandings to own authentic teaching context, but this tends to be more generic and lacks genuine insight into the locally and historically-situated nature of that context. Some justification is provided for decisions about future practice, although not necessarily consistently. / Some evidence of new knowledge informing future practice, but this tends to be more implicit than explicit and is not drawn in a balanced way from both literature and experience. Some attempt to adapt new understandings to own teaching context, but this tends to be more generic and lacks genuine insight into the locally and historically-situated nature of that context. Limited or no justification provided for decisions about future practice. / Limited evidence of new knowledge (literature-based or experiential) informing future practice. Limited evidence of new understandings being adapted to own authentic teaching context. Limited or no justification for decisions about future practice. / Limited or no evidence of theory and reflection informing future teaching practice.
Draw upon literature to support discussion / Clear evidence of wide scholarly reading informing conceptual understanding of the peer observation process and its inherent complexities. Consistent integration of literature (both generic and discipline-specific) to substantiate and justify views. / Clear evidence of wide scholarly reading. Consistent integration of literature (primarily generic) to substantiate and justify views. / Some evidence of scholarly reading. Some integration of literature (primarily generic), but this serves more a descriptive function than an evaluative one. Relevance of literature to argument could be more clearly articulated. / Some evidence of scholarly reading, although this is limited in terms of breadth, depth and credibility of sources. Integration of literature is inconsistent and relevance to argument is not always clear. / Discussion is not appropriately supported by literature.
Adhere to presentation conventions including legibility, spelling, punctuation, grammar and current referencing procedures as described on the UTAS library page link:
/ Writing is virtually free from typographic, grammatical and punctuation errors. APA referencing style is consistently and accurately used. / Minor errors only in typographic, grammatical and punctuation formats. APA referencing style contains minor errors only. / There are some typographic, grammatical and punctuation errors. APA referencing style contains some errors. / There are a number of typographic, grammatical and punctuation errors. APA referencing style is used, but not with consistency or accuracy. / Academic written presentation conventions are not adhered to.
Final awards are calculated using the following algorithm:
HD –High Distinction standard in 5 criteria, with at least a Distinction in the 6th
DN– Distinction standard in 5 criteria with at least a Credit in the 6th
CR–Credit standard in 5 criteria, with a least a Pass in the 6th
PP – At least Pass standard in each of the 6 criteria
NN –Fail standard in at least one criterion
A limited number of phrases used in this rubric have been based on Wiggins, J. & McTighe, G. (1999). Understanding by Design.Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.