Peer Assessment 2 Grading Rubric Evaluation Criterion #1 of 5 Course Title and Description The assessment of students’ written assignments is a core responsibility of college/university instructors. To be an effective learning activity, the instructor’s assessment must include clear, specific, and constructive feedback. For this activity to promote your own learning (as well as that of your peer), you should consider yourself to be the Teaching 101 instructor who thus is highly motivated to help your students learn what was good and what could be improved in each portion of their syllabus and their syllabus preparation activity. Using your own knowledge, based upon the information presented in this course, especially in Week 4 and in the readings about developing course descriptions and syllabi, please grade this section using the grading rubric provided below. Please award points on the basis of the following rubric:

• 4 points: All of the following points are true or only minor problems exist. The course title is a suitable length and is descriptive of the course. The course description is a suitable length, is consistent with the title, clearly specifies the overall goal of the course from the learners’ perspective, indicates the level/background of the students that the course is suited for and provides a general description of how the course will be taught.

• 3 points: The course description is informative, but there are minor issues of clarity and consistency. For example, there is minor inconsistency between the course title and the description OR more details are needed about the level of students that the course is designed for.

• 2 points: Two of the criteria expected for the title and course description are not met.

• 1 point: Three criteria for the title and course description are not met.

• 0 points: More than three criteria for the title and course description are not met or the participant did not make an attempt to provide an answer for this question.

Please also briefly comment on the reasons for your score. There is no limit to the feedback you can give. Please make it useful and constructive. Be respectful of your peer’s work. Be careful not to give offense, but do make suggestions for improvements.

1

Evaluation Criterion #2 of 5 Course Learning Objectives The assessment of students’ written assignments is a core responsibility of college/university instructors. To be an effective learning activity, the instructor’s assessment must include clear, specific, and constructive feedback. For this activity to promote your own learning (as well as that of your peer), you should consider yourself to be the Teaching 101 instructor who thus is highly motivated to help your students learn what was good and what could be improved in each portion of their syllabus and their syllabus preparation activity. Using your own knowledge, based upon the information presented in this course, especially in Week 4 and in the readings, resources, and videos about developing course descriptions and syllabi, please grade this section using the grading rubric provided below. Please award points on the basis of the following rubric:

• 4 points: All of the following points are true or only minor problems exist. There are 3-5 course learning objectives that are consistent with the overall goal of the course. Objectives are briefly and clearly described in terms of what students will be able to do. Objectives use active learning verbs. At least one of the objectives is at a high level of ‘applying,’ ‘analyzing,’ or ‘synthesizing’ knowledge in Bloom’s Taxonomy. (For the taxonomy, see slides in Session 2 of Week 4, Course Description and Objectives.)

• 3 points: One of the criteria outlined above is missing.

• 2 points: Two of the criteria outlined above are missing.

• 1 point: Three of the criteria outlined above are missing.

• 0 points: None of the criteria are met or the participant did not make an attempt to provide an answer for this question.

Please also briefly comment on the reasons for your score. There is no limit to the feedback you can give. Please make it useful and constructive. Be respectful of your peer’s work. Be careful not to give offense, but do make suggestions for improvements.

2

Evaluation Criterion #3 of 5 Syllabus Preparation: Alignment of Teaching Methods to Learning Styles The assessment of students’ written assignments is a core responsibility of college/university instructors. To be an effective learning activity, the instructor’s assessment must include clear, specific, and constructive feedback. For this activity to promote your own learning (as well as that of your peer), you should consider yourself to be the Teaching 101 instructor who thus is highly motivated to help your students learn what was good and what could be improved in each portion of their syllabus and their syllabus preparation activity. Using your own knowledge, based upon the information presented in this course, especially in Week 3 and in the readings, resources, and videos about learning styles and needs assessment, please grade this section using the grading rubric provided below. Please award points on the basis of the following rubric:

• 4 points: Five methods/media are identified that would appeal to both visual and auditory learners and the rationale for each selection is clearly stated.

• 3 points: There are only four methods/media identified, the methods/media listed might appeal to either visual or auditory learners, but not both, and/or the rationale included for each selection is not clearly stated.

• 2 points: There are only three methods/media identified, the methods/media listed clearly appeal only to visual or auditory learners, and/or the rationale is included for some of the selections is stated, but not all of the selections. Also, the rationale for the selection(s) may not be clear.

• 1 point: There is only one or two methods/media identified, the methods/media listed clearly do not appeal to either visual or auditory learners, and/or the rationale is not included for any of the selections stated. Also, the rationale for the selection(s) may not be clear.

• 0 points: The student did not make an attempt to answer the question. Please also briefly comment on the reasons for your score. There is no limit to the feedback you can give. Please make it useful and constructive. Be respectful of your peer’s work. Be careful not to give offense, but do make suggestions for improvements.

3

Evaluation Criterion #4 of 5 Evaluation Plan—Major Assignments, Student Assessments, and Grading The assessment of students’ written assignments is a core responsibility of college/university instructors. To be an effective learning activity, the instructor’s assessment must include clear, specific, and constructive feedback. For this activity to promote your own learning (as well as that of your peer), you should consider yourself to be the Teaching 101 instructor who thus is highly motivated to help your students learn what was good and what could be improved in each portion of their syllabus and their syllabus preparation activity. Using your own knowledge, based upon the information presented in this course, especially in Week 4 and in the readings, resources, and videos about developing course descriptions and syllabi, please grade this section using the grading rubric provided below. Please award points on the basis of the following rubric:

• 4 points: All of the following statements are true or only minor issues exist: There are 3-5 course assignments, including examinations, and they seem suitable for the level of the course. Based on the brief descriptions, the assignments or exams appear to evaluate the learning that should have occurred by the point at which they occur in the course. Each assignment accounts for a reasonable portion of the students’ final grade. The overall grading plan is presented clearly and seems reasonable and fair. No one assignment accounts for more than 50% of the final grade.

• 3 points: One aspect of the criteria outlined above is not met. For example, one of the assignments is not well described, or one of the assignments does not seem suitable for the level of the students.

• 2 points: Two of the criteria outlined above are not met.

• 1 point: Three of the criteria outlined above are not met.

• 0 points: More than three of the criteria outlined above are not met or the participant did not make an attempt to provide an answer for this question.

Please also briefly comment on the reasons for your score. There is no limit to the feedback you can give. Please make it useful and constructive. Be respectful of your peer’s work. Be careful not to give offense, but do make suggestions for improvements.

4

Evaluation Criterion #5 of 5 Class Session Schedule—Session Title/Objectives, Learning Activities, Readings, Homework Assignments The assessment of students’ written assignments is a core responsibility of college/university instructors. To be an effective learning activity, the instructor’s assessment must include clear, specific, and constructive feedback. For this activity to promote your own learning (as well as that of your peer), you should consider yourself to be the Teaching 101 instructor who thus is highly motivated to help your students learn what was good and what could be improved in each portion of their syllabus and their syllabus preparation activity. Using your own knowledge, based upon the information presented in this course, especially in Week 4 and in the readings, resources, and videos about developing course descriptions and syllabi, please grade this section using the grading rubric provided below. Please award points on the basis of the following rubric:

• 4 points: All of the following statements are true or only minor issues exist: The class sessions are suitable for an 8-week course. Each session has an informative descriptive title or learning objectives so it is possible to understand what the content will be. The due dates for each major assignment or examination is clear. Based on the titles of the sessions and/or the session learning objectives, the content and sequence of the sessions seem to build knowledge and skills in a systematic manner. The timing of the assignments and examinations seems appropriate for the learning that has taken place.

• 3 points: One aspect of the criteria outlined above is not met. For example, too much material is planned for an 8-week term OR the content of one or two of the sessions is not clear.

• 2 points: Two of the criteria outlined above are not met.

• 1 point: Three of the criteria outlined above are not met.

• 0 points: The content of the sessions is not clear or more than three of the criteria outlined above are not met or the participant did not make an attempt to provide an answer for this question.

Please also briefly comment on the reasons for your score. There is no limit to the feedback you can give. Please make it useful and constructive. Be respectful of your peer’s work. Be careful not to give offense, but do make suggestions for improvements.

5