GRADING RUBRICS FOR GROUP PROJECT

COLLABORATION RUBRIC

Group Assessment

Category

Description

Point Value

Specifications
Project meets the established criteria.

Follows all directions and all criteria met.

5

Follows most directions and most criteria met.

3

Follows few directions and only a few criteria met.

1

FOLLOWS DIRECTIONS – TOTAL POSSIBLE

5

Mechanics
Well written, clear organization, uses standard English grammar, contains minor, if any, spelling errors

Product is well designed, written, and organized. Uses standard English grammar, contains minor if any spelling error. Hyperlinks work.

3

Product is adequately designed, written, and organized. Uses standard English grammar, contains minor if any spelling error. Hyperlinks work.

2

Product is poorly designed, written, and/or organized. Contains errors in grammar/spelling indicating lack of proof reading. Some hyperlinks don't work.

1

MECHANICS – TOTAL POSSIBLE

3

Critical Thinking and Application
Critical thinking includes application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Arguments are clear and show depth of insight into theoretical issues, originality of treatment, and relevance. May include unusual insights. Arguments are well supported.

Finished product demonstrates a high degree of critical thinking and the ability to apply concepts in a practical manner

5

Finished product demonstrates some critical thinking and the ability to apply concepts in a practical manner

3

Finished product lacks demonstration of critical thinking and the ability to apply concepts

1

CRITICAL THINKING – TOTAL POSSIBLE

5

Group Collaboration, Cohesiveness and Effectiveness
Works together as a group to develop project, active communication among all members of the group, able to reach consensus regarding details of the project

Members work as a group, practice consensus building, most actively participate in asynchronous discussion, timely logins, and product creation. The product created is creative and exceptional.

5

Members mostly work as a group, practice consensus building, most actively participate in asynchronous discussion, timely logins, and product creation. The product created is adequate.

3

Members work as individuals and don't practice consensus building. Active in asynchronous discussion, logins, and product creation is less than adequate. The product created is of poor quality.

1

GROUP COLLABORATION, COHESIVENESS AND EFFECTIVENESS
– TOTAL POSSIBLE

5

Timeliness
Submitting by stated due date

Submitted by deadline

2

Submitted no more than 24 hours after deadline

1

Submitted more than 24 hours after deadline or not submitted

0

TIMELINESS – TOTAL POSSIBLE

2

Individual Assessment

Category

Description

Point Value

Participation

Actively participates in group process; actively supports group or completion of task through collaboration

5

Adequately participates in group process; supports group or completion of task through collaboration

4

Occasionally participates in group process; does not actively support group or completion of task through collaboration, but completes "assigned task"

3

Rarely participates in group process; does not support group, does not collaborate, contributes little to task

2

Does not participate in group process; does not support group, does not collaborate,

1

PARTICIPATION – TOTAL POSSIBLE

5

Roles

Assumes roles that benefit the group

3

Rarely assumes useful roles

2

Assumes no role in group

1

ROLES – TOTAL POSSIBLE

3

Consensus- Building

Strives for consensus

2

Does not strives for consensus but does “own thing”

1

CONSENSUS-BUILDING – TOTAL POSSIBLE

2

Communication with Group

Logs in and posts necessary replies approximately every 24 hours

5

Logs in and posts necessary replies approximately every 48 hours

4

Logs in and posts necessary replies within approximately 48 hours

3

Logs in and posts necessary replies within approximately 72 hours

2

Logs in sporadically and rarely posts

1

COMMUNICATION WITH GROUP – TOTAL POSSIBLE

5

OVERALL TOTAL POSSIBLE FOR GROUP PROJECT

35