Meaningful Engaged Learning Project Rubric

Parameters
Demonstrates understanding of the 4
components and all 9 of the factors of the
Meaningful and Engaged Learning Model
A teacher who didnt know MEL could see/
hear the product and understand what MEL is
and its positive impact on learning
Explains by giving more than just the
minimal words shown in the MEL diagram

Uses a technology in a transformative way (at the

Modification or Redefinition level of SAMR)
Addresses the targeted modality: visual, kinesthetic, auditory
DEAL BREAKERS: A product that doesnt explain MEL, is
inappropriate, has more than 6 errors, gives no credits, doesnt have
an entry form, or is unprofessional will not be assessed.
*S=Substitution, A=Augmentation, M=Modification, R=Redefinition.
SAMR Model by Ruben R. Puentedura (2009)

Checklist:
! Introduction/Overview
! Environment:
! Student/teacher relationships
! Helping students succeed
! Experience:
! Hands-on
! Learning Styles

!
!
!
!
!
!
!

Motivation:
Interest
Autonomy
Avoid Rewards
Meaning:
Connections
Context

Criteria
Completeness
and Accuracy
of MEL
Explanation
30%

Addressing
Targeted VAK
Modality
20%

Technology
Usage*
20%

Limited Proficiency (1)

A teacher unfamiliar with MEL
would still not know what it
stood for or what it was after
viewing/hearing this project
Correctly explains/exemplifies
11 or fewer components OR
only identifies the elements
without explanation
No apparent effort is made to
address the targeted modality

Approaching Proficient (2)

A teacher already familiar with MEL
could recognize the parts of MEL in
this project

Proficient (3)
A teacher unfamiliar with MEL could
list the components/factors and explain
them after viewing/hearing this project

Correctly explains/exemplifies 10-12

of the elements but gives incorrect
information on 1 or 2 OR doesnt
explain 1 or 2 OR leaves out elements

Correctly explains/exemplifies all 13

elements (4 components & 9 factors) of
the MEL model

The targeted modality is addressed in

a minimal or surface way

Someone with the targeted modality

could learn the material from this
project (OR the project explains how the

Descriptions on Entry Form

demonstrate lack of
understanding of characteristics
of modality or how those can
be applied to a presentation

Descriptions on Entry Form

demonstrate some understanding of
characteristics of modality and at least
one correct example of how those can
be applied to a presentation

Does a poor job of using

technology.

Uses technology in an enhancing way

(Substitution or Augmentation of
SAMR Model)

Uses no apparent creativity or

out-of-the-box thinking

Attempts to use creativity

MEL model could be used to teach

someone with this modality)

Descriptions on Entry Form

demonstrate understanding of
characteristics of modality and how
those can be applied to a presentation
Uses technology in a transformative
way (Modification or Redefinition of
SAMR Model)

Correctly explains/exemplifies all

elements in a way easily understood by a
non-educator
Wow! What a great way to think about
the targeted modality!
Descriptions on Entry Form
demonstrate clear understanding of
characteristics of modality and multiple
powerful applications of those
characteristics to a presentation
Meets proficient & uses unique features
of the technology to enhance the
presentation/ message

Successfully uses creativity to engage

or to make connections to the content
An electronic presence is posted on the
class wiki

Uses creativity to engage AND make

connections to the content
A self-explanatory electronic presence is
linked to the class wiki
Complete and accurate credits were
given for all sources showing great
respect for the intellectual property of
others (fun is okay)
All text (spoken or written) is free of
errors and is appropriate and
professional
All aspects of the creation process
(sound, text, video, graphics, etc.) were
excellent

Electronic
Presence &
Credits--10%

There is no electronic presence

of the project on the class wiki

An attempt was made to post on the

class wiki but the link doesn't work

A few credits are given

Credits are given but they are not

complete OR its not clear which
credits are for which contributions

Production
Quality--20%

There were 4-6 typo errors in

the text but it was otherwise
appropriate and professional

There were 2-4 grammatical/typo

errors in the text but it was otherwise
appropriate and professional

Complete and accurate credits are

given for all sources: graphics, actors,
music, Dr. Mike Muir and the article,
video clips, sound effects, clip art, etc.
All text (spoken or written) is
appropriate and professional with only
one grammatical/typo error

Few of the creation process

aspects (sound quality, text
legibility, etc.) were good

Most aspects of the creation process

(sound quality, text legibility, video/
graphic clarity, etc.) were good

All aspects of the creation process

(sound quality/balance, text legibility,
video/graphic clarity, etc.) were good

NOTE: A paper
must be turned
in listing all text
that is visible to
the audience

Outstanding (4)
A teacher unfamiliar with MEL would
fully understand MEL and be motivated
to use MEL in his/her classroom after
viewing/hearing this project

A: 3.68-4.00; A-: 3.34-3.67; B+: 3.01-3.33; B: 2.68-3.00; B-: 2.34-2.67; C+: 2.01-2.33; C: 1.68-2.00; C-: 1.34-1.67; D+: 1.01-1.33; D: 0.68-1.00; D-: 0.34-0.67; F: 0.00-0.33
MelProjectRubricFall16.doc

This rubric was created by Dr. Theresa Overall based on a model by Dr. Mike Muir.