This rubric outlines the criteria and scoring for assessing critiques of a facilities planning and design course. Students will be evaluated on their ability to provide a brief yet clear summary, review relevant literature, cite appropriate references, and provide a proper critique with valid criticisms and strong writing mechanics. The highest scores are for summaries that concisely capture the key points, thorough reviews that make comparisons to cited works, multiple credible references, and critiques that demonstrate comprehensive understanding and support all arguments.
This rubric outlines the criteria and scoring for assessing critiques of a facilities planning and design course. Students will be evaluated on their ability to provide a brief yet clear summary, review relevant literature, cite appropriate references, and provide a proper critique with valid criticisms and strong writing mechanics. The highest scores are for summaries that concisely capture the key points, thorough reviews that make comparisons to cited works, multiple credible references, and critiques that demonstrate comprehensive understanding and support all arguments.
This rubric outlines the criteria and scoring for assessing critiques of a facilities planning and design course. Students will be evaluated on their ability to provide a brief yet clear summary, review relevant literature, cite appropriate references, and provide a proper critique with valid criticisms and strong writing mechanics. The highest scores are for summaries that concisely capture the key points, thorough reviews that make comparisons to cited works, multiple credible references, and critiques that demonstrate comprehensive understanding and support all arguments.
CRITERIA EXEMPLARY SATISFACTORY DEVELOPING BEGINNING SCORE Summary Brief and concise Brief and concise Unclear summary Unclear summary with summary with some with correct summary with 10 pts. correct grammar grammatical errors grammar some grammatical errors 9 – 10 6–8 3–5 1–2 Review of Significant Few related Very few related No related Related number of related literatures were cited literatures cited literatures cited Literature literatures were cited 8 – 10 5–7 1–4 0 30 pts. Thoroughly Moderately Only summarized Did not compare compared and compared and the cited related or contrast to contrasted to contrasted to cited literatures cited related cited related related literatures literatures literatures 16 - 20 9 – 15 1–8 0 References Provided at least No science Provided two science Provided one 3 science journal journal reference journal articles as science journal articles as or internet references article as reference 10 pts. references references/books were used 9 – 10 6–8 3–5 1–2 Critique Showed good Only agreed or Only agreed or Proper understanding of Showed fair disagreed with disagreed the issues and all understanding of the limited support without support arguments are issue and some and explanation and explanation properly arguments are supported properly supported 16 - 20 11 – 15 6 – 10 1-5 Criticisms Criticisms are few Criticism are few All criticisms are presented were and valid and invalid invalid or focus comprehensive on the writing and valid style 16 - 20 11 – 15 6 – 10 1-5 50 pts. Sentence Sentence structure Minor problems Serious problems structure and and grammar are with sentence with sentence grammar are strong and mostly structure and some structure and excellent. Correct correct. Few minor grammatical errors grammar. use of errors in punctuation Numerous major punctuation. No and/or spelling. spelling errors. spelling errors. 9 – 10 6–8 3–5 1–2