Analytical Scoring Rubric
- Unsatisfactory;
- Minimal competence;
- Competent;
- Exemplary.
Scoring rubric for social science essay assignment
Level of performance
Unsatisfactory
The lowest level of performance is unsatisfactory. This level gets a score of 1. Generally, a candidate who gets this score did not understand the assignment in any way (Tierney and Marielle, 2004). There is an obvious lack of understanding of what is required. Both editorial and content aspects are poorly displayed (Tierney and Marielle, 2004). Clearly, the student did not take time to do the assignment well.
Minimal competence
This is the second lowest level of performance. Student’s work in this level has a few major mistakes and other minor mistakes (Tierney and Marielle, 2004). The student shows inadequate understanding of the assignment. The logic of argument also lacks clarity making it hard for the reader to understand (Tierney and Marielle, 2004). Basically the student failed to take time to do the assignment and therefore was forced to do it in a rush (Tierney and Marielle, 2004).
Competent
This level of performance is good and satisfactory. The student will show an understanding of all aspects needed to be measured. There are no major mistakes but there can be a few detectable minor mistakes (Mertler, 2001).
Exemplary
This is the highest level of performance. The student shows high competence of understand and responding to the assignment (Moskal, 2000). The work is free of major and minor errors. This level shows that student spent quality time to research and do the assignment (Moskal, 2000).
References
Mertler, C. 2001, ‘Designing scoring rubrics for your classroom’, Practical assessment, research and evaluation, vol. 7, no. 2. Web.
Moskal, B. 2000, ‘Scoring Rubrics: What, when and how?’, Practical assessment research and evaluation, vol. 7, no. 3. Web.
Tierney, R. & Marielle, S. 2004, ‘What’s still wrong with rubrics: focusing on the consistency of performance criteria across scale levels‘, Practical assessment research and evaluation, vol. 9, no. 2. Web.