Scribd
Upload
298 views3 pages

U4CA & TAM Grading Rubric Overview

This document outlines the criteria and rating scale for a U4CA & TAM rubric used to evaluate presentations in Canvas. There are 10 criteria rated on a scale of 1 to 4 points for outstanding, proficient, satisfactory, or inadequate work. The criteria include unity, coherence, concreteness, conciseness, clarity, accuracy, technicality, assertiveness, message, and meeting deadlines. A total of 50 points can be earned, and descriptions are provided to explain the point values awarded based on the quality of explanation, examples, group participation, delivery, and meeting expectations.

Uploaded by

Omar sarmiento
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
298 views3 pages

U4CA & TAM Grading Rubric Overview

This document outlines the criteria and rating scale for a U4CA & TAM rubric used to evaluate presentations in Canvas. There are 10 criteria rated on a scale of 1 to 4 points for outstanding, proficient, satisfactory, or inadequate work. The criteria include unity, coherence, concreteness, conciseness, clarity, accuracy, technicality, assertiveness, message, and meeting deadlines. A total of 50 points can be earned, and descriptions are provided to explain the point values awarded based on the quality of explanation, examples, group participation, delivery, and meeting expectations.

Uploaded by

Omar sarmiento
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

U4CA & TAM RUBRIC IN CANVAS

Criteria Ratings Pts

UNITY
4.0 pts 3.0 pts 2.0 pts 1.0 pts
Outstanding Proficient Satisfactory Inadequate

COHERENCE
4.0 pts 3.0 pts 2.0 pts 1.0 pts
Outstanding Proficient Satisfactory Inadequate

CONCRETENESS
4.0 pts 3.0 pts 2.0 pts 1.0 pts
Outstanding Proficient Satisfactory Inadequate

CONCISENESS
4.0 pts 3.0 pts 2.0 pts 1.0 pts
Outstanding Proficient Satisfactory Inadequate

CLARITY
4.0 pts 3.0 pts 2.0 pts 1.0 pts
Outstanding Proficient Satisfactory Inadequate

ACCURACY
4.0 pts 3.0 pts 2.0 pts 1.0 pts
Outstanding Proficient Satisfactory Inadequate
Criteria Ratings Pts

TECHNICALITY
4.0 pts 3.0 pts 2.0 pts 1.0 pts
Outstanding Proficient Satisfactory Inadequate

ASSERTIVENESS
4.0 pts 3.0 pts 2.0 pts 1.0 pts
Outstanding Proficient Satisfactory Inadequate

MESSAGE
4.0 pts 3.0 pts 2.0 pts 1.0 pts
Outstanding Proficient Satisfactory Inadequate

DEADLINES
4.0 pts 3.0 pts 2.0 pts 1.0 pts
Outstanding Proficient Satisfactory Inadequate

BEYOND EXPECTATIONS
10.0 pts 8.0 pts 5.0 pts 2.0 pts
Outstanding Proficient Satisfactory Inadequate

Total Points: 50.0

Criteria for Grading:


4.00 – the presentation is well explained and prepared flawlessly based on the topic and on the student’s or group’s perspective. The
ideas are well presented with examples or information that strengthens the claim. The answers are also accurate that it satisfies what
the questions are demanding. Group members participated and cooperated seamlessly to the creation of the presentation. Highly
assertive and lively in delivering the message of the presentation. Going above and beyond of what is expected.

3.00 - the presentation is explained and prepared with few loopholes based on the topic and on the student’s or group’s perspective.
The ideas are presented good with examples or information that strengthen the claim. The answers are not so accurate but it still
satisfies what the questions are demanding. Group members participated and cooperated somehow to the creation of the
presentation. Somewhat assertive and lively in delivering the message of the presentation. Somehow achieved what is expected.

2.00 - the presentation is explained and prepared with many loopholes and gaps based on the topic and on the student’s or group’s
perspective. The ideas are presented with weak examples or information that didn’t support the claim well. The answers are not
accurate and confusing. Not all group members participated or cooperated to the creation of the presentation because they are late
or absent. Somewhat timid and monotonous in delivering the message of the presentation. 1-3 expectations are achieved.

1.00 - the presentation is poorly explained and prepared without basis on the topic and the student’s or group’s perspective is vague.
The ideas are presented without/unrelated examples or information that weakens the claim. The answers are far from accuracy that
it didn’t answer what the question is demanding. Group members didn’t participate or cooperate to the creation of the presentation.
Highly timid and monotonous in delivering the message of the presentation. No expectations are achieved.

You might also like