Using a rubric for a blogging assignment

Earlier this year I gave my 3rd year students an assignment in which they needed to write a reflective blog post based on a clinical experience they’d experienced. I just thought I’d share the rubric I used to grade the assignments, as I’ve come across a few people have have had difficulty trying to assign grades to blog posts. This one below is the best that I could manage but would love to hear if you think there’s anything I could do differently.

Twitter Weekly Updates for 2010-08-02

Wiki marking rubric

I just finished putting together a grading rubric for a wiki-based assignment that my fourth year students did earlier this year. After I couldn’t find one that suited my needs, I developed my own and thought I’d post it here (see below without formatting) in the meantime. If you have any suggestions to improve on it, please feel free to comment. You can also download the document here (it’s in the OpenDocument format).

Content (40)

The Introduction is clear and informative, giving the reader a good overview of what is to come. The body of the work is comprehensive and generally covers the main topic. The Conclusion sums up the work concisely.

Organization and presentation (20)

Information is clearly arranged and visually appealing so that it is easily viewed. Headings and other formatting options are used effectively to direct the reader. Graphics are well chosen and placed on the page to enhance the message.

Language (10)

A high level of accuracy of spelling, grammar and punctuality is expected. The content is well-written, clear and concise. Appropriate terminology is used to accurately present the information and demonstrates an understanding of the work.

Collaboration (10)

Has contributed to both the assignment and discussion pages, as shown by the history of the wiki. Has made useful suggestions to other group members, as well as the peer review group. Clearly an active contributor to the assignment. Respectful and polite.

References (10)

Reference material is appropriate and relevant, and the in-text citations are correctly formatted (this has nothing to do with the syntax for creating a Reference list). A Reference list is present, although not necessarily correctly formatted.

Peer review of other groups work (5)

Useful, interesting and / or encouraging comments and suggestions are made to the other group. There is engagement with peers and the content that clearly serves to assist the other group in their work.

Information literacy (5)

A variety of links have been used to direct the reader to additional information about the topic, as well as primary sources of content. All hyperlinks work and are relevant. Good use of embedded images to highlight important points and enhance the readers understanding.

Bonus marks (5)

Use of sound and / or video is used to enhance the message and provide another element of understanding and interest. Use of the wiki syntax and other tools demonstrate a deeper understanding of how the technology can be used to enhance collaboration and provide greater meaning to the work.

Additional comments