562-1088-1-SM

GAPPENDIX

PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY
STUDIES PROGRAM RUBRIC:
ETHICAL ISSUES

Ethical Issues and Social Responsibility

6 (highest) Portfolio creatively and comprehensively articulates approaches to ethical issues and social
responsibility, in a scholarly manner, citing specific evidence. Demonstrates an ability to
5 view multiple sides of these issues, to question what is being taught, and to construct
4 independent meaning and interpretations.
3
2 Portfolio presents well-developed ideas on the role of ethical issues and social
1 (lowest) responsibility in both private and public life. Demonstrates a deep awareness of how a
X= conceptual understanding of ethical issues and social responsibility manifests concretely in
one’s own personal choices, including decisions on when and how to act.

Portfolio analyzes ethical issues and social responsibility in a scholarly manner and makes
thoughtful connections between this area of study and its effects on lives, ideas, and events.

Portfolio discusses explicitly how a deepening understanding of ethical issues and social
responsibility has influenced personal opinions, decisions, and views on the role of the self
in society.

Portfolio thoughtfully analyzes, in a scholarly manner, a situation or situations in which
ethical issues and social responsibility have played an important role. Begins to investigate
connections between areas of controversy and to extrapolate meaning from specific examples.

Portfolio applies learning in ethical issues and social responsibility to issues that arise in
everyday life and contemplates the impact of personal ethical choices and social action in
the context of interpersonal and broader societal spheres.

Portfolio exhibits a working knowledge of major themes and scholarly debates surrounding
ethical issues and social responsibility and applies this understanding to some topics but
offers no independent analysis.

References ethical issues and social responsibility as a subject of personal inquiry, begins
to question established views, and contemplates in some way the value and impact of
individual choices and personal action on one’s broader community.

Portfolio mentions some issue(s) involving ethics or talks about social responsibility in a
general fashion but does not discuss these areas in a meaningful way.

Portfolio contains some evidence of self-reflection in the area of ethical issues or social
responsibility, but this reflection is superficial and reveals little or no questioning of
established views.

Portfolio displays little or no engagement with the subjects of ethical issues and social
responsibility.

Demonstrates little or no recognition of ethical issues and social responsibility as subjects
worthy of personal inquiry.

No basis for scoring (Use only for missing or malfunctioning portfolios.)

Note: In this scoring guide, the phrase “ethical issues and social responsibility” refers to the impact
and value of individuals and their choices on society—intellectually, socially, and personally.

HAPPENDIX

PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY
STUDIES PROGRAM RUBRIC:

HOLISTIC CRITICAL THINKING

Inquiry and Critical Thinking Rubric
Students will learn various modes of inquiry through interdisciplinary curricula—
problem posing, investigating, conceptualizing—in order to become active,
self-motivated, and empowered learners.

6 (Highest)—Consistently does all or almost all of the following:
• Accurately interprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc.
• Identifies the salient arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con.
• Thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates major alternative points of view.
• Generates alternative explanations of phenomena or event.
• Justifies key results and procedures, explains assumptions and reasons.
• Fair-mindedly follows where evidence and reasons lead.
• Makes ethical judgments.

5—Does most of the following:
• Accurately interprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc.
• Thinks through issues by identifying relevant arguments (reasons and claims) pro

and con.
• Offers analysis and evaluation of obvious alternative points of view.
• Generates alternative explanations of phenomena or event.
• Justifies (by using) some results or procedures, explains reasons.
• Fair-mindedly follows where evidence and reasons leads.

4—Does most of the following:
• Describes events, people, and places with some supporting details from the source.
• Make connections to sources, either personal or analytic.
• Demonstrates a basic ability to analyze, interpret, and formulate inferences.
• States or briefly includes more than one perspective in discussing literature,

experiences, and points of view of others.
• Takes some risks by occassionally questioning sources or by stating

interpretations and predictions.
• Demonstrates little evidence of rethinking or refinement of one’s own perspective.

122

A P P E N D I X H 123

3—Does most or many of the following:

• Responds by retelling or graphically showing events or facts.
• Makes personal connections or identifies connections within or between sources

in a limited way. Is beginning to use appropriate evidence to back ideas.
• Discusses literature, experiences, and points of view of others in terms of own

experience.
• Responds to sources at factual or literal level.
• Includes little or no evidence of refinement of initial response or shift in dualistic

thinking.
• Demonstrates difficulty with organization and thinking is uneven.

2—Does most or many of the following:

• Misinterprets evidence, statements, graphics, questions, etc.
• Fails to identify strong, relevant counter arguments.
• Draws unwarranted or fallacious conclusions.
• Justifies few results or procedures, seldom explains reasons.
• Regardless of the evidence or reasons, maintains or defends views based on self-

interest or preconceptions.

1 (lowest)—Consistently does all or almost all of the following:

• Offers biased interpretations of evidence, statements, graphics, questions,
information, or the points of view of others.

• Fails to identify or hastily dismisses strong, relevant counterarguments.
• Ignores or superficially evaluates obvious alternative points of view. Argues

using fallacious or irrelevant reasons and unwarranted claims.
• Does not justify results or procedures, nor explains reasons.
• Exhibits close-mindedness or hostility to reason.

X—No basis for scoring (Use only for missing or malfunctioning portfolios.)

IAPPENDIX

PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY

PROGRAM RUBRIC:

QUANTITATIVE LITERACY

The Quantitative Literacy Rubric

6. Portfolio demonstrates evidence of ability to conduct independent research and
to integrate the results with other methodologies in original work. The
meaning of statistical significance, calculus, a comprehensive understanding of
causality and correlation, applications of normal curves and outliers to
physical and social phenomena, and an integrated comprehension of linear
regression is comprehensively displayed.

5. Portfolio demonstrates evidence of ability to conduct independent research and
to integrate the results with other methodologies in original work, although not
to the fullest extent possible. The meaning of statistical significance, a
comprehensive understanding of causality and correlation, applications of
normal curves and outliers to physical and social phenomena, and an integrated
comprehension of linear regression is present but not fully displayed.

4. Portfolio contains assignments demonstrating evidence of an ability to read,
understand, and critique books or articles that make use of quantitative
reasoning, using descriptive statistics, understanding the meaning of statistical
significance, and displaying data using appropriate graphs and charts.
Assignments are included in the portfolio as separate entities, and quantitative
reasoning is integrated into other work.

3. Portfolio demonstrates evidence of an ability to read, understand, and critique
books or articles that make use of quantitative reasoning, using descriptive
statistics (mean, median, mode), understanding the meaning of statistical
significance, and displaying data using appropriate graphs and charts.
Alternatively, well-designed and appropriate quantitative reasoning
assignments are included in the portfolio, but are treated as separate entities.

2. Portfolio demonstrates evidence of limited ability to define, duplicate, label,
list, recognize, and reproduce mathematical and statistical elements. Portfolio
displays limited or no evidence of meaningful application of these numerical
concepts.

1. Portfolio demonstrates no evidence of ability to evaluate mathematics and
statistics, including no knowledge of basic descriptive statistics.

124

JAPPENDIX

PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY

STUDIES PROGRAM RUBRIC:

WRITING

Portland State University University Studies Writing Rubric

Score of 6:

I The student portfolio demonstrates the ability to communicate clearly for a
variety of purposes and diverse audiences.

I The portfolio shows the mark of the writer’s own labor, critical judgment, and
rhetorical shaping.

I It is marked by lucid and orderly thinking, substantial depth, fullness and
complexity of thought.

I It articulates metacognition on the writer’s part: analysis of learning strategies,
revision techniques, and improvement in writing skills.

I It evidences control of diction, syntactic variety, and usage.

Score of 5:

I The student portfolio reveals the ability to communicate for a variety of
purposes and diverse audiences.

I The portfolio satisfactorily shows the mark of the writer’s own labor, critical
judgment, and rhetorical shaping.

I The main ideas are well supported with a fair degree of specificity.
I Organization reveals clarity of thought and paragraphs are coherent units.
I The writing is largely free of errors in mechanics, usage, and sentence structure.

Score of 4:

I The portfolio does come to terms with the basic tasks of the assignments, but
overall it executes the assignments less completely or less systematically than a 6
or 5 portfolio.

I There is no serious weakness in organization. Though there may be some
disjointedness and lack of focus, the reader can move with relative ease through
the discourse.

I Generalizations are usually supported, though some detail may be lacking or
irrelevant.

I The portfolio contains some errors in sentence structure and mechanics but not
to the point of distracting the reader from the content.

125

126 A P P E N D I X J

Score of 3:

I The student portfolio shows difficulty in managing the tasks of the assignment.
I There is likely to be either a weakness in analytical thinking or lack of

development of key ideas.
I The portfolio marginally demonstrates the ability to communicate for a variety

of purposes.
I Errors in sentence structure, usage, and mechanics do interfere with readability.
I Overall, the portfolio shows some metacognition of the student’s part, but there

is lack of clarity and depth about revising and the writing process.

Score of 2:

I The portfolio does not come to terms with the assignment.
I There is little development of ideas, and the reader finds it difficult to follow

from one point to the next.
I Writing tasks may be ignored or badly mishandled.
I There may be serious errors in reasoning.
I There may be serious and frequent errors in sentence structure, usage, and

mechanics.
I Overall, the portfolio reveals an inability to communicate successfully.

Score of 1:

I The portfolio reveals a combination of rhetorical problems from conceptual
confusion, disorganization, and a basic inability to handle language.

KAPPENDIX

PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY
STUDIES PROGRAM RUBRIC:
DIVERSITY

6 (highest) The Diversity of Human Experience

5 Portfolio creatively and comprehensively demonstrates an understanding of
4 personal, institutional, and ideological issues surrounding diversity in a scholarly
3 fashion, using concrete examples. The work reflects an ability to view issues from
2 multiple perspectives, to question what is being taught, and to construct
1 (lowest) independent meaning and interpretations.

Demonstrates broad awareness of how the self appears from the greater perspective
of human experience, questions own views in light of this awareness, and
contemplates its implications for life choices in the personal and public spheres.

Portfolio presents persuasive arguments about, and insights into, prominent issues
surrounding diversity and discusses ways in which personal and cultural experiences
influence lives, ideas, and events.

Reflects on personal experiences within the broader context of human experience,
demonstrating a sophisticated awareness of the limitations of subjective experience
and an informed view of the role difference plays in societies and institutions.

Portfolio analyzes some issue(s) surrounding diversity and demonstrates an ability
to understand particular situations in the context of current concepts and theory.

Discusses personal experience within the broader context of human experience—
demonstrating a working knowledge of features of diverse peoples, societies, and
institutions and analyzes these features in some way.

Portfolio demonstrates a basic working knowledge of central theories and concepts
related to the study of diversity.

Demonstrates some attempt to meaningfully locate oneself within the broader
context of diverse culture.

Portfolio demonstrates a basic comprehension of some issues surrounding diversity
but refers only in a limited way to current theory and concepts.

Relates personal experiences within the context of broader human experiences but
does not locate self within that context in a thoughtful manner.

Portfolio uses some terminology surrounding diversity but fails to demonstrate
meaningful comprehension of key concepts.

Tells of personal experiences but does not connect, compare, or contrast those with
the experiences of others.

Note: In this scoring guide, “diversity” refers to differences in ethnic, religious, and cultural
perspectives, class, race, gender, age, sexual orientation, and ability.

LAPPENDIX

WEB SITE INFORMATION FOR
INTRODUCTION TO RUBRICS

We have created a website for
• Downloading rubrics
• Sharing rubrics
• Discussing the use of rubrics
Each of the authors has Web pages that you can access from the Web
site. Please feel free to contact us about rubrics and even about doing
workshops with faculty on creating rubrics. The address is http://
styluspub.com/resources/introductiontorubrics.aspx

128

INDEX

Note: Rubrics appear in italics. D

A Description of dimensions, 10–11
Dimensions, 9–10
Adjunct faculty, collaboration with, Discipline-specific rubrics, 95–102
69, 72 Diversity of human experience

Advising, with rubrics, 20 rubric, 110
Application, Stage 4, 38–44
E
B
Equity, 26–28
Business management: classroom
participation rubric, 98–99 F

C Feedback,
importance of details, 19–21, 74–75
Changing communities in our city, importance of timeliness, 17–18
three-level rubric, 13 individualized and flexible, 79, 84
scoring guide rubric, 12 summative, 86–89
use in overall assessment, 20–21
Check boxes, 39, 75
Citations, use of, 56, 60 Feedback model, 56–58
Classroom participation rubric, 98–99 4×4 model, 62–64
Collaboration, 23–24, 65–72, 86–88
G
with colleagues, 68–72
with students, 49–53, 59–60 Grading,
with teaching assistants, 65–67 holistic, 89
with tutorial staff, 67–68 our own teaching methods, 89
Creative expressions: scoring guide summative, 86–89
use of points, 56, 57, 88
rubric, 86–87
Critical thinking, 21–22

129

130 I N D E X R

Grading rubric for metamorphosis Reflecting, Stage 1, 14, 30–32
paper, 70–71 Rubric construction model of professor

Graphics design sophomore portfolio and student roles, 54
review, Rubric for film presentation, 42–45

criteria, 101 graded with check boxes, 75–76,
evaluation sheet, 104 90–91
preparation, 100
quality levels, 103 graded with circles, 80–81
rubric, 99–104 Rubric for self-assessment, 92
Grouping and labeling, Stage 3, Rubric(s),

36–38 checklist for need, 4–5,
definition of, 3
L models of construction, 53–64
parts of, 5–6
Levi, Antonia, vii, 4 scoring guide, 9, 10, 12, 38–39
Listing, Stage 2, 32–36 stages in constructing, 29–30

M S

Metarubrics, 93–94 Scales, 8–9, 14
Multiple rubrics, 105, 109 language in, 8, 10, 14, 37, 41

P Science laboratory work rubric, 95–97
Scoring guide rubric(s), 38–39
Pass-the-Hat model, 58–60
Pedagogical tools, 15 for film presentation, 40
Performance anchors, 74 graded with notes, 83, 85
Portland State University, Self-assessment, student, 58
Staged rubric(s), 102–105
Graduate School of Education, 93 for a book review, 108
Graphics Design Department, for a research paper, 106–107
Stevens, Dannelle, vii, 4
99–104 Students, first generation, 26–28
University Studies Program, vii, ix, 4, Surprise rubric, 50

68–69, 109 T
Post-its™, 35–36
Post-its™ model, 60–62 Task description, 6–7
Presentation model, 54–56 Teaching assistants, 65–67
Presentation rubric, graded with

circles, 82

Teaching skills, 25–26 I N D E X 131
Three-to-five-level rubric,
W
39–45, 75
Time, saving of, 14, 18, 29, 46, 56, 60, Web site for book, vi, 29
Weight of the dimensions, 54–55, 88–89
62, 64, 75, 84 Writing Center, collaboration with, 67–68