2 10 26 https://writingresources.lakeheadu.ca/files/original/25c65f97956b2d16c15e405c4d3b30ed.pdf 5a3cf62bcc80beb0659b92dcdb84aad5 PDF Text Text From PeerScholar http://absurdium.utsc.utoronto.ca/peerScholar/demo/index_demo.html Evaluation Phase (Phase 2) In this part of the assignment you will be marking 5 of your fellow students' writing assignments from Phase 1, and justifying those grades with appropriate comments. (Be nice! Constructive comments are helpful!). The success of PeerScholar rests on you marking each other fairly and, as a result, feeling like your answers were marked fairly. Please take this part of the assignment seriously and try your best to be a fair evaluator. Students should first read all 5 answers carefully. Once you have read the answers you will be required to give a score out of 10 for each answer according to the rubric presented below. Remember, you must complete the evaluation phase appropriately in order for your mark to count! Marking Rubric for the Critical Thinking Piece When evaluating please remember that you are evaluating how well the author has composed, supported and justified their argument. You do not necessarily have to agree with it, just judge how well the point was articulated and justified. Component 1: Content and Organization (marked out of 8) 7,8 Excellent • A novel position is taken, (rather than a summary of existing arguments in the article) • The position is clearly stated and coherently developed. • The position is precise and comprehensive and counter- arguments are anticipated and addressed effectively. • Compelling, logically sound arguments shows excellent, thorough understanding of topic • Well referenced examples are used as support. • References are from reliable sources • Strong command of focus, organization, & development. • Introduction draws reader in very effectively. • Discussion presents a sustained, logical progression of ideas. • A strong conclusion. 5-6 Average –Good • A competent and somewhat novel position on topic, perhaps not comprehensive. • The position is somewhat unclear and, although developed, not coherently • Some counter-arguments are anticipated, but not addressed effectively • Good understanding & some depth of thought • Most arguments are strongly supported. • Sources of some references may be questionable. • Good control of focus, organization, & development • Intro tries to draw reader in with some success • Discussion may not be sustained consistently �• Conclusion may not be completely satisfying 3,4 • • • • • • • • Some effort to be novel, but lacking in clarity and conciseness A partly successful position presented in general terms but inadequately developed. Few counter arguments are addressed, but not effectively Broad understanding, but inconsistent depth of thought Support of argument is rarely strong, sometimes inadequate Some control of focus, organization, & development Some reliance on formulaic devices in introduction, discussion, or conclusion May wander or shift topics abruptly at times 0,1,2 Poor • An unclear or illogical position, responding partially, or simply summarizing arguments in the articles. • Little or no effort to anticipate & address counter-arguments • Weak or limited understanding, minimal depth of thought • Argument shows faulty logic, or lacks evidence in support • Shows weak control of focus, organization, & development • Rambling, repetitious, or hard to follow in places • No effective conclusion Component 2: Language and Grammar (marked out of 2) 2 Excellent Consistently clear, accurate, and concise. Minor grammatical problems or spelling that do not interfere with the meaning of the work 1 – Good Less concise and clear, some grammatical problems and spelling mistakes that somewhat interfere with understanding. 0 - Poor Many grammatical and spelling mistakes that interfere with understanding Include comments in each appropriate box and your grade. Then add the grades together and enter the final grade out of 10 in the appropriate box. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Peer Review Assessment Hyperlink A link, or reference, to another resource on the Internet. URL <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y2bb4GM01t4nHm-JmlHIZn5uN7xTVC8pozxWRvxsX_Y/edit?usp=sharing" title="Peer Scholar Peer Review Assessment" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Peer Scholar Peer Review Assessment</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Peer Scholar Peer Review Assessment Marking Rubric Peer Review Peer Scholar https://writingresources.lakeheadu.ca/files/original/832316a91da2443591f947a2b65f793f.pdf 7e9de74811a066b2d2ee9d98708140d6 PDF Text Text Evaluation of RFP (2016) Project: Mark Title page Request for Proposal title, Proponent’s name and address, Proponent’s telephone number, and a contact person. /2 Signed RFP Cover page Table of contents including page numbers. /1 Executive Summary • Overviews the proposal, identifies the issue, summarizes the plan /5 Corporate Experience • Biographies of team members • Corporate experience as relates to project /5 Project Understanding - Body of Proposal • Introduction (context, purpose, organization of RFP) • Project deliverables • Scope of work • Description of how requirements will be met /15 Project Management • Work plan • Time lines /2.5 Pricing 2.5 Citation List /2 Additional Evaluation Criteria as set out in the RFP Quality of Response. • Proponent Study team. • Qualifications of Proponent in the provision of the proposed services. • Creativity and overall proposal presentation. • Level and depth of planning for the completion of the project. • Experience with similar studies. /5 �Methodology Response. • Depth of understanding. • Approach to completing the Plan. • Work plan and schedule presented. • Research methodology. TOTAL FOR RFP /40 Ethics Evaluation (2.5%) (completion of ethics application, cover letter, consent form, list of questions or questionnaire instrument) /2.5 TOTAL MARK (PROPOSAL & ETHICS) = /20% � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Rubrics Hyperlink A link, or reference, to another resource on the Internet. URL <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXlcqml3kMEh-C7QnNw-ImgC7uyTSvPy-S5zVgdHj_A/edit?usp=sharing" title="OUTD 4733 Evaluation of RFP" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">OUTD 4733 Evaluation of RFP</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource OUTD 4733 Evaluation of RFP Subject The topic of the resource OUTD 4733 OUTD 4733 RFP Rubric https://writingresources.lakeheadu.ca/files/original/27d373b576049078736f1e2b139314d3.pdf a4ddeedd0209127301638c9d95878d89 PDF Text Text OUTD 4733 Final Project Evaluation Small Business Owners Evaluated Elements Writing • Grammar, sentence structure, paragraphs, organization, professional Format • Creativity /Professional • All elements (cover, title page, executive summary, table of contents, content, references, appendices) Literature Review • Academic Research • Case Studies • Past Reports Value 8.5/10 23/25 Very much improved – a few areas that need a bit of tweaking Method • Articulated process of data collection 14/15 Well described Analysis • Articulated process of analysis • Demonstration of findings resulting from data • Recommendations • Grounded in research, case studies, past reports • Professionally articulated • Connected to larger tourism processes 13/15 You did a good job with some changes necessary 23/25 The recommendations are good, but all of them need to be grounded in and connected to research – not all of them are. 8.5/10 Mostly good, some areas need work Given the nature of your project, it has a professional feel, but is still largely academic in structure Have all elements completed 90/100 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Rubrics Hyperlink A link, or reference, to another resource on the Internet. URL <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OVFt0XNBq6pvxdQEna_mtOAYFAamEOxk0WjNRj6nq0Y/edit?usp=sharing" title="OUTD 4733 Final Project Evaluation Template" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">OUTD 4733 Final Project Evaluation Template </a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource OUTD 4733 Final Project Evaluation Subject The topic of the resource OUTD 4733 Evaluation OUTD 4733 Project Rubric Small Business https://writingresources.lakeheadu.ca/files/original/f6aa81e116f4a8d57e0fef2b32c9357a.pdf 7ebad537214382183cddce6f8804e877 PDF Text Text FACULTY OF NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT Annotated Bibliography Mark Template DATE: COURSE: STUDENT NAME: TERM PAPER TOPIC: Quality, range & relevance of sources (possible 4 marks) Analysis of sources (possible 4 marks) Format (possible 2 marks) Dr. M.A. (Peggy) Smith CRITERIA At least 5 peer-reviewed sources are included (2) All sources are relevant to topic (2) Good summary and analysis with overview of article’s salient points (2) Demonstrates well what reader learned from article in relation to term paper topic (2) Sample format is followed with topic title, abstract, 10 citations with annotations in alphabetical order (1) Writing is clear and grammar correct, with no major style or formatting problems (1) COMMENTS MARK (10) MARK TOTAL 7/6/17 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Rubrics Hyperlink A link, or reference, to another resource on the Internet. URL <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KFY5tzJzVRdHkKStIYtWHoy2lLlSBSGPRKyo9nRZzKY/edit?usp=sharing" title="NRMT Annotated Bibliography Rubric" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">NRMT Annotated Bibliography Rubric</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource NRMT Annotated Bibliography Rubric Subject The topic of the resource NRMT Annotated Bibliography NRMT Rubric https://writingresources.lakeheadu.ca/files/original/f6e59bcc99c3b5fea4af61b745c78d5f.pdf 0970fc2238ae0eb0146783b6eb2c555a PDF Text Text FACULTY OF NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT Literature Review Mark Template DATE: COURSE: STUDENT NAME: TERM PAPER TOPIC: Quality, range & relevance of sources (possible 2 marks) Analysis of sources (possible 6 marks) Format (possible 2 marks) Dr. M.A. (Peggy) Smith CRITERIA At least 5 peer-reviewed sources are included (1) All sources are relevant to topic (1) Demonstrates a good knowledge of the literature on the topic (2) Shows author’s focus and critical thinking in relation to chosen topic (2) Has synthesized the literature in a way that sheds light on the topic (2) Literature review is properly sourced with in-text citations and all sources included in the Literature Cited section (1) Writing is clear and grammar correct, with no major style or formatting problems (1) COMMENTS MARK (10) MARK TOTAL 7/6/17 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Rubrics Hyperlink A link, or reference, to another resource on the Internet. URL <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lsQ2GCptelEoYs_-p3Z9ex4K4aIU-hjXzVP0Pl_EVog/edit?usp=sharing" title="NRMT Literature Review Rubric" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">NRMT Literature Review Rubric</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource NRMT Literature Review Rubric Subject The topic of the resource NRMT Literature Review NRMT Rubric https://writingresources.lakeheadu.ca/files/original/aa060e6d791a8e9347541f6b4715e2a2.pdf 1561a2b8001a65cc35a013ce8865d2af PDF Text Text FACULTY OF FORESTRY & THE FOREST ENVIRONMENT SELF-ASSESSMENT PARTICIPATION MARK Instructor: Dr. M.A. (Peggy) Smith Name: Date: Course: NRMT/INDI 2054, Aboriginal Peoples & Natural Resources Class attendance and participation are important to the understanding of course material and to generate meaningful dialogue from which we all can learn. Class participation involves articulating clearly your position and supporting it, and also the willingness to seek alternative perspectives. Participation enables you to learn from your colleagues and to help them learn from you. Good class participation is not simply repeating the facts, monopolizing class time, second guessing the instructor or ignoring the contributions of fellow participants. 1 The participation mark for this course is 10%. Below you will assess your own participation in this class by giving each element a mark out of 10. The final mark out of 100 will be averaged with the class attendance to determine your final participation mark. Did I attend lectures and labs regularly? /10 Did I prepare for lectures by doing the required readings and thinking about the topics? /10 Did I participate constructively in lab exercises? /10 Did I participate in class discussions in a way that showed understanding of the topic? /10 Were the points I made relevant to the discussion? /10 Was I a good listener? /10 Did I participate in a way that linked to the comments of others? /10 Did I productively interact with members of the class? /10 Did I demonstrate a willingness to consider new ideas? /10 Did I communicate in a concise and convincing fashion? /10 TOTAL: /100 COMMENTS/PERSONAL REFLECTION ON MY PARTICIPATION: 1 This explanation and following marking format are taken from Pittman, Paul and Doug Barney. 2004. Measuring and Assessing Class Participation pp. 21-24 in Cordell, R.M., B. Lucal, R.K. Morgan, S. Hamilton and R. Orr (eds.), Quick Hits for New Faculty: Successful Strategies by Award-Winning Teachers. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Rubrics Hyperlink A link, or reference, to another resource on the Internet. URL <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ARG4_B8Y3TCgObFGCMviBTswQcumV-1nYFNCpDEBuoA/edit?usp=sharing" title="NRMT Self Assessment Rubric" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">NRMT Self Assessment</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource NRMT/INDI 2054 Self Assessment Participation Mark Subject The topic of the resource NRMT/INDI 2054 NRMT NRMT/INDI 2054 Participation Self Assessment https://writingresources.lakeheadu.ca/files/original/f4ab2816f35914ed876d4ffe1ef374a7.pdf 993fd6f89e9039aefc059225d9e43588 PDF Text Text FACULTY OF NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT MARKING TEMPLATE FOR TERM PAPERS STUDENT COURSE: DATE: CRITERIA SUB-CRITERIA CONTENT Insightful choice of topic; originality and difficulty of topic (2) (50%) Extent of literature review, use of peer-reviewed academic sources. Literature review adequately captures latest knowledge related to topic, organizes and synthesizes current information, identifies different perspectives and relates state of literature to author’s perspective on topic (10) MARK Clearly understands theory (6) Factually correct (6) Able to analyze and synthesize ideas and concepts across texts (8) Provides sufficient context to enable reader to follow paper (6) Has considered different perspectives on topic (6) Statements are supported with appropriate references (6) ORGANIZATION (25%) Structure of body of paper is sound, including statement of purpose, literature review, discussion and conclusions, with ideas clearly explained and connected (5) Essential elements of topic have been introduced, discussed and understood (5) Structure within sections is well-organized into paragraphs and sub-headings (5) GRAMMAR & STYLE (15%) Writing is clear and specific with ideas having a clear and logical relationship with thesis and one another (5) Research sources are properly integrated in the text and authors acknowledged appropriately (5) No grammatical problems (spelling, apostrophe use, capitalization, punctuation, sentence structure (6) No stylistic problems (precise diction (good word choice), clear syntax (arrangement of words), development of ideas with specific details, use of formal style (no contractions or colloquial language) (6) Presentation of information (clarity, unique methods (tables, illustrations, etc.) (3) General formatting follows Faculty Writing Manual or other recognized style (margins, spacing, page numbering, indentation—paragraphs, quotations—headings, capitalization, figures, tables) (4) FORMATTING (10%) All required sections included (title page, abstract, table of contents, including figures and tables, body (introduction with literature review, discussion and conclusion) and literature cited) (3) No errors in in-text citations and Literature Cited (3) Deadline met (marks deducted for lateness) Dr. M.A. (Peggy) Smith, Faculty of Natural Resources Management, Lakehead University 7/6/17 �TOTAL WAC (only for NRMT students) Dr. M.A. (Peggy) Smith, Faculty of Natural Resources Management, Lakehead University 7/6/17 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Rubrics Hyperlink A link, or reference, to another resource on the Internet. URL <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dmpIRPOP_uJuX8uViWjdb1SOGwR94rhaJEu6UlVlnfo/edit?usp=sharing" title="NRMT Marking Template for Term Papers">NRMT Marking Template Term Paper</a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource NRMT Marking Template Term Papers Subject The topic of the resource NRMT Marking Template NRMT Rubric Term Paper https://writingresources.lakeheadu.ca/files/original/89e82187fe1b80ac12a89226bf10e688.pdf 3947bd4538a003d26269429b4ca9ce9d PDF Text Text Element Writing Mechanics ( /20) 85-100 - conforms to APA standards (headings, manuscript header, margins, page numbers, referencing style) - good spelling and grammar - very good sentence structure - paragraphs are well planned and have excellent flow Research/ - excellent referencing Referencing within the text ( /20) - large number (8+) of journal articles - wide variety of sources (different journals, books and other information sources) Content - all aspects of the ( /40) assignment are completed - information is accurate, up to date and goes beyond what is required - information is synthesized and connected to course material, as well as connections being made between literature sources - argument is well constructed and connects strongly to conclusion OUTD 1070 Evaluation Rubric 75-84 - conforms to APA standards (headings, manuscript header, margins, page numbers) - limited spelling or grammatical errors - good sentence structure and paragraph flow 60-74 - some mistakes in APA format - some spelling and grammatical mistakes - sentences are somewhat difficult to understand - paragraphs have too many ideas <60 - mistakes in APA format - mistakes in spelling and grammar take away from understanding - sentences are poorly structured - paragraphs are confusing - good referencing within the - missing some referencing text in the text - more than 6 journal - only 6 journal articles articles - limited variety of sources - variety of sources (multiple use of same (different journals) journal or edited volume) - very limited referencing within the text - less than 6 journal sources (or includes web sources) - no variety of sources - all aspects of the - missing some required assignment are completed elements of the assignment - information is accurate and - some information is inaccurate or out of date up to date - the information is - good synthesis of information and connection summarized but not well between literature sources connected to literature - well constructed argument - argument is difficult to and connects to conclusion follow to the conclusion - several missing elements - information is often inaccurate - there is limited connection between literature or purpose of paper - limited development of argument; no real conclusions � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Rubrics Hyperlink A link, or reference, to another resource on the Internet. URL <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y5UTA5ArC2_o7fhTeApumGoE_rEg8gofpUaoVT9RMBk/edit?usp=sharing" title="OUTD 1070 Evaluation Rubric" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">OUTD 1070 Evaluation Rubric </a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource OUTD 1070 Evaluation Rubric Subject The topic of the resource OUTD 1070 Evaluation OUTD 1070 Rubric https://writingresources.lakeheadu.ca/files/original/69c8eb1cc231763ac9fe64c358f1394f.pdf d3468f7dc1aafea79584806a2b424888 PDF Text Text Old Growth Forest (90%+) Maturing Forest (80-89) Tree of Life (70-79%) Sapling (60-69%) Seed (69-) Sophisticated application of reflective thinking & writing skills. Integration of 4 stages of reflective writing evident. Original insights. Demonstrates exceptional land community connections. Publication worthy. Stellar work! Clearly demonstrates comprehension of reflective thinking & writing within the context of learner outcomes. Quality land time evident. Two or less assignment criteria missing. Progressing towards sound reflective thinking and writing abilities. Moderate land connections. evident. Three or more assignment criteria missing. Work shows promise. Basic reflective thinking and writing skills demonstrated. Spending more focused time in Your Place strongly encouraged. Serious attention to assignment criteria required. Engagement with land community weak or not evident. See specific comments to grow your forest! YOUR PLACE Term Project Assignment #1 YOUR PLACE MAP & REFLECTION APPLICATION of DASE TOOL (40%) Clear with intent. Comprehension of 4 stages Integration of stages evident. ENGAGEMENT WITH LAND COMMUNITY (40%) Place-based experiences clearly inform reflective process. WRITING MECHANICS (20%) Free of misspellings, punctuation & grammar errors. Attention to vocabulary and precise wording. Work is free of fragments and run-on sentences. Standard English usage is employed. . COMMENTS MAP /25 REFLECTIVE WRITING /100 TOTAL /125 PLACE-BASED REFLECTIVE WRITING RUBRIC LAND RELATIONS FALL 2016. The purpose of this assignment is to joyfully develop mindfulness (brain, heart & gut), increase awareness and sensory capacity to learn directly from the land community, to hone reflective thinking and writing skills, and to deepen meaningful connections to Place. Enjoy! �Old Growth Forest (90%+) Maturing Forest (80-89) Tree of Life (70-79%) Sapling (60-69%) Seed (69-) Sophisticated application of reflective thinking & writing skills. Integration of 4 stages of reflective writing evident. Original insights. Demonstrates exceptional land community connections. Publication worthy. Clearly demonstrates comprehension of reflective thinking & writing within the context of learner outcomes. Quality land time evident. Two or less assignment criteria missing. Progressing towards sound reflective thinking and writing abilities. Moderate land connections. evident. Three or more assignment criteria missing. Work shows promise. Basic reflective thinking and writing skills demonstrated. Spending more focused time in Your Place strongly encouraged. Serious attention to assignment criteria required. Engagement with land community weak or not evident. See specific comments to grow your forest! YOUR PLACE Term Project Assignment #2 YOUR CHOICE CORE ROUTINE & REFLECTION APPLICATION of DASE TOOL (35%) Clear with intent. Comprehension of 4 stages Integration of stages evident. ENGAGEMENT WITH LAND COMMUNITY (35%) Place-based experiences clearly inform reflective process. WRITING MECHANICS (20%) Free of misspellings, punctuation & grammar errors. Attention to vocabulary and precise wording. Work is free of fragments and run-on sentences. Standard English usage is employed. IMPROVEMENT (10 %) Attention to feedback from previous assignments. Include a statement on what specific areas you to chose to improve. . CELEBRATION OF YOUR PLACE /25 REFLECTIVE WRITING / 100 TOTAL /125 PLACE-BASED REFLECTIVE WRITING RUBRIC LAND RELATIONS FALL 2016. The purpose of this assignment is to joyfully develop mindfulness (brain, heart & gut), increase awareness and sensory capacity to learn directly from the land community, to hone reflective thinking and writing skills, and to deepen meaningful connections to Place. Enjoy! �Old Growth Forest (90%+) YOUR PLACE Term Project Assignment #3 STORY of the DAY & CONNECTION APPLICATION of DASE TOOL (35%) Clear with intent. Comprehension of 4 stages Integration of stages evident. ENGAGEMENT WITH LAND COMMUNITY (35%) Place-based experiences clearly inform reflective process. WRITING MECHANICS (20%) Free of misspellings, punctuation & grammar errors. Attention to vocabulary and precise wording. Work is free of fragments and run-on sentences. Standard English usage is employed. IMPROVEMENT (10%) Attention to feedback from previous assignments. Include a statement on what specific areas you to chose to improve. Sophisticated application of reflective thinking & writing skills. Integration of 4 stages of reflective writing evident. Original insights. Demonstrates exceptional Place connections. Publication worthy. Maturing Forest (80-89) Clearly demonstrates comprehension of reflective thinking & writing skill.s Quality land time evident. Two or less assignment criteria missing. Tree of Life (70-79%) Progressing towards sound reflective thinking and writing abilities. Moderate land connections. evident. Three or more assignment criteria missing. Sapling (60-69%) Seed (69-) Work shows promise. Basic reflective thinking and writing skills demonstrated. Spending more focused time in Your Place strongly encouraged. Serious attention to assignment criteria required. Engagement with land community weak or not evident. See specific comments to grow your forest! . CELEBRATION OF YOUR PLACE /25 REFLECTIVE WRITING / 100 TOTAL PLACE-BASED REFLECTIVE WRITING RUBRIC LAND RELATIONS FALL 2016. The purpose of this assignment is to joyfully develop mindfulness (brain, heart & gut), increase awareness and sensory capacity to learn directly from the land community, to hone reflective thinking and writing skills, and to deepen meaningful connections to Place. Enjoy! /125 �PLACE-BASED REFLECTIVE WRITING RUBRIC LAND RELATIONS FALL 2016. The purpose of this assignment is to joyfully develop mindfulness (brain, heart & gut), increase awareness and sensory capacity to learn directly from the land community, to hone reflective thinking and writing skills, and to deepen meaningful connections to Place. Enjoy! � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Rubrics Hyperlink A link, or reference, to another resource on the Internet. URL <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FhVW-u0TQ5bnaY1L9FaAwFMmTX7etIhapuvteL1agZI/edit?usp=sharing" title="OUTD 1150 Place Based Reflective Writing Rubric" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">OUTD 1150 Place Based Reflective Writing Rubric </a> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource OUTD 1150 Place Based Reflective Writing Rubric Subject The topic of the resource OUTD 1150 OUTD 1150 Reflective Writing Rubric https://writingresources.lakeheadu.ca/files/original/32f165c9b837a8685ab4b225e12910ec.pdf f1e1e2ceafaf7b1b79b98bdfa2475fee PDF Text Text The Participation Log: Assessing Students’ Classroom Participation Tony Docan-Morgan L ike many instructors in higher education, I expect my students to participate actively in the classroom—namely, to contribute meaningfully to discussion questions posed to the entire class and to work through applied problems and activities in small groups. The benefits of classroom participation are clear: “students who actively participate in the learning process learn more than those who do not” (Weaver and Qi 2005, 570). Further, many college instructors perceive student classroom participation as a factor in learning (Carini, Kuh, and Klein 2006) and assign students participation grades (Bean and Peterson 1998; Rogers 2013). However, classroom participation is difficult to assess, in part because it is difficult to track in a reliable manner (Armstrong and Boud 1983; Rogers 2013). My own experiences confirm many of these findings. During my first ten years of college teaching, I advocated that my students participate regularly in class, delineated specific expectations for classroom participation in course syllabi, and recorded the quality and quantity of students’ participation after each class session. However, I came to realize the difficulty of assessing students’ participation while they worked in small groups. Although I could listen in on groups’ conversations, it was simply impossible to observe and assess the quality of each student’s contribution to the group. Further, I began teaching larger classes, sometimes 6� totaling 125 students or more, making it unmanageable for me to assess each student’s classroom participation. In response, I developed a “participation log,” which students use to record their participation, reflect on improving their participation, and demonstrate to me that they are participating meaningfully in class. In short, the log allows students to record, self-assess, and work toward improving their participation in class, and aids me in assessing student participation, how students are processing course material, and how I can improve my teaching. group-mates questions, and brainstorm additional ideas. Do not shortchange discussions or activities by finishing early. I also inform students that they will keep a log of their participation. We discuss the log’s purpose for the student— to demonstrate an accurate record of the quality and quantity of participation, and to assess and work toward improving one’s classroom participation. I also highlight the utility of the log from my perspective—it allows me to assess student participation and understanding of course material, as well as how I can Reading and reflecting on students’ self-assessments has also improved my skill as a facilitator of classroom discussions and activities. On the first day of class, we discuss participation expectations outlined in the syllabus. Some of these expectations include: • Making a substantive oral contribution during class lecture or large-class discussion at least once a week (e.g., answering questions posed by the instructor, bringing up related and relevant information, linking classroom discussions to assigned readings). • Staying on task in dyads, small groups, and activities. When given a task or question to discuss, work to make meaningful and course content-driven contributions, ask improve instruction. I provide students with a template of the log as a Word document and recommend that students update their logs once or twice a week (see Table 1). I require students to submit their logs at mid-semester and at the end of the semester. Both submissions are graded. The logs are useful for gauging the quality and quantity of each student’s participation and their perception of how their participation aids classroom discussions. I find that many students’ self-assessments at mid-semester focus on how they need to improve (i.e., I need to participate more frequently and consistently; I should link discussion Assessment Update  •  March–April 2015  •  Volume 27, Number 2  •  © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.  •  doi:10.1002/au �Table 1. Log Template 1. Participation during lecture or large class discussion. Note that this type of participation refers to making comments heard by the entire class. Students should log approximately 10 specific examples and ensure that they are spread out over the course of the semester. Date What did you contribute to lecture or large class discussion? Report what you shared specifically and your perception of how, if at all, your contribution aided the flow of the lecture or discussion, as well as the comment’s relevance to the lecture or large class discussion. 2. Participation in dyads, small groups, and activities. Log at least 10 specific examples and ensure that they are spread out over the course of the semester. Date What did you contribute to the dyad, small group, and/or activity? Summarize how you participated, and your perception of how, if at all, your participation aided the interaction. 3. Self-assessment, reflection, and improvement. Log two self-assessments of your performance as a participant in the class, focusing on your strengths and how you can improve. Reflect on participation expectations outlined in the syllabus, as well as the quality and quantity of your participation in class. The first self-assessment should be completed between weeks 3 and 7, and the second should be completed between weeks 8 and 12. Each self-assessment should be at least five sentences in length. Date Reflection responses directly to class readings), and often need little elaboration from me. I provide individual, written feedback to students, which frequently corroborates their self-assessment and/or offers additional recommendations for successful participation (i.e., since your group sometimes finishes the activity and discussion early, work to ask group members to elaborate on their points; push the discussion by considering so- lutions that have not been considered). I rarely am confronted with a “fudged” participation log, in part because I remind students that I also monitor and record their contributions. Having reviewed hundreds of students’ participation logs for the past two years, I am more aware of their experiences as active (and sometimes inactive) classroom participants, and as a result have improved my teach- ing practice. The mid-semester and end-of-semester logs provide useful, albeit indirect, assessment data regarding student learning. Some students, for example, articulate confusion about course concepts in their logs. I am able to revisit and clarify course material at mid-semester and revise classroom discussion questions and activities for the future. Reading and reflecting on students’ self-assessments has also improved my skill as a facilitator of classroom discussions and activities. I am more sensitive to and aware of students’ voices in my classes, and better equipped to respond to and synthesize student contributions. ■ References Armstrong, M., and Boud, D. 1983. “Assessing Participation in Discussion: An Assessment of the Issues.” Studies in Higher Education 8 (1): 33–44. Bean, J. C., and Peterson, D. 1998. “Grading Classroom Participation.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning 74 (Summer): 33–40. Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., and Klein, S. P. 2006. “Student Engagement and Student Learning: Testing the Linkages.” Research in Higher Education 47 (1): 1–32. Rogers, S. L. 2013. “Calling the Question: Do College Instructors Actually Grade Participation?” College Teaching 61: 11–22. Weaver, R. R., & Qi, J. 2005. “Classroom Organization and Participation: College Students’ Perceptions.” The Journal of Higher Education 76 (5): 570–601. Tony Docan-Morgan is an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin– La Crosse. Assessment Update  •  March–April 2015  •  Volume 27, Number 2  •  © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.  •  doi:10.1002/au 7 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource External Links and Documents Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Participation Log: Assessing Students’ Classroom Participation Article Class Participation Rubrics