Analyzing Rubrics

An effective rubric should contain clearly delineated points as indicated in rubric 2 in the appendix. Although both rubrics contain at least five components, rubric 1(see appendix section: https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/designteach/teach/rubrics.html) lacks some degree of clarity in terms of how the individual points have been explained. A lot of wording within the examinable components of rubric 1tend to obscure crucial assessment elements. Just a short single phrase or one word is enough to explain an element being examined in a project. Although a similar weakness is partially evident in rubric 2 (https://www2.uwstout.edu/content/profdev/rubrics/pptrubric.html), the components to be examined in a project are clearly outlined and quite easy for the examiner to follow.

An efficient rubric should preferably have main points supported by sub-categories. A single-line description cannot be used to grade or assess a student. This implies that descriptions are necessary in each category. This is a strength exhibited by both rubric 1 and rubric 2. However, sub-categories are required. The grades awarded should be measurable. In rubric 1, there are no specific points to be awarded to the students after being assessed. This is a major weakness in rubric 1. On the other hand, rubric 2 contains numeric points that can be awarded to a student.

Each subsection should preferably have breakdowns of the total points awarded in every section. In other words, point values should be assigned to both main and sub-components. This property is definitely missing in rubric 1 and partially visible in rubric 2. An effective rubric should have some section for comments (Zacharis, 2010). It is crucial for the examiner to offer his/her comments after examining a student apart from just awarding grades. Unfortunately, both rubrics lack the comments section. I would choose rubric 2 (https://www2.uwstout.edu/content/profdev/rubrics/pptrubric.html) for evaluation purpose because it captures all the relevant assessment tools.

DISCUSSION 4: Formative Assessment Plan

The assessment is intended to measure whether the students are understanding roots of words in different languages. The whole assessment plan is described below. Each study group is supposed to fill the form online and submit respective surveys. The lesion is beneficial because it will point out areas that need more effort or improvement. The tool will effectively highlight the strengths and weakness of areas that have been covered  so far

Formative activity/approach

Name of the group: ______________________________________

Midterm formative Assessment for online discussion groups

Topic: roots

1. Course goals: Please award a mark to the confidence level of your group in the following tasks:
2. Determining the stem of a Spanish noun or adjective (minimum)  1   2   3   4             5 (maximum)
3. Transliterating an Arabic word 1   2   3   4   5
4. What is the ONE lesson content or objective in this module that your group members struggled with at any given time? Let each group member share his/her opinion.
5. How much extra time do you allocate in studying this module? Rate your group on a scale of one to five.
6. As a group, what is your opinion on how we can improve this class? Let each member share his/her views.

Assessment tool

Goal	Description of goals	Learning objectives	Assessment methods	Performance criteria	Revision instructions
1
2
3
3
5
6
7
8
Overall comments

 

I opted to use the above assessment tool because it assesses the individual objectives of the module, highlights assessment methods, and how individual students are performing in class (Purcell, 2014). It also guides the assessor on how to offer revision instructions.

DISCUSSION 5: Online technologies

To begin with, socrative is a viable formative online assessment tool that can be utilized in tracking down the on-going performance and general comprehension levels of students. This tool employs questions in assessing the understanding of students (Fitkov-Norris & Lees, 2012). The quizzes are developed by the teacher and eventually played as games in the course of answering them. A class is grouped into teams when using this online assessment tool. Although the grade can be recorded during the assessment process, it is not mandatory. The tool can be used for conventional quizzes or even obtain the required percentages. The main demerit of this methodology is that it is limited to age. It is mostly suitable for lower age groups. The tool is recommendable for use though in a limited basis.

The Castle toolkit is a summative inquiry tool that can be used to evaluate or assess the learning experience at the end of a module or topic. It is a Computer Assisted Teaching and Learning online software (Bothma, Cant & du Toit, 2012). Web-based multiple quizzes can be provided by this software for the purpose of assessment. This tool offers the best on-line interactive platform between students and tutors. The main advantage of this tool is that it does not require background knowledge in html or other coding/programming languages. Besides, the kit is most suitable for higher education students. Hence, the main disadvantage is that it cannot be used by young learners. The tool can be applied in the online environment through ready downloads followed by obtaining the required questions and finally, answers are given out. This tool is recommended because it is effective and freely available (Calabrese, Sherwood, Fast & Womack, 2004).

.DISCUSSION 6: Cheating and Academic Dishonesty: Background

Students were given a term paper project that they were supposed to complete after a certain time. In the project, both physical and online materials were supposed to be used. One of the students heavily plagiarized the work from another offline source. Even though the tutor could not detect the plagiarism usingan online software, he suspected the superb performance of the student. The latter was then requested to research and produce some sections of the research. Since he was unable, his project was canceled.

Academic dishonesty is tantamount to theft. When ideas of an author are not credited when used in a piece of writing, it is not ethical at all (Risquez, O’Dwyer&Ledwith, 2011). It implies that the user does not respect the author of original materials. Online learning may fail to impart the necessary knowledge to learners if academic dishonesty is allowed to prevail. On the other hand, face to face learning can be beneficial a lot in an environment affected by academic dishonesty.

In order to prevent academic dishonesty, instructors should prefer in-class examinations whereby students are keenly monitored to produce their own work.

Regular and competitive assessmentscan be usedin online environments to avert academic dishonesty. Students who are examined regularly have less tension when sitting for examinations. The assessments should also be strictly graded so that learners can visualize their importance. In addition, academic dishonesty can be avoided if learning institutions can adopt strict measures against the vice. Rules and regulations regarding plagiarism should be clearly stipulated and learners allowed to embrace them once they are admitted. When such regulations are broken, the stated disciplinary actions should be executed fully.