|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
|
Description of Interview
(Thought part)
|
Limited: Vague outline
of purpose of interview; interviewed less than the required
number of interviewees directed; did not reflect any
transfer of knowledge gained in class to interview;
did not indicate any change in practice as a result
of new learning.
|
Acceptable: General
outline of purpose of interview; interviewed less than
the number of required interviewees but showed some
evidence of a transfer of knowledge gained in class
and cited information that implies some intended changes
in behavior as a result of new learning; no specific
plan cited.
|
Proficient: Clear outline
of purpose of interview; interviewed number of interviewees
directed; clear reflection of transfer of knowledge
gained in class to interview; indicated how new learning
will change current practice and cited specific behaviors
to target.
|
Excellent: Clear outline
of purpose of interview; insightful connections made
between class content; completed required number of
interviews as directed; articulated specific behaviors
targeted to change to build on new learning as well
as strategies to support changes in current behaviors.
|
____
|
|
Description of Experience
(Feeling part)
|
Vague connection of
any understanding of the relationship between the material
covered in class and the integration of concepts into
the interview; no personal connection to learning evident
|
Some connection of
understanding of the relationship between the material
covered in the class and the integration of concepts
into the interview; personal connection to learning
evident yet superficial
|
Detailed description
of the connection of understanding of the relationship
between the material covered in class and the integration
of concepts into the interview; clear evidence of personal
connection to learning
|
Description of interview
experience reflects powerful personal connection between
learning in class and how the concepts play a role in
the interviewees experiences in meetings
|
____
|
|
Organization/Focus
|
Limited: Many details
are not in a logical order; presents large gaps in knowledge;
there is little organization to writing resulting in
little coherence and an inability of the reader to understand
what the purpose/value of the assignment was from the
start.
|
Acceptable: Some details
are not in a logical order; occasional gaps in knowledge
and/or transference of that knowledge but the reader
can understand the basics; reader is able to infer the
purpose/value of the assignment.
|
Proficient: Details
are placed in logical order; presented in a way that
the reader can easily comprehend; no gaps are evident
in knowledge and/or transference of knowledge; purpose
of assignment is clear; writing is interesting and paragraph
construction is strong.
|
Excellent: Details
are placed in logical order; clear connection between
paragraphs and no gaps in knowledge are present; purpose
of assignment is transparent; paragraphs are well constructed
and the writer effectively keeps the reader interested.
|
____
|
|
Mechanics
|
Writer makes excessive
errors in grammar or spelling or punctuation. Reader
struggles through paper because the mechanical errors
distract from the focus; sentence structure is short
and choppy.
|
Writer makes minor
and relatively few errors in grammar, spelling, or punctuation
but reader is not distracted from the focus of the reflection;
sentence structure is somewhat varied.
|
Writer seldom makes
an error in grammar, spelling, or punctuation; reader
easily follows reflection; sentence structure is substantially
varied in way that adds a level of professionalism to
the reflection one would expect at this level of writing.
|
Writer makes no errors
in grammar, spelling or punctuation; sentence structure
is varied extensively; paper has obvious professional
tone
|
____
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
____
|
| |
|
|
|
Total---->
|
____
|