https://poe.com/s/2xwjcBALyuq01T12uCZ0
My PROMPT:
Please create a rubric, in the form of a table, for evaluating the term essays written by postgraduate students taking a course on intercultural communication in the classroom. Below are the term essay instructions for the students:
"Students will critically analyse the intercultural responsiveness of selected instructional or
assessment materials used for teaching and learning English as a second language.
The analysis should be grounded in relevant theories and models of intercultural communication.
The essay should examine the extent to which the selected materials foster intercultural understanding, respect diverse cultural perspectives, and align with the learning needs and
preferences of a specific target learner group.
Based on the critical analysis, students will provide well-reasoned recommendations for enhancing the cultural inclusiveness and effectiveness of the materials for the target learner group. The
recommendations should be justified with reference to the literature on
intercultural communication and language teaching."
AFTER ITS FIRST RESPONSE, I ASKED IT TO REVISE AS FOLLOWS:
please revise the above rubric by (1) deleting the criterion "Alignment with Target Learner Needs (20%)", and (2) add 1 more performance level so that there are 5 performance levels.
Rubric for Evaluating Term Essays on Intercultural Communication in ESL Teaching
| Criteria | Outstanding (A+ / A) | Strong (A- / B+) | Proficient (B / B-) | Developing (C+ / C) | Needs Improvement (D/F) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Critical Analysis of Materials (35%) | Exceptionally deep, nuanced analysis with strong theoretical grounding; identifies key strengths and limitations with precision. | Well-developed analysis using relevant theories; clear identification of strengths and weaknesses. | Adequate analysis but may lack depth in theoretical application; some gaps in critical evaluation. | Superficial analysis with minimal theoretical support; weak engagement with materials. | Lacks critical analysis; no meaningful connection to theory. |
| Examination of Intercultural Understanding & Respect (30%) | Insightful, well-supported discussion of how materials promote (or fail to promote) intercultural understanding and respect. | Solid examination of intercultural aspects, though some areas could be more detailed. | Basic discussion of intercultural elements but lacks depth or specificity. | Limited or overly general examination; little connection to target learners. | Minimal or no meaningful analysis of intercultural responsiveness. |
| Recommendations for Improvement (25%) | Highly original, practical, and well-justified recommendations with strong links to literature. | Clear, logical recommendations with good justification; minor areas for refinement. | Some useful suggestions, but not all are well-developed or fully supported. | Recommendations are vague, generic, or insufficiently justified. | Weak, impractical, or absent recommendations. |
| Academic Rigor & Writing Quality (10%) | Flawless structure, coherence, and academic style; impeccable citations. | Well-organized and clear; minor stylistic or citation issues. | Generally readable but with occasional clarity or citation problems. | Disorganized or unclear in places; citation errors present. | Poor structure, unclear writing, or major citation issues. |
Scoring Guide:
- A+ / A (90-100%) – Exceptional mastery of content and analysis.
- A- / B+ (80-89%) – Strong work with minor refinements needed.
- B / B- (70-79%) – Meets expectations but lacks depth in some areas.
- C+ / C (60-69%) – Basic competence but with significant weaknesses.
- D/F (Below 60%) – Fails to meet core requirements.
Key Adjustments:
- Removed "Alignment with Target Learner Needs" and redistributed its weight:
- Critical Analysis increased from 30% → 35%
- Intercultural Understanding increased from 20% → 30%
- Recommendations increased from 20% → 25%
- Added a fifth performance level ("Outstanding") to allow for finer distinctions in grading.
This version maintains clarity while offering more precise evaluation levels. Let me know if further refinements are needed!
No comments:
Post a Comment