APPENDIX K SUMMATIVE RUBRICS

Summative Rubric- Knowledge: Adapted from IBMYP 2014 Achievement

Level

Descriptor

0 The student does not reach a standard described by any of the descriptors given below.

Comments:

1–2  The use of vocabulary is incorrect or not attempted

 Facts and examples are either absent, or those used do not show understanding.

 The student provides descriptions that are inaccurate;

explanations are absent.

Comments:

3–4  The use of vocabulary is mostly accurate, though some errors remain.

 Facts and examples are used and show basic understanding.

 The student provides basic descriptions that may need more detail; explanations are absent.

Comments:

5–6  Vocabulary is used accurately.

 Related facts are used to show understanding.

 The student provides accurate descriptions but they are lacking details and explanations.

Comments:

7-8  The student shows an excellent usage and range of content vocabulary.

 A range of related facts and examples are used to show understanding.

 Descriptions are accurate, detailed and explained.

Comments:

Summative Rubric-Concepts: Adapted from IBMYP 2014 Achievement

Level

Descriptor

0 The student does not reach a standard described by any of the descriptors given below.

Comments:

1–2  Use of concepts is inappropriate.

 The student may show some understanding by attempting to connect some concepts to the subject matter but is

unsuccessful

Comments:

3–4  Use of concepts is attempted but not appropriate.

 The student demonstrates understanding of concepts by making some basic connections to the subject matter.

Comments:

5–6  Use of concepts is present but not always appropriate.

 The student demonstrates an understanding of concepts by describing connections to the subject matter but lacks detail.

 The student attempts to apply concepts to the provided situation but is not always successful.

Comments:

7-8  Use of concepts is appropriate and advanced.

 The student demonstrates an understanding of concepts by explaining in detail connections to the subject matter.

 The student correctly applies concepts to the provided situation all of the time.

Comments:

Summative Rubric-Skills: Adapted from IBMYP 2014 Achievement

Level

Descriptor

0 The student does not reach a standard described by any of the descriptors given below.

Comments:

1–2  The student can select and use information but it is not related.

 The student displays no critical thinking.

 The student’s arguments, decisions or judgments are not always related, or may be absent.

 The student attempts to carry out investigations, demonstrating few skills.

Comments:

3–4  The student selects and uses some related information.

 The student’s work lacks critical thinking.

 The student makes some arguments, decisions or judgments though these are unsupported.

 The student demonstrates basic investigative skills.

Comments:

5–6  The student selects and uses mostly related information.

 Work shows limited critical thinking

 The student makes some arguments, decisions or judgments and some are supported.

 The student demonstrates adequate investigative skills

Comments:

7-8  The student selects and uses a range of related information.

 Work shows a good level critical thinking.

 All arguments, decisions and judgments are supported.

 The student demonstrates good investigative skills.

Comments:

Summative Rubric-Organization and Presentation: Adapted from IBMYP 2014 Achievement

Level

Descriptor

0 The student does not reach a standard described by any of the descriptors given below.

Comments:

1–2  The student communicates information that may not always be on the topic.

 The student attempts to structure and sequence the work, but it may be unorganized and/or in the unsatisfactory format.

 Presentation and expression are unclear and no attention paid to the audience.

Comments:

3–4  The student communicates information that is sometimes on topic.

 The student attempts to structure and order the work in an organized format but is not always successful.

 Presentation and expression are occasionally unclear with little attention paid to the audience.

Comments:

5–6  The student communicates information that is mostly on topic.

 The student organizes information into a sequence, appropriate to the format required.

 Presentation and expression are clear and attention is paid to the audience in terms of appropriate language, style and visual representation

Comments:

7-8  The student communicates information that is always on the topic.

 The student organizes information into a logical sequence, appropriate to the format required.

 Presentation and expression are clear, and effective, and the language, style and visual representation used are always appropriate to the audience and purpose.

Comments:

REFERENCES

27 High Interest Texts for Independent Reading and Book Clubs - Curriculet. (2014, December 13). Retrieved June 1, 2015, from

http://www.curriculet.com/blog/high-interest-texts-for-independent-reading-and-book-clubs/

Allen, C. (2011). Tough talk, tough texts: Teaching English to change the world.

Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann Publishers.

Anderson, P (2009). Engaging students in online literature circle conversations.

Conference of the International Journal of Arts and Sciences, 1(17), 38 – 42.

Barone, D. (2014). Reading, learning and even arguing across multiple texts. Voices in the Middle, 21 (4), 54-57.

Brabham, E. G., & Villaume, S. K. 2000. Questions and answers: continuing conversations about literature circles. The Reading Teacher, 54, 278–280.

Buehl, D. (2014). Classroom strategies for interactive learning (4th ed.). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.

Daniels, H. (2004). Literature Circles-Voice and Choice in Book Clubs and Reading Groups. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers

Daniels, H. (2006). What's the Next Big Thing with Literature Circles? Voices in the Middle, 13 (4), 10-15.

Gallagher, K. (2004). Deeper reading: comprehending challenging texts, 4-12. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers.

Harvey, S., & Daniels, H. (2009). Comprehension & collaboration: Inquiry circles in action. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann Publishers

King, C. (2001). "I Like Group Reading Because We Can Share Ideas": The Role Of Talk Within The Literature Circle. Literacy (formerly Reading), 35(1), 32-36.

Klinger, J., Vaughn, R., and Schumm, J. 1998. Collaborative strategic reading during social studies in heterogeneous fourth- grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 99(1), 3–22.

Layne, S. (2009). Igniting a passion for reading successful strategies for building lifetime readers. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers.

Long, T., & Gove, M. K. (2003). How engagement strategies and literature circles promote critical response in a fourth-grade, urban classroom. Reading Teacher, 57(4), 350-361.

Middle School Nonfiction Text Sets. (2014). Retrieved June 1, 2015, from

http://readingandwritingproject.com/public/resources/booklists/nonfiction sets/Middle_School_Nonfiction_Text_Sets.pdf

Miller, D., & Anderson, J. (2009). The book whisperer: awakening the inner reader in every child. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Miller, D., & Kelley, S. (2014). Reading in the wild: the book whisperer's keys to cultivating lifelong reading habits. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Noe, K. L., & Johnson, N. J. (1999). Getting started with literature circles. Norwood, Massachusetts: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.

Pearson, C. (2010). Acting Up Or Acting Out? Unlocking Children's Talk In Literature Circles. Literacy, 44(1), 3-11.

Ranck-Buhr, W. 2012. Motivating readers through voice and choice. Voices from the Middle, 20 (2), 58-59.

Richardson, A. E. (2010). Exploring text through student discussions: Accountable talk in the middle school classroom. The English Journal, 100(1), 83-88.

Stien, D., & Beed, P. L. (2004). Bridging the gap between fiction and nonfiction in the literature circle setting. Reading Teacher, 57(6), 510-518.

Whittaker, C. R. (2012). Integrating literature circles into a cotaught inclusive classroom. Intervention in School and Clinic, 47(4), 214-223.