Evaluation:
- This rubric addresses the ability to evaluate models, equations, solutions, and claims.
| |
|
Competent | Developing | Novice | What? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I 1 | Is able to conduct a unit analysis to test the self-consistency of an equation | The student correctly conducts a unit analysis to test the self-consistency of the equation. |
An attempt is made to check the units of each term in the equation, but the student either misremembered a quantity’s unit, and/or made an algebraic error in the analysis. |
An attempt is made to identify the units of each quantity, but the student does not compare the units of each term to test for self-consistency of the equation. |
No meaningful attempt is made to identify the units of each quantity in an equation. |
| I 2 | Is able to analyze a relevant special case for a given model, equation, or claim. | A relevant special case is correctly analyzed and a proper judgment is made. |
An attempt is made to analyze a relevant special case, but the student’s analysis is flawed. OR the student’s judgment is inconsistent with their analysis. |
An attempt is made to analyze a special case, but the identified special case is not relevant. OR major steps are missing from the analysis (e.g., no conclusion is made) | No meaningful attempt is made to analyze a relevant special case. |
| I 3 | Is able to identify the assumptions a model, equation, or claim relies upon. = C8 | All significant assumptions are correctly identified, and no identified assumptions are incorrect. |
All of the student’s identified assumptions are correct, but some important assumptions are not identified by student. |
Some assumptions are correctly identified by student, but some of the identified assumptions are incorrect | No assumptions are correctly identified. |
| I 4 | Is able to evaluate another person’s problem solution or conceptual claim by direct comparison with their own solution or conceptual understanding | Student clearly states their own solution/conceptual understanding, and methodically compares it with the other person’s work. Based on this comparison, the student makes a sound judgment about the validity of the other person’s work. |
The student states their own solution/claim and compares it with the other person’s solution/claim, but does not make any concluding judgment based on this comparison. OR the student does everything correctly, but their presentation is incomplete (i.e., skipping logical steps) |
The student states his/her own problem solution/conceptual claim, but does not methodically compare it with the other person’s solution/claim, and so does not state a judgment about the validity of the other person’s solution/claim. OR a judgment is made regarding the other person’s solution/claim, but no justification is given. | No meaningful attempt is made to evaluate by direct comparison. |
| I 5 | Is able to use a unit analysis to correct an equation which is not self-consistent | Student proposes a corrected equation which is correct, at least up to unit-less constants. |
Student proposes a corrected equation which passes unit analysis, but their proposal is incorrect (i.e., the student failed to remember the proper equation, and therefore proposed an equation which is not physical) |
Student proposes a corrected equation, but their proposal still does not pass a unit analysis | No meaningful attempt is made to correct the equation, even though it failed a unit analysis |
| I 6 | Is able to use a special-case analysis to correct a model, equation, or claim | The model, equation, or claim is correctly modified in accordance with the special-case that was analyzed. |
An attempt is made to modify the model, equation, or claim based on the special-case analysis, but some mistakes are made in the modification. |
An attempt is made to modify the model, equation, or claim, but the modifications have nothing to do with the special-case that was analyzed. | No meaningful attempt is made to correct the model, equation, or claim even though it failed a special-case analysis |
This rubric was originally developed by Eugenia Etkina and the rest of the ISLE team at Rutgers University. It is shared here with permission and any modifications in language or focus are entirely my responsibility. My enduring thanks to Eugenia for her dedication to PER and generosity with those of us who admire and follow her work.
