Skip to main content
sign in
Username
Password
forgot?
Share
help_outline
help
User's Guide
Please enable JavaScript on your web browser
menu
iRubric: SMCP s18 Memo 2 rubric
Your browser does not support iframes.
edit
print
share
Copy to my rubrics
Bookmark
test run
assess...
delete
Do more...
SMCP s18 Memo 2
SMCP s18 Memo 1
Rubric Code:
CXA46A2
By
amische
Ready to use
Public Rubric
Subject:
Social Sciences
Type:
Writing
Grade Levels:
Undergraduate
Your browser does not support iframes.
Desktop Mode
Mobile Mode
Contentious performances
Descriptions
Excellent
2 pts
Good
1.5 pts
Fair
1 pts
Poor
0.5 pts
Q1: Contained, violent, disruptive?
Excellent
Shows a strong understanding of the difference between contained, disruptive and violent performances, using associated terminology;
AND: Shows vividly how your movement performs and moves between these types of performances
Good
Explains the difference between types of performances, but the discussion is sketchy and without sufficient use of associated terminology;
AND/OR: Shows how the movement performs these repertoires, but in a vague and undeveloped way.
Fair
Discussion of the difference between the three types of performances is vague and/or confusing, AND/OR inadequately applied to the case.
Poor
Missing key elements in explaining the difference between the three types of performances, AND/OR missing an application to the case.
Q2: Principle or strategy?
Excellent
Clearly discusses the differences between nonviolence as a principle or a strategy, providing vivid examples from your movement and showing deep and nuanced understanding of this distinction.
Good
Discusses the difference between principled and strategic nonviolence, but the discussion and/or the examples seem vague and undeveloped.
Fair
Discussion of the difference between principled and strategic nonviolence is confusing and underdeveloped, and/or is thinly applied to the case.
Poor
Discussion of this distinction is weak or misleading, and/or insufficiently applied to the case.
Q3: Nonviolent civil resistance
Excellent
1 pts
Good
0.75 pts
Fair
0.5 pts
Poor
0.25 pts
Concept 1
Excellent
Clearly and accurately defines the term, using associated terminology from readings and class notes in the discussion of the case.
Good
Definition is adequate but sketchy and without sufficient use of associated terminology.
Fair
Definition is unclear or somewhat confusing; may be missing some elements.
Poor
Definitions is misleading, confusing or wrong, or is missing core elements.
Concept 2
Excellent
Clearly and accurately defines the term, using associated terminology from readings and class notes in the discussion of the case.
Good
Definition is adequate but sketchy and without sufficient use of associated terminology.
Fair
Definition is unclear or somewhat confusing; may be missing some elements.
Poor
Definitions is misleading, confusing or wrong, or is missing core elements.
Concept 3
Excellent
Clearly and accurately defines the term, using associated terminology from readings and class notes in the discussion of the case.
Good
Definition is adequate but sketchy and without sufficient use of associated terminology.
Fair
Definition is unclear or somewhat confusing; may be missing some elements.
Poor
Definitions is misleading, confusing or wrong, or is missing core elements.
Application to the case
Excellent
Clear and compelling application of all three concepts to the case; shows a deep and nuanced practical understanding of the core arguments of theories of non-violent civil resistance (NVCR).
Good
Application to the case is a bit sketchy; shows a surface-level understanding of the theory of NVCR.
Fair
Application to the case is quite sketchy and undeveloped; shows a vague or somewhat misleading understanding of NVCR
Poor
Application to the case is weak and or quite misleading on some points.
Writing clarity and grammar
Excellent
2 pts
Good
1.5 pts
Fair
1 pts
Poor
0.5 pts
Writes clearly and grammatically
Excellent
Sentences are consistently grammatical, with hardly any errors throughout. Sentences are clear, graceful and fluid. A pleasure to read.
Good
Occasional awkward spots, rough writing, confusing word choice or minor grammatical errors. Distracts from reader focus on ideas.
Fair
Frequent grammatical errors, such as such as run-ons, fragment sentences, subject-verb agreement, pronoun agreement, verb tense, commas, punctuation, spelling. Hard to concentrate on ideas.
I SUGGEST YOU TAKE YOUR NEXT PAPER TO THE WRITING CENTER BEFORE SUBMISSION.
Poor
Serious and consistent problems in grammar, punctuation and/or spelling. Writing is rough and choppy. Difficult and frustrating to read.
NEXT PAPER MUST BE TAKEN TO THE WRITING CENTER BEFORE SUBMISSION.
Subjects:
Social Sciences
Types:
Writing
Discuss this rubric
You may also be interested in:
More rubrics by this author
More Social Sciences rubrics
More Writing rubrics
Do more with this rubric:
Preview
Preview this rubric.
Edit
Modify this rubric.
Copy
Make a copy of this rubric and begin editing the copy.
Print
Show a printable version of this rubric.
Categorize
Add this rubric to multiple categories.
Bookmark
Bookmark this rubric for future reference.
Assess
Test run
Test this rubric or perform an ad-hoc assessment.
Grade
Build a gradebook to assess students.
Collaborate
Apply this rubric to any object and invite others to assess.
Share
Publish
Link, embed, and showcase your rubrics on your website.
Email
Email this rubric to a friend.
Discuss
Discuss this rubric with other members.
Do more with rubrics than ever imagined possible.
Only with iRubric
tm
.
iRubric and RCampus are Trademarks of Reazon Systems, Inc.
Copyright (C)
Reazon Systems Inc. All Rights Reserved
n178
Your browser does not support iframes.
Your browser does not support iframes.
Your browser does not support iframes.