• On-going individual/group activities 20%
• Field-test IE lesson/report findings 25%
• Practical Application: Imaginative Education Learning Design (IELD) 30%
• Mind the Gap creative representation/critique 25%

NOTES:

As members of the scholarly community of SFU, we all share the responsibility to uphold and maintain SFU’s academic standards and reputation. A condition of continued membership in the university community is academic honesty. Please review and familiarize yourself with SFU’s policy of Academic Integrity:  https://www.sfu.ca/students/academicintegrity.html.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR ASSIGNMENTS

A/A+:  Outstanding grasp of concepts and issues; evidence of careful and precise reading of required texts and of other related texts; ability to accurately relate theoretical discussions to practice; critical evaluation of readings and discussions and lectures giving evidence of independent and consistent judgment; fluent and appropriate use of relevant concepts; careful attention to the ideas of others, and courtesy in addressing them; imaginative organization and presentation of written work.

A-:  As above but at a somewhat lower level of acuteness.

B+:  Clear use of relevant literature and background reading; appropriate use of relevant concepts; sound structure and good organization; sound critical evaluation; linkages with wider issues made clearly; courtesy in dealing with others’ ideas and opinions.

B:  Reasonably accurate grasp of key concepts and issues; analyses and discussions relevant and appropriate; adequately clear structure to written work; readings sensibly incorporated into arguments; evaluative discussions made accurately and sensibly; courtesy in dealing with others’ ideas and opinions.

B-:  As above, but at a somewhat lower level of acuteness.

C/C-:  Little evidence of required reading or little evidence that it has been adequately understood; limited grasp of the concepts being discussed; divergence from the main point to only peripherally or superficially related items; largely dealing with anecdotal or concrete instances rather than with the level of principles and theories; largely descriptive writing with little analysis, though showing some grasp of the main issues.

F:  Solely descriptive and only peripheral points engaged; lack of evidence of reading or limited understanding of what read; conceptual confusion, irrelevant and muddled material poorly organized.

Assessment Rubric: Participation

A range: Student’s oral and written contributions consistently demonstrate openness to learning and transformation. Student’s work frequently indicates their dedication to improving the quality, coherence, and utility of ideas. Student often engages in self-reflection and critique. Student’s contributions consistently include connections to other ideas expressed in assigned readings or expressed by fellow students. It is clear that the student has a deep and nuanced understanding of course themes. Student acknowledges points of epistemological harmony and discordance between their ideas and others’ ideas. Student demonstrates consistently high level of respect and commitment to group activities.

B range: Student’s oral and written contributions mostly demonstrate openness to learning and transformation. Student’s work usually indicates their dedication to improving the quality, coherence, and utility of ideas. Student sometimes engages in self-reflection and critique but not consistently. Student’s contributions sometimes include connections to other ideas expressed in assigned readings or expressed by fellow students but typically they do not. Student demonstrates understanding of course themes but does not indicate depth of knowledge or nuanced understanding of other ideas. Student occasionally acknowledges points of epistemological harmony and discordance between their ideas and others’ ideas but fails to elaborate upon these. Student is usually committed to group activities.

C range: Student’s oral and written contributions only occasionally demonstrate openness to learning and transformation. Student’s work more often reveals rigidity in thinking rather than a disposition to improving the quality, coherence, and utility of ideas. Based on oral and written contributions, there is little evidence that the student engages in self-reflection and critique. Student’s contributions rarely include connections to other ideas expressed in assigned readings or expressed by fellow students. Student work does not reveal depth of understanding of course ideas, peers’ contributions, or a close reading of text. Student rarely acknowledges or recognizes points of epistemological harmony and discordance between their ideas and others’ ideas. Student demonstrates inconsistent and unsatisfactory participation in group activities.

Note:  success criteria, self-reflection, and self-assessment will be an on-going aspect of assessment.