You are on page 1of 2

Rubric Form for Portfolio

SOCWK 300

Excellent
Assessment
Criteria
Understanding
of
Organizational
Practice
(Content)
45%

Critical Thinking
/ Analysis
20%

Developing
Policy
25%

Organization

(50 points = A)
22.5
Portfolio shows an exceptional,
thorough, complete coverage of
all aspects of macro practice
concepts. Student has included
items that show an in depth
understanding of:
Task groups
Leadership
Org structure & audit
Pop-at-risk
Program development
Mission
10
In depth analysis evident in
portfolio assignments indicating
the students ability to grasp
the more complex
organizational and community
concepts and to think critically.
Exceptional demonstration of
the ability to understand all
aspects of the issue or different
viable approaches to the same
issue. Arguments are well
constructed and grounded in
empirical evidence.
12.5
Exceptionally thorough and well
researched policy development
using relevant
literature/interviews with
experts. Policy developed within
nonprofit organizational context
(committee structure) and was
approved by BOD. Policy
reflects student having done
research & having used critical
assessment & accounts for
economic /political conditions.
5
Portfolio is well organized and

Good
(40 points = B)
18
Portfolio generally covers all
aspects of the macro concepts
associated with org practice;
items included that accurately
reflect concepts taught.

Fair

NAME:__________________________________________
Unacceptable

(30 points = C)
13.5
Portfolio contains some
references to macro concepts
without any obvious
relationship to the point being
made. Many items are of poor
quality. Items included are:

(< 20 points= D or F)
9
Portfolio is obviously
incomplete; entries do not
address key aspects of the
course assignment. There is no
evidence of students
involvement in the simulation.

6
Portfolio shows little evidence of
critical thought r/t macro
situations. Facts are not
available to support arguments
or make a case. Simple,
concrete observations evident;
little or no in depth
analysis/thinking mostly
concrete; unrecognized
assumptions. Items submitted
reflect some bias and a lack of
objectivity.

4
No evidence of the ability to
think critically in relation to
macro practice. Even after
coaching and many examples,
students arguments are
illogical, lack objectivity and
indicate bias. Items in portfolio
are not grounded in factual
information.

10
Policies were generally well
researched using primarily
current, professional literature &
interviews. Information less
relevant to organization & does
not adequately account for
organizational economic and
political conditions. Policy was
developed by committee and
submitted to BOD for approval.

7.5
Some quality resources used,
but less than expected perusal
of literature or interview.
Student shows some reliance
upon popular literature and/or
only used resources available,
such as past policy statement in
the Strategic Plan. Policy may or
may not have been voted on by
BOD.

5
Minimal and/or inadequate use
of current, relevant
professional literature, and/or
interviews with experts. Only
resources (Strategic Plan) and
established past policy is
offered. No new thoughts and
little critical analysis were
evident. No original
consideration is available.

4
Portfolio is generally well

3
Parts of the portfolio arent

2
Portfolio is disorganized and

Some aspects are less well


addressed than others.

8
Portfolio items generally
demonstrate ability to think
critically & to analyze
objectively, using readings to
substantiate arguments.
A few assumptions or aspects
are not critically assessed in
debate reactions, rather the
student relies on his/her own
uninformed opinion.

Rubric Form for Portfolio


SOCWK 300

10%

integrated using
headings/dividers. It is easily
read. Portfolio has table of
contents.

organized and integrated, and is


readable. Portfolio has table of
contents but no dividers.

organized or integrated.
Headings/dividers missing or
confusing. Some sections
readable, but others hard to
follow.

sections are unrelated, making


it difficult to read. Headings
and/or dividers are missing.

You might also like