Teacher’s Homework Practice Analysis
Four elementary teachers were discussing their handling of homework in their classes. “They know they have to do it to do well on the tests,” Jo Buck comments, “but I don’t collect it or grade it.” “I don’t grade it either, but I check to see if they did it, and they know they get a check mark in my grade book if they did it,” Art Ames adds. “It’s a part of my grading system,” Karen Warner continues. “I collect every assignment, score it, and record the scores.” “I spot check them,” Lynn Peet adds. “They know it may or may not be collected, and I try to avoid falling into a pattern. I grade it and record the grades when I do collect it.”
Based on research, which teacher’s homework practice is least effective? Explain, again using social cognitive theory as the basis for your explanation.
(Minimum response of 400 words and 3 references). MUST READ Chapter 14. And view these videos and powerpoint that is provided. There will be a peer reply to this discussion at least 150 words). https://mediaplayer.pearsoncmg.com/assets/using_assessment_decision_making_14_1 https://mediaplayer.pearsoncmg.com/assets/Seg3_UsingChecklists_14_3
Texas A&M International University
On-Line Discussion Post and Peer Response
| Exemplary | Accomplished | Developing | Beginning | Unacceptable | |
| 5 | 3.75 | 2.5 | 1.25 | 0 | |
|
Focus 20%
| ▪ Prompt/Questions completely addressed ▪ Detailed opening includes clear central idea(s) ▪ Specific audience, occasion, or situation addressed | ▪ Prompt/Questions mostly addressed ▪ Less detailed opening includes central idea(s) ▪ Mostly aware of audience, situation, & occasion | ▪ Prompt/Questions partially addressed ▪ Adequate opening includes unclear central idea(s) ▪ Occasional awareness of audience, situation, & occasion | ▪ Prompt/Questions unclearly addressed ▪ Rudimentary opening and/or ambiguous central idea(s) ▪ Little awareness of audience, situation, or occasion | ▪ Prompt/Questions not addressed ▪ No opening or intro ▪ No central idea ▪ No awareness of audience, situation, or occasion
|
|
Organization & Development 20%
| ▪ Body ¶s provide convincing & detailed evidence/examples ▪ Effective, comprehensive examination of content ▪ 350-400 word count discussion post (substantive contribution) | ▪ Detailed evidence/examples in body ¶s with only occasional lapses ▪ Near comprehensive examination of content ▪ 300-350 word count discussion post (substantive contribution) | ▪ Body ¶s contain adequate but inconsistent levels of detailed evidence ▪ General but mostly comprehensive examination of content ▪ 250-300 word count discussion post (limited contribution) | ▪ Inadequate evidence/ examples in body ¶s or confusing explanations ▪ Incomplete examination of content ▪ 200-250 word count discussion post (limited contribution) | ▪ Body ¶s provide random or no evidence, discussion, or explanation ▪ Important content is missing ▪ Less than 200 word count discussion post |
|
Research 20%
| ▪ Integrates and synthesis (connections) of info from multiple sources (textbook readings and multiple sources: professional journal articles, or newspapers, or Internet resources, or news reports) ▪ Complete absence of plagiarism
| ▪ Integrates and synthesis (connections) of info from some sources (textbook readings and multiple sources: professional journal articles, or newspapers, or Internet resources, or news reports) ▪ Complete absence of plagiarism
| ▪ Limited connections and direct quoting/listing of info from some sources (textbook readings and multiple sources: professional journal articles, or newspapers, or Internet resources, or news reports) ▪ Complete absence of plagiarism
| ▪ No connections and direct quoting/listing of info from limited sources (textbook readings and multiple sources: professional journal articles, or newspapers, or Internet resources, or news reports) ▪ Questionable evidence of plagiarism | ▪ No synthesis/critical reflection; only direct quoting/listing from sources ▪ Evidence of plagiarism
|
|
Grammar & Mechanics 20%
| ▪ Free of grammatical errors ▪ Free of usage and mechanical errors ▪ Consistent APA document design (sources referenced) ▪ No consistent APA errors | ▪ Few grammatical errors ▪ Infrequent usage and mechanical errors ▪ Mostly consistent APA document design (sources referenced) ▪ One to two different consistent APA errors | ▪ Some grammatical errors ▪ Some usage or mechanical errors ▪ Occasionally inconsistent APA document design (sources referenced) ▪ Three different consistent errors | ▪ Distracting number of grammatical errors ▪ Distracting number of usage or mechanical errors ▪ Mostly inconsistent APA document design (sources referenced) ▪ Multiple APA Errors | ▪ Excessive errors in grammar or mechanical conventions ▪ Distorted, obscured, or incomprehensible meaning ▪ No APA document design ▪ Multiple APA errors |
|
Peer Response 20%
| ▪ Meaningful and quality driven response ▪ Scholarly and substantive response (75-100 word count) ▪Response compares, challenges, and explores ▪Respectful peer response | ▪ Mostly meaningful and quality driven response ▪ Scholarly and substantive response (50-75 word count) ▪Response compares, challenges, and explores ▪Respectful peer response | ▪ Quality response but limited ▪ Scholarly yet limited response (25-50 word count) ▪Response fails to fully compare, challenge, and explore ▪Respectful peer response | ▪ Response lacks depth ▪ Limited response (25 or less word count) ▪Response fails to compare, challenge, and explore ▪Respectful peer response | ▪ Response lacks depth ▪Response fails to compare, challenge, and explore ▪Inappropriate peer response ▪OR Failure to submit peer response |
Modified Rubric-Originally Developed by Dr. Bernice Sanchez