Global Educators Cohort Program - Teacher Education

Click here for Site Map
Jump to Main Content


Department of Teacher Education

Comprehensive Examinations

Evaluation Rubric for Option 1

The summative evaluation of Option 1 comprehensive exams can be Pass, Revise and Resubmit, or Fail
  • To be evaluated as Pass, all items must be rated Adequate or Strong (i.e., no items evaluated as Weak).
  • Depending on the proportion of Weak, Adequate, and Strong, the evaluation will be either Revise and Resubmit or Fail.
  • The comps committee reads each of the comps papers
  • The comprehensive exams are given an anonymous number and goes to three readers
  • If you get a revise, then you get a comps committee representative to help guide you through the revision process

Criterion
Weak
Adequate
Strong
Stance and purpose
  • It is not clear what stance the paper takes.
  • The stance taken in the paper is simplistic or naïve.
  • The purpose of the paper is not consistent throughout.
  • The stance of the paper is clear to the reader.
  • The stance taken by the paper has some nuance (is neither simplistic nor naïve).
  • The purpose of the paper is mostly consistent throughout.
  • The stance of the paper is clear, focused and highlighted.
  • The stance taken by the paper has nuance and sophistication.
  • The purpose of the paper is consistent throughout.
Thoughtfulness of response
  • The paper does not make a convincing argument, does not draw on relevant literature, and/or does not go beyond summary or description.
  • The paper does not show evidence of consideration of alternate ways of thinking.
  • The paper makes a convincing argument, draws on relevant literature, and provides analysis or synthesis that goes beyond summary or description.
  • The paper shows evidence of some consideration of alternate ways of thinking.
  • The paper makes an original and compelling argument, draws on a comprehensive range of relevant literature, and provides analysis or synthesis that contributes substantively to the field.
  • The paper engages effectively with alternate ways of thinking.
Responsiveness to question
  • The paper does not respond to the question, or does not address all aspects of the question.
  • The paper misses the point of the question.
  • The paper addresses the major points of the question.
  • The paper generally demonstrates understanding of the issues posed by the question.
  • The paper addresses every aspect of the question.
  • The paper demonstrates sophisticated understanding of the issues posed by the question.
Effectiveness of the argument
  • The paper does not provide appropriate evidence, reasoning, or support for claims.
  • Citations are taken out of context or used ineffectively.
  • Reasoning is flawed with overgeneralizations, oversimplifications, and/or fallacies.
  • The argument appeals only to those who already agree (“preaches to the choir”).
  • The paper provides appropriate evidence, reasoning, and/or support for claims.
  • Citations are drawn from appropriate literature and used effectively.
  • Reasoning is generally sound.
    The paper anticipates at least one counter-argument and addresses it.
  • The paper provides compelling evidence, reasoning, and support for claims.
  • Citations are drawn from appropriate literature and used effectively.
  • Reasoning is consistently sound throughout.
  • The paper addresses a range of counter-arguments effectively.
Clarity of writing
  • Parts of the paper are incomprehensible.
  • Some features of the composition (grammar, word choice, organization) interfere with communicative effectiveness.
  • Readers do not always understand what the paper means.
  • The writing communicates effectively.
  • The writing (grammar, word choice, organization) facilitates communication and comprehensibility.
  • Readers can follow the flow of the paper.
  • The writing communicates clearly and elegantly.
  • The writing not only communicates effectively, but also demonstrates sophisticated literacy with precise vocabulary, literary devices, and organizational structure.
Copyright © College of Education Michigan State University Board of Trustees, East Lansing, MI 48824