Global Educators Cohort Program - Teacher Education

Click here for Site Map
Jump to Main Content


Department of Teacher EducationComprehensive ExaminationsEvaluation Rubric for the Revised Format (Departmental Piece)
The summative evaluation of the Revised Format 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