Five semesters of experimentation with old degree students has now resulted in a grading system for the Anglo-American Studies and Cultural Studies components of the new modular B.Ed. teaching degree (in Modules 3 and 6). Students attending the Module 3 seminar can reduce the number of possible questions in their module oral exam by gaining points. Students attending the Module 6 seminar can use the grading system below as the basis for the Module 6 module exam (schriftliche Prüfung in Form eines Portfolios) for those students who choose me as their examiner.
You can see the data (grades and percentages) for all AS courses since WiSe 06/07 and thus better compare your achievement with other students. You can also find details about the older systems that I used from WiSe 06/07 until end of SoSe 10 online, which I gradually modified to reflect student achievement more accurately and to take into account changes in the B.Ed. degree program (for example, from WiSe 10/11: no more Prüfungsvorleistungen, change of Module 4.1 from seminar to lecture).
Even though Prüfungsvorleistungen are no longer required for any modules, I provide course grades as a service for students who take the seminars as students teaching in groups. The grade is based on individual oral and individual written achievement with the components content, language, and presentation. Participation in consultation sessions with me as well as in the review conference sessions and also participate via OLAT tools also counts. The grade includes a group work oral component: teamwork, use of homework for the lessons, and choice of mistakes for the review lessons and also a group work written component: aspects of layout, organization, and bibliography of the papers; as well as the quality of the important written review submissions.
I use two grading scales depending on the module and the type of assignment. The symbols + (excellent), √ (good), and — or blank (poor, failure) are used to indicate achievement in the various aspects. Content points are multiplied by a weighted factor (x3 for the content of the lessons and papers and review conference sessions) to indicate the importance of content in our seminars.
|
The first grading scale is mostly used in Module 3: for group
work (teamwork and
homework in the topics lesson, teanwork, choice of questions, tips
concerning writing research papers in the review
conference sessions) and for individual work (for
participation in
the consultation sessions, in the topics lesson, in the paper, in the M3 seminar written review
submissions, in
the review
conference sessions, and for participation on OLAT). To reflect the
importance of the review
conference sessions as a successful conclusion to the M3 seminar and as
the best preparation for the M3 orals, conference session leaders can
earn double the number of points for successful completion of their
tasks (see the evaluation template online for details).
|
|
The second grading scale is mostly used in Module 6: for
individual oral work in
the topics
lessons, for group and individual work in the seminar research paper
(content, language, and presentation), and for group work for the
written
review submissions.
"1,0; 1,3 sehr gut = eine
hervorragende Leistung Your course grade reflects written and oral work as well as group and individual achievement and includes content, presentation skills, and language components. Written components make up circa 55% and oral components circa 45% of the final course grade. Individual work makes up circa 75% and group work circa 25% of the final course grade. Content makes up circa 60%, oral presentation skills circa 10%, written research skills circa 10%, oral and written language skills 20% of the individual work component. Points an also be earned for participation in the review conference sessions and by using the course tools on OLAT. Additional bonus points are also possible; for example, M6 seminar students who are justifiably especially proud of their warm-up lessons and corresponding paper excerpts can request bonus points for these normally ungraded tasks. |
| Individual points: written lesson/paper review submissions (Module 3) | |
| H =
honors = 2 points |
detailed summary of content with
concrete examples taken from the lesson and the paper, good summary of
teaching and language used in the lesson as well as presentation and
language aspects of the paper |
| P = pass = 1
point |
acceptable summary of content
with some mention of teaching and
language used in the lesson and some mention of the paper |
| 0 =
poor = 0 points |
poor or no summary of content, few or
no
details about presentation, language, or the research paper
and/or considerably more or considerably fewer words than given in the special M3 reviews template |
| Fail = minus 2
points |
review not
turned in by the final deadline, minus 2 points for each group member |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Group
grade: written lesson/paper review submissions (Module 6) |
|
| H = honors = 4 points for each group member | very
detailed summary of content, presentation, and language of the lesson
with some pertinent details about the research paper as well as a
detailed
comparison of the lesson and written work with the teachers' previous
geography or history lesson and handout; the submission is written
in advanced English with few mistakes and with a nice range
of syntax and lexis |
| P+ = strong pass = 3 points for each group member | good
summary of content with some details about presentation and
language and some details about the research paper as well as a brief
comparison with the teachers' previous geography or history lesson and
handout; the
submission
has an average range of syntax and lexis and has an average
number of
language mistakes |
| P = pass = 2 points for each group member | acceptable summary of content with a few details about presentation and language and few details about the research paper; the submission has more than the average number of language mistakes |
| P- = weak pass = 1 point for each group member |
barely acceptable summary of content with few details about presentation and language and about the research paper; the submission is poorly written with many mistakes in all language areas |
| F =
poor = 0 points for each group member |
little
summary of content, few or no details about presentation and language,
no details about the research paper; the submission is very poorly
written
with
basic serious mistakes |
| Fail = substitute work required | review not turned in by the final deadline |
| Individual preparation for consultations sessions | |
| H =
2 points |
answers to all questions online in first session, answers to
all questions given for second/third sessions, and all members present
for session |
| P = 1
point |
some preparation, some answers to questions online in first session, some questions
still unanswered for second/third sessions |
| F =
0 points |
little or no
evidence of preparation, no answers to questions online in first session, no answers to
questions for second/third sessions |
Please use the following criteria relevant for your own written review submissions and for your participation in our review conference sessions (also available in pdf for you to easily download and bring to class). |
|
| Group
points or grade: teamwork in topics lessons |
|
| H = 2 points for each group member | superb teamwork, obvious evidence that all student-teachers were aware of the structure of the entire lesson, excellent timing |
| P = 1 point for each group member | few occurrences of confusion or uncertainty of all student-teachers of the structure of the entire lesson, lesson finished within 5 minutes of planned time |
| F = 0 points for each group member | little or no
evidence of coordinated planning and / or lesson ran more than 5
minutes overtime or
finished more than
5 minutes earlier |
| Group points or grade: use of homework in the topics lessons | |
| H = 2 points for each group member | appropriate homework assigned and integrated fully into the lesson |
| P = 1 point for each group member | homework assigned but not integrated fully into the lesson |
| F = 0 points for each group member | either no homework assigned or homework assigned not dealt with at all in the lesson |
| Group points or grade: layout, organization, and bibliography in the papers | |
| layout | |
| + | graphics, font size, margins, indentation, line numbers, A 5 both sides. For the grade of +: at most one √, no — |
| √ | at most two — for the six aspects above |
| — | more than two — for the six aspects above |
| organization | |
| + | title is precise and clearly indicates the focus of the paper; excellent table of contents with consistent capitalization of chapters and subchapters; clear overall structure showing logical development and appropriate number and length of chapters and subchapters with never only one subchapter per chapter; excellent introduction that makes the reader want to continue; excellent conclusion that gives the reader a sense of closure; clear transitions between the chapters. For the grade of +: at most one √, no — |
| √ | at most two — for the six aspects above |
| — | more than two — for the six aspects above |
| bibliography | |
| + | sequence: one annotated bibliography with no divisions or categories and with a clear sequence of sources usually arranged alphabetically by author’s last name or by title or short form of URL if author is not known; information given: each individual source includes all normal bibliographical details; choice of sources: sufficient number of published sources indicating the students are familiar with the most important published works dealing with the subject including course books and with no use of German sources without convincing reasons that the information could not be found in sources written in English; book critiques: details about the choice of book with clear relevance for topic including critique and location and evidence of reliability; website critiques: detailed and convincing explanation for the use of websites (answering the WWWWWW questions) including the exact complete address of websites and web pages given. For the grade of +: at most one √, no — |
| √ | at most two — for the five aspects above |
| — | more than two — for the five aspects above |
| Individual points or grades: Content (lessons and papers) | |
| relevance for Anglo-American Studies (AS) | |
| + | clear and repeated
evidence of content relevance for Anglo-American Studies topics with
evidence of having learned previous course content and/or are aware of
upcoming course topics and clear and repeated use of course
material or explicit explanations of why which course
material (concrete examples necessary) wasn't used |
| √ | some indication of
content relevance
for Anglo-American Studies topics or some explicit use of course
material |
| — | no explicit evidence that content relevance for AS topics played a role in choice of content, no use of any course material |
| - ... | minus points for wrong facts (!) |
| audience relevance (aud) | |
| + | clear and repeated
evidence of content relevance for German students of English and choice
of content from course
material based on audience interest |
| √ | some evidence
of of content relevance for German students of English |
| — | no explicit evidence that the content was chosen with the audience in mind |
| personal touch (pt) | |
| + | explicit use of strong
personal interest in
choice of content and use of memorable examples and quotations or
evidence of explicit critical use of sources |
| √ | some evidence of strong personal interest in choice of content or use of memorable examples and quotations |
| — | no explicit evidence that personal opinion or experience or strong personal interest played any role in choice of content and no indication of explicit critical use of sources and no use of memorable examples and quotations |
| Individual points or grades: Presentation (lessons) | |
| audience awareness | |
| + | continual explicit evidence of audience awareness through eye contact, use of names and / or careful listening |
| √ | some evidence of audience awareness |
| — | no evidence of audience awareness |
| use of media | |
| + | correct use of all media with attention to legibility and to relevance for content and for audience |
| √ | some good use of media |
| — | poor use of media: illegible, little or no relevance for content and / or for audience |
| no use of media | |
| eloquence
and /
or interaction |
|
| + | eloquent lecture and / or interaction |
| √ | some evidence of eloquence and preparation and/or some interaction |
| — | no evidence of eloquence and / or no useful interaction |
| Individual points or grades: Presentation (papers) | |
| accidental plagiarism avoided (intentional plagiarism results in an automatic grade of 5 for the course, expulsion from the course, and notification of all staff members) (pl) | |
| + | no trace of accidental plagiarism in any passage, all sources clearly given |
| √ | most sources clearly given, a few passages unclear as to source used |
| — | few or no sources given, risk of accidental plagiarism not avoided |
| use of citations (c) | |
| + | all citations given correctly and exactly and all easy to find in bibliography |
| √ | most citations given correctly, not all easy to find in bibliography or superfluous information given |
| — | few or no citations given correctly, little or no coordination with bibliography |
| paragraph unity and coherence (l) | |
| + | unified, well-developed, and coherent paragraphs with clear transitions within and between paragraphs |
| √ | some unified paragraphs and some coherence, some problems with transitions within (>) and between paragraphs (¬) |
| — | poor paragraph unity, little coherence with few transitions within (>) or between paragraphs (¬) |
| Individual points or grades: Language (lessons) | |
| pronunciation
(including intonation, v/w contrast, voicing, th/ths, vowels, linking) |
|
| + | near native speaker spoken skills, no problems in any area |
| √ | some problems in some areas, slight German or foreign accent |
| — | problems in most areas, thick German or foreign accent |
| enunciation and fluency | |
| + | clear enunciation and very fluent |
| √ | clear enunciation or very fluent |
| — | neither clear enunciation nor adequately fluent |
| lexis and accuracy | |
| + | no mistakes in lexis or in accuracy with an advanced range |
| √ | average number of
mistakes and
average range in lexis and in accuracy |
| — | serious mistakes in lexis and / or accuracy |
| Individual points or grades: Language (papers) (!) indicates serious mistake (-2) | |
| punctuation and spelling (sp) | |
| + | no more than two mistakes in punctuation and in spelling, evidence of varied punctuation and spelling of words that pose problems for German writers |
| √ | up to five mistakes |
| — | more than five mistakes |
| no evidence - no original writing because of overuse of direct quotes or because of accidental plagiarism | |
| grammar and stylistics (gs) | |
| + | no more than two mistakes in grammar (verb, adverb, article) or in stylistics (pronoun, shifts) |
| √ | up to five mistakes |
| — | more than five mistakes |
| no evidence - no original writing because of overuse of direct quotes or because of accidental plagiarism | |
| lexis and syntax (ls) [syntax mistakes in square brackets], examples of advanced lexis and syntax use (+) cancel out mistakes | |
| + | no more than two mistakes in lexis or syntax with an advanced range |
| √ | up to five mistakes |
| — | more than five mistakes |
| no evidence - no original writing because of overuse of direct quotes or because of accidental plagiarism | |
M3 students can download and fill out your own points sheet. M 6 students can download and fill out your own grading sheet.
Impressum
/ Disclaimer
12.XII.2011