Phil Rubric

A SAMPLE RUBRIC FOR RATING ONE-PAGE PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION STATEMENTS

1
3
5
7
9

Level One
Level Two
Level Three

Professional Literacy

Does not use terminology specific to professional discourse on philosophical, social, and historical issues in education.

Minimal or imprecise use of relevant professional language.

Significant and appropriate use of relevant professional language.

No reference to specific theories or theorists in current educational discourse.

Minimal or imprecise references to theories/theorists in current educational discourse.

Makes clear and appropriate reference to major theories/theorists to student's own philosophy of education.

Judgment

Speaks in vague generalizations about education being important. No recognition of controversy or differences in educational thought.

Minimal recognition of diverse philosophies of education. Little recognition of need to take a stand.

Clearly recognizes that different and contradictory educational philosophies exist. Articulates either a tentative stand on a major philosophical issue or expresses a desire to reach such a stand through future studies.

Writing

Writing is unclear, disorganized, and/or contains distracting surface feature errors.

Generally clear, but with minimal organizational or surface feature problems.

Clear, precise, and well-organized and virtually free of surface feature errors.

Instructions for Scoring: The critieria for levels two and three are intended to describe minimums in all three
categories. For example, an essay that is unclear, disorganized, or has significant surface feature errors
cannot receive a rating above one, no matter how many theorists and opinions are expressed. Raters may
give an essay numerical scores of "3" or "7" for papers that seem to fall between the categories.

Level One	Level Two	Level Three
Professional Literacy
Does not use terminology specific to professional discourse on philosophical, social, and historical issues in education.	Minimal or imprecise use of relevant professional language.	Significant and appropriate use of relevant professional language.
No reference to specific theories or theorists in current educational discourse.	Minimal or imprecise references to theories/theorists in current educational discourse.	Makes clear and appropriate reference to major theories/theorists to student's own philosophy of education.

Judgment
Speaks in vague generalizations about education being important. No recognition of controversy or differences in educational thought.	Minimal recognition of diverse philosophies of education. Little recognition of need to take a stand.	Clearly recognizes that different and contradictory educational philosophies exist. Articulates either a tentative stand on a major philosophical issue or expresses a desire to reach such a stand through future studies.

Writing
Writing is unclear, disorganized, and/or contains distracting surface feature errors.	Generally clear, but with minimal organizational or surface feature problems.	Clear, precise, and well-organized and virtually free of surface feature errors.