The document is a rubric to evaluate student participation in collaborative group projects. It contains criteria for evaluating students' contributions in terms of quantity, quality, and timeliness of work submitted. Students are rated on a scale of 0-4 for each criteria. Space is also provided for additional comments. The rubric can be used by both students to self-evaluate and by other group members to provide peer feedback.

1. CLC Participant Evaluation Tool
0
1
2
3
4
Student name:
SELF
Rate the input received from this group member in the following
areas:
1. Quantity – Did work submitted fulfill the portion of the
assignment they were requested to complete?
2. Quality – Was the work submitted of sufficient quality to be
include in the final product, with little or no revision?

2. 3. Timeliness – Was work submitted in the timeframe
requested?
Additional comments:
0
1
2
3
4
Student name:
Rate the input received from this group member in the following
areas:

3. 1. Quantity – Did work submitted fulfill the portion of the
assignment they were requested to complete?
2. Quality – Was the work submitted of sufficient quality to be
include in the final product, with little or no revision?
3. Timeliness – Was work submitted in the timeframe
requested?
Additional comments:
0
1
2
3
4
Student name:

4. Rate the input received from this group member in the following
areas:
1. Quantity – Did work submitted fulfill the portion of the
assignment they were requested to complete?
2. Quality – Was the work submitted of sufficient quality to be
include in the final product, with little or no revision?
3. Timeliness – Was work submitted in the timeframe
requested?

5. Additional comments:
0
1
2
3
4
Student name:
Rate the input received from this group member in the following
areas:
1. Quantity – Did work submitted fulfill the portion of the
assignment they were requested to complete?
2. Quality – Was the work submitted of sufficient quality to be
include in the final product, with little or no revision?

6. 3. Timeliness – Was work submitted in the timeframe
requested?
Additional comments:
0
1
2
3
4
Student name:
Rate the input received from this group member in the following
areas:

7. 1. Quantity – Did work submitted fulfill the portion of the
assignment they were requested to complete?
2. Quality – Was the work submitted of sufficient quality to be
include in the final product, with little or no revision?
3. Timeliness – Was work submitted in the timeframe
requested?
Additional comments:
0
1
2
3
4

8. Student name:
Rate the input received from this group member in the following
areas:
1. Quantity – Did work submitted fulfill the portion of the
assignment they were requested to complete?
2. Quality – Was the work submitted of sufficient quality to be
include in the final product, with little or no revision?
3. Timeliness – Was work submitted in the timeframe
requested?

9. Additional comments:
© 2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
image1.jpeg
Case Study: Mr. Roth
Teacher: Mr. Roth
Teacher Experience: 4 Years
Grade: 11
Subject: U.S. History
You arrive at Mr. Roth’s classroom 3 minutes before the bell
rings. You observe Mr. Roth in the doorway of the classroom
greeting students by name as they come in. You hear him
talking with students about non-curricular topics such as how
the game went last night and asking about their weekend plans.
Students spoke freely with Mr. Roth and seemed genuinely
engaged in their short conversations with him. While waiting
for the bell to ring you noticed posters on the wall regarding
historical figures and events as well as a small area with student
created political cartoons depicting the different freedoms
outlined in the Bill of Rights.
When the bell rang, most students were seated at their desks.
Mr. Roth put up a bell ringer question of the day that asked
students to summarize the power of the Judicial Branch in their
own words and to react to the following statement: “The
Judicial Branch is the most powerful branch of government.”

10. Most students took out a blank sheet of paper and began to
work. Two students were slow to get started. Mr. Roth moved
over to each student individually and softly reminded them of
the expectations. After being addressed by Mr. Roth, both
students immediately got their materials out and began working.
As the students were working, Mr. Roth took attendance, and
met with a student that was absent the day before regarding
make-up assignments. He then moved throughout the room and
looked over students’ shoulders as they were responding. After
approximately seven minutes, he asked the class for volunteers
that wanted to share what they had written. Several students
raised their hands and shared their responses. Mr. Roth
commented briefly on each response and called on two students
randomly as well to share what they had written. He then asked
students to clear their desks and take out a pen.
Mr. Roth announced to the students that although they had
already learned that the Judicial Branch interprets the
Constitution, it is important to know where and how the
Supreme Court actually acquired this power. He then distributed
a summary and guiding questions on the case, Marbury vs.
Madison (1789). Mr. Roth shared the day’s objective: Students
will be able to explain the concept of Judicial Review and how
the case of Marbury v. Madison established this power of the
Supreme Court. Prior to reading, he asked students to skim the
summary and look for key words, titles, etc. that would give
them an indication of what the case was about. This activity
lasted 3 minutes. He then asked them to share their predictions
with their neighbor. As the students did this, Mr. Roth moved
through the class and listened in on the conversations. Next, he
chose a few vocabulary words from the summary that he thought
many of the students would need clarified and were essential to
fully understanding the reading. He briefly went over those with
the class and checked for understanding by asking students to
provide synonyms for the words, first individually and then
sharing their words with the class.
Next, he broke the class into small groups of 3-4 students per

11. group based on their proximity to each other. Students moved
quickly into their groups with little loss of instructional time.
When the groups were formed, he told the students they had 10
minutes to read the summary and answer the guiding questions.
During the independent reading portion, he moved around the
room to answer any questions about the reading and check to
see how students were progressing through the questions. Two
of the groups started to get off-task and chatty, but when
redirected by Mr. Roth they returned to their work quickly.
After all of the students had completed the reading and were
working on the questions, Mr. Roth told the class they could
now talk about the questions in their small groups. Students
could either choose to write down the answers that were
discussed in the group, or their own answers if they were not in
agreement with their group's answers.
After the students had answered the questions collaboratively,
Mr. Roth got the students attention at the front of the room, by
stating, “let’s come together and discuss your answers.” He
assigned each group one or two questions they would need to
share with the class. As each group shared their answers, he
asked if the entire group agreed with the answer and called on
other groups randomly to share whether they agreed or
disagreed and how the answer given differed from their group's
answer. During this activity, Mr. Roth also reinforced key
concepts.
To conclude the lesson, Mr. Roth asked students to go back to
their bell ringer question and see if they still felt the same about
their answer regarding whether the Judicial Branch, specifically
the Supreme Court was the most powerful branch of
government. As a ticket out the door, he asked each student to
predict what our government or the U.S. as a whole might look
like if Marbury v. Madison was decided the other way and if
Judicial Review did not exist. Mr. Roth collected these
responses as the students exited the classroom.
© 2019. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.

12. image1.jpeg
Case Study: Mr. Smith - Rubric
Assumptions 9 points
Criteria Description
Assumptions
5. Target 9 points
Response comprehensively includes assumptions made about
what is happening in
the classroom.
4. Acceptable 7.83 points
Response adequately includes assumptions made about what is
happening in the
classroom.
3. Approaching 6.66 points
Response vaguely includes assumptions made about what is
happening in the
classroom.
2. Insufficient 6.21 points

13. Response ineffectively or does not include assumptions made
about what is
happening in the classroom.
Questions 9 points
Criteria Description
Questions
5. Target 9 points
Response includes insightful open-ended questions to ask the
teacher about the
class and lesson. Questions skillfully test assumptions and gain
a better
understanding of what was observed.
4. Acceptable 7.83 points
Response includes suitable open-ended questions to ask the
teacher about the
class and lesson. Questions accurately test assumptions and gain
a better
understanding of what was observed.
Collapse All
3. Approaching 6.66 points

14. Response includes vague open-ended questions to ask the
teacher about the class
and lesson. Questions minimally test assumptions and gain a
better understanding
of what was observed.
2. Insufficient 6.21 points
Response includes inappropriate open-ended questions to ask
the teacher about
the class and lesson, or questions fail to test assumptions and
gain a better
understanding of what was observed.
Positive Feedback 9 points
Criteria Description
Positive Feedback
5. Target 9 points
Positive feedback that would be provided to the teacher
regarding their
instructional style and presentation strategies is thorough.
4. Acceptable 7.83 points
Positive feedback that would be provided to the teacher
regarding their

15. instructional style and presentation strategies is clear.
3. Approaching 6.66 points
Positive feedback that would be provided to the teacher
regarding their
instructional style and presentation strategies is marginal.
2. Insufficient 6.21 points
Positive feedback that would be provided to the teacher
regarding their
instructional style and presentation strategies is insufficient or
inappropriate.
1. No Submission 0 points
Not addressed.
Constructive Feedback 9 points
Criteria Description
Constructive Feedback
5. Target 9 points
Constructive feedback that would be provided to the teacher
regarding their
instructional style and presentation strategies is purposeful.

16. 4. Acceptable 7.83 points
Constructive feedback that would be provided to the teacher
regarding their
instructional style and presentation strategies is direct.
3. Approaching 6.66 points
Constructive feedback that would be provided to the teacher
regarding their
instructional style and presentation strategies is shallow.
2. Insufficient 6.21 points
Constructive feedback that would be provided to the teacher
regarding their
instructional style and presentation strategies is incomplete or
implausible.
1. No Submission 0 points
Not addressed.
Re�ection 12 points
Criteria Description
Reflection
5. Target 12 points
Reflection extensively includes the following: initial

17. assumptions, a personal
narrative, and how the narrative situation was addressed; how
understanding
personal biases influence the ability to evaluate teachers; and
how to make sure
personal biases will not affect the future coaching process.
4. Acceptable 10.44 points
Reflection credibly includes the following: initial assumptions,
a personal narrative,
and how the narrative situation was addressed; how
understanding personal biases
influence the ability to evaluate teachers; and how to make sure
personal biases
will not affect the future coaching process.
3. Approaching 8.88 points
Reflection partially includes the following: initial assumptions,
a personal narrative,
and how the narrative situation was addressed; how
understanding personal biases
influence the ability to evaluate teachers; and how to make sure
personal biases

18. will not affect the future coaching process.
2. Insufficient 8.28 points
Reflection inefficiently includes the following: initial
assumptions, a personal
narrative, and how the narrative situation was addressed; how
understanding
personal biases influence the ability to evaluate teachers; and
how to make sure
personal biases will not affect the future coaching process.
Organization 6 points
Criteria Description
Organization
5. Target 6 points
The content is well-organized and logical. There is a sequential
progression of ideas
that relate to each other. The content is presented as a cohesive
unit and provides
the audience with a clear sense of the main idea. The summary
is within the
required word count.
4. Acceptable 5.22 points

19. The content is logically organized. The ideas presented relate to
each other. The
content provides the audience with a clear sense of the main
idea. The summary is
within a reasonable range of the required word count.
3. Approaching 4.44 points
The content is not adequately organized even though it provides
the audience with
a sense of the main idea. The summary may not be within a
reasonable range of the
required word count.
2. Insufficient 4.14 points
An attempt is made to organize the content, but the sequence is
indiscernible. The
ideas presented are compartmentalized and may not relate to
each other; or the
summary is widely outside of the required word count.
Mechanics of Writing 6 points
Criteria Description
includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use
5. Target 6 points

20. Submission is virtually free of mechanical errors. Word choice
reflects well-
developed use of practice and content-related language.
Sentence structures are
varied and engaging.
4. Acceptable 5.22 points
Submission includes some mechanical errors, but they do not
hinder
comprehension. Variety of effective sentence structures are
used, as well as some
practice and content-related language.
3. Approaching 4.44 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader.
Inconsistent
language or word choice is present. Sentence structure is
lacking.
2. Insufficient 4.14 points
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede
communication of meaning.
Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction are used.
1. No Submission 0 points

21. Total 60 points
CLC: Collaborative Learning Communities - Rubric
De�nition of PLCs 6 points
Criteria Description
Definition of PLCs
5. Target 6 points
A definition of PLCs, including the value of PLCs for teacher
and students, is
exemplary.
4. Acceptable 5.22 points
A definition of PLCs, including the value of PLCs for teacher
and students, is precise
and includes key details.
3. Approaching 4.44 points
A definition of PLCs, including the value of PLCs for teacher
and students, lacks
precision and/or is missing key details.
2. Insufficient 4.14 points

22. A definition of PLCs, including the value of PLCs for teacher
and students, is
inaccurate.
Mission Statement 6 points
Criteria Description
Mission Statement
5. Target 6 points
Mission statement example that describes the purpose of a PLC
is exemplary.
4. Acceptable 5.22 points
Mission statement example that describes the purpose of a PLC
is accurate.
3. Approaching 4.44 points
Mission statement example that describes the purpose of a PLC
is cursory.
Collapse All
2. Insufficient 4.14 points
Mission statement describes the purpose of a PLC is inaccurate.
1. No Submission 0 points

23. Not addressed.
Overall Goal 6 points
Criteria Description
Overall Goal
5. Target 6 points
An example of the overall goal of a PLC, including how a
successful goal will affect
student outcomes, is exemplary.
4. Acceptable 5.22 points
An example of the overall goal of a PLC, including how a
successful goal will affect
student outcomes, is complete and includes key details.
3. Approaching 4.44 points
An example of the overall goal of a PLC, including how a
successful goal will affect
student outcomes, is overly simplistic and lacks key details.
2. Insufficient 4.14 points
An example of the overall goal of a PLC, including how a
successful goal will affect
student outcomes, is inadequate.

24. 1. No Submission 0 points
Measurable Outcomes 6 points
Criteria Description
Measurable Outcomes
5. Target 6 points
Examples of 2-4 measurable outcomes for a PLC are expertly
crafted.
4. Acceptable 5.22 points
Examples of 2-4 measurable outcomes for a PLC are complete
and precise.
3. Approaching 4.44 points
Examples of 2-4 measurable outcomes for a PLC are included,
but lack precision.
2. Insufficient 4.14 points
Examples of 2-4 measurable outcomes for a PLC are incomplete
or incorrect.
1. No Submission 0 points
Not addressed.
PLC Structure 6 points

25. Criteria Description
PLC Structure
5. Target 6 points
An example of an overall structure of a PLC, including member
roles and
expectations, is expertly crafted.
4. Acceptable 5.22 points
An example of an overall structure of a PLC, including member
roles and
expectations, is complete and includes supporting details.
3. Approaching 4.44 points
An example of an overall structure of a PLC, including member
roles and
expectations, is vague and lacks supporting details.
2. Insufficient 4.14 points
An example of an overall structure of a PLC, including member
roles and
expectations, is incomplete or incorrect.
1. No Submission 0 points
Timeline 6 points

26. Criteria Description
Timeline
5. Target 6 points
An example timeline to implement the PLC is thorough and
specific.
4. Acceptable 5.22 points
An example timeline to implement the PLC is complete and
reasonable.
3. Approaching 4.44 points
An example timeline to implement the PLC is underdeveloped.
2. Insufficient 4.14 points
An example timeline to implement the PLC is incomplete.
1. No Submission 0 points
Not addressed.
Evaluation of PLC Outcomes 6 points
Criteria Description
Evaluation of PLC Outcomes
5. Target 6 points

27. An example of how PLC outcomes could be evaluated is
expertly crafted.
4. Acceptable 5.22 points
An example of how PLC outcomes could be evaluated is
complete and includes
supporting details.
3. Approaching 4.44 points
An example of how PLC outcomes could be evaluated is weak
and unfocused.
2. Insufficient 4.14 points
An example of how PLC outcomes could be evaluated is
incomplete or incorrect.
1. No Submission 0 points
Not addressed.
Title Slide, Reference Slide, and Presenter’s Notes 3 points
Criteria Description
Title Slide, Reference Slide, and Presenter’s Notes
5. Target 3 points
Title slide, reference slide, and presenter’s notes are complete

28. accurate.
4. Acceptable 2.61 points
Title slide, reference slide, and presenter’s notes are mostly
complete and accurate.
3. Approaching 2.22 points
Title slide, reference slide, and presenter’s notes are partially
complete and
accurate.
2. Insufficient 2.07 points
Title slide, reference slide, and presenter’s notes are incomplete
and/or inaccurate.
1. No Submission 0 points
Not addressed.
Presentation Organization and Visual Appeal 3 points
Criteria Description
Presentation Organization and Visual Appeal
5. Target 3 points
The work is well presented. The overall appearance is neat and
professional. Work
would be highly desirable for public dissemination. Appropriate
and thematic

29. graphic elements are used to make visual connections that
contribute to the
understanding of concepts. Differences in layout, type size, and
color are expertly
used.
4. Acceptable 2.61 points
The overall appearance is generally neat, with a few minor
organizational flaws.
Work would be desirable for public dissemination. Thematic
graphic elements are
used, but not always in context. Visual connections mostly
contribute to the
understanding of concepts. Differences in layout, type size, and
color are well used
and consistent.
3. Approaching 2.22 points
The overall appearance and organization of material is generally
acceptable. Work
would be adequate for public dissemination. Minimal use of
graphic elements is
evident. Elements do not consistently contribute to the

30. understanding of concepts.
There is some variation in layout, type size, and color.
2. Insufficient 2.07 points
The work is not neat or organized. Work would not be
presentable for public
dissemination. There are few or no graphic elements or
variation in layout, type
size and color
Organization 6 points
Criteria Description
Organization
5. Target 6 points
The content is well-organized and logical. There is a sequential
progression of ideas
that relate to each other. The content is presented as a cohesive
unit and provides
the audience with a clear sense of the main idea. The summary
is within the
required word count.
4. Acceptable 5.22 points
The content is logically organized. The ideas presented relate to

31. each other. The
content provides the audience with a clear sense of the main
idea. The summary is
within a reasonable range of the required word count.
3. Approaching 4.44 points
The content is not adequately organized even though it provides
the audience with
a sense of the main idea. The summary may not be within a
reasonable range of the
required word count.
2. Insufficient 4.14 points
An attempt is made to organize the content, but the sequence is
indiscernible. The
ideas presented are compartmentalized and may not relate to
each other; or the
summary is widely outside of the required word count.
Mechanics of Writing 3 points
Criteria Description
includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use
5. Target 3 points

32. Submission is virtually free of mechanical errors. Word choice
reflects well-
developed use of practice and content-related language.
Sentence structures are
varied and engaging.
4. Acceptable 2.61 points
Submission includes some mechanical errors, but they do not
hinder
comprehension. Variety of effective sentence structures are
used, as well as some
practice and content-related language.
3. Approaching 2.22 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader.
Inconsistent
language or word choice is present. Sentence structure is
lacking.
2. Insufficient 2.07 points
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede
communication of meaning.
Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction are used.
1. No Submission 0 points

33. Documentation of Sources 3 points
Criteria Description
citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as
appropriate to assignment and
style
5. Target 3 points
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as
appropriate to assignment
and style. Format is free of error.
4. Acceptable 2.61 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style,
and format is
mostly correct.
3. Approaching 2.22 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style,
although some
key formatting and citation errors are present.
2. Insufficient 2.07 points
Documentation of sources is inconsistent and/or incorrect, as
appropriate to

34. assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
1 No Submission 0 points
Total 60 points