jjjjjjjjjjjjjj

1. Assessment tasks for students
Research Graduation Project
N0. assessment tasks Percentage of total
assessment score
1 Continuous assessment 25
2 Quiz 5
3 Oral presentation 20
4 final project evaluation 50
Total 100
1/Rubric For Oral Evaluation Framework
We use a detailed course evaluation rubric (divided into three levels of achievement—sophisticated, competent and not yet
competent) which we feel helps students better understand what is expected of them through each stage of the process. The
rubric addresses the student’s work products, their presentation skills and their abilities to work well as a member of a team.
‫يت‬‫د‬‫لسعو‬‫ا‬ ‫لعربيت‬‫ا‬ ‫املولكت‬
‫لتعلين‬‫ا‬ ‫وزارة‬
‫جاهعت‬
‫بي‬
‫شت‬
‫لع‬‫ا‬ ‫كليت‬
‫ل‬
‫لتطبيقيت‬‫ا‬ ‫لطبيت‬‫ا‬ ‫وم‬
KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF BISHA

2. Rubric For Oral presentation
Components 3-Sophisticated 2-Competent 1-Not yet Competent
Organization Presentation is clear,
logical, and organized.
Listener can follow research
paper line of reasoning.
Presentation is generally
clear and well organized.
A few minor points may
be confusing.
Organization is haphazard;
listener can follow
presentation only with
effort. Arguments are not
clear.
Style Level of presentation is
appropriate for the
audience. Presentation is a
planned conversation,
paced for audience
understanding. It is not a
reading of a paper.
Speaker is comfortable in
front of the group and can
be heard by all.
Level of presentation is
generally appropriate.
Pacing is sometimes too
fast or too slow.
Presenter seems slightly
uncomfortable at times,
and audience occasionally
has trouble hearing
him/her.
Aspects of presentation
are too elementary or too
sophisticated for audience.
Presenter seems
uncomfortable and can be
heard only if listener is
very attentive. Much of
the information is read.
Use of
Communication
Aids
Communication aids
enhance presentation.
 The font on the visuals is
readable.
 Information is
represented and
organized to maximize
audience
comprehension.
 Details are minimized so
Communication aids
contribute to the quality
of the presentation.
 Font size is mostly
readable.
 Appropriate information
is included.
 Some material is not
supported by visual
aids.
Communication aids are
poorly prepared or used
inappropriately.
 Font size is too small
to read.
 Too much information
is included.
 Details or some
unimportant
information is

3. that main points stand
out.
highlighted, and may
confuse the audience.
Content
depth of content
Speaker provides accurate
and complete explanations
of key concepts and
theories, drawing on
relevant literature.
Applications of theory
illuminate issues. Listeners
gain insights.
For the most part,
explanations of concepts
and theories are accurate
and complete. Some
helpful applications are
included.
Explanations of concepts
and/or theories are
inaccurate or incomplete.
Little attempt is made to
tie theory to practice.
Listeners gain little from
the presentation.
Accuracy of
Content
Information (title methods ,
discussion facts, etc)
included in the presentation
is consistently accurate.
No significant errors are
made. Listeners
recognize any errors to be
the result of nervousness
or oversight.
Enough errors are made to
distract a knowledgeable
listener. Some information
is accurate but the listener
must determine what
information is reliable.
Use of Language
Grammar and
Word Choice
Sentences are complete
and grammatical. They
flow together easily. Words
are well chosen; they
express the intended
meaning precisely.
Sentences are complete
and grammatical for the
most part. They flow
together easily. With
some exceptions, words
are well chosen and
precise.
Listeners can follow
presentation, but they are
distracted by some
grammatical errors and
use of slang. Some
sentences are halting,
incomplete, or vocabulary
is limited or inappropriate.

4. 2/RUBRIC for ORIGINAL RESEARCH PROJECT
We use a detailed course evaluation rubric (divided into four levels of achievement— Expert, Proficient, Apprentice and
Novice) which we feel helps students better understand what is expected of them through each stage of the process. The rubric
addresses the student’s work products, their presentation skills and their abilities to work well as a member of a team.
Freedom from Bias Both oral language and
body language are free
from bias.
Oral language and body
language are free from
bias with one or two
minor exceptions.
Oral language and/or body
language includes some
identifiable bias. Some
listeners will be offended.
Responsiveness to
Audience
Verbal Interaction
Body Language
Consistently clarifies,
restates, and responds to
questions. Summarizes
when needed.
Body language reflects
comfort interacting with
audience
Generally responsive to
audience questions and
needs. Misses some
opportunities for
interaction.
Body language reflects
some discomfort
interacting with audience.
Responds to questions
inadequately.
Body language reveals a
reluctance to interact with
audience.

5. RUBRIC for ORIGINAL RESEARCH PROJECT
Criteria Expert(4) Proficient(3) Apprentice(2) Novice(1)
Introduction
[Introductory
paragraph(s),
literature review,
hypotheses or
propositions]
Clearly identifies and
discusses research
focus/purpose of research
Research focus is clearly
grounded in previous
research/theoretically
relevant literature
Significance of the research
is clearly identified (how it
adds to previous research)
Hypotheses/propositions
are clearly articulated
Limited discussion of
research focus/purpose of
research
Research focus is less well-
grounded in previous
research/theoretically
relevant literature
Significance of the
research is not as clearly
identified (how it adds to
previous research)
Hypotheses/propositions
are described but not as
well articulated
Minimal discussion of
research focus/purpose of
research
Research focus is not well-
grounded in previous
research/theoretically
relevant literature
Significance of the research
is not clearly identified
(how it adds to previous
research)
Hypotheses/propositions
are not well articulated
Little or no discussion of
research focus/purpose of
research
Research focus not
grounded in previous
research/theoretically
relevant literature
Significance of the research
is not identified (how it
adds to previous research)
Hypotheses/propositions
are poorly articulated or are
absent altogether

6. Research
Methods
Provides accurate, thorough
description of how the data
was collected, what/how
many data sources were
analyzed, plan of analysis
or measurement
instrument, research
context
Reflection on social
situatedness/reflexivity and
how it may influence data
collection and interpretation
is thorough and insightful
Description of how the
data was collected,
what/how many data
sources were analyzed,
plan of analysis or
measurement instrument,
research context is
adequate but limited.
Reflection on social
situatedness/reflexivity
and how it may influence
data collection and
interpretation is adequate
but limited
Description of how the data
was collected, what/how
many data sources were
analyzed, plan of analysis
or measurement
instrument, research
context is somewhat
confusing/not clearly
articulated.
Reflection on social
situatedness/reflexivity and
how it may influence data
collection and interpretation
is limited and lacks insight
Description of how the data
was collected, what/how
many data sources were
analyzed, plan of analysis
or measurement
instrument, research
context is very
confusing/not articulated
sufficiently.
Reflection on social
situatedness/reflexivity and
how it may influence data
collection and interpretation
is severely limited, lacks
insight, or is absent
altogether

7. Results  Results are clearly
explained in a
comprehensive level
ofdetail and are
well- organized
 Tables/figures
clearly and
concisely convey
the data.
 Statistical analyses
(if used) are
appropriate tests
and are accurately
interpreted.
 Results are
explained but not as
clearly, levelof
detail is not as
sufficient, and there
are some
organizational
issues
 Tables/figures are
notas clear/concise
in conveying the
data.
 Statistical analyses
(if used) are
appropriate tests
but are not
accurately
interpreted.
 Results are not very
clearly explained,
levelof detail is
insufficient,and
there are more
organizational
issues
 Tables/figures are
notclear/concise in
conveying the
data.
 Statistical analyses
(if used) are
inappropriatetests
and/or are not
accurately
interpreted.
 Results are not
clearly explained,
level of detailis
severely insufficient,
and there are serious
organizational issues
 Tables/figures are
notclear/concise in
conveying the
data.
 Statistical analyses
(if used) are
inappropriatetests
and/or are not
accurately
interpreted.

8. Conclusions  Interpretations/analy
sisof results are
thoughtfuland
insightful, are clearly
informed by the
study’s results, and
thoroughly address
howthey supported,
refuted,and/or
informed the
hypotheses/propositi
ons
 Insightful discussion
of how the study
relates toand/or
enhances the
present scholarship
in this area
 Suggestions for
further research in
this area are
insightful and
thoughtful
 Interpretations/anal
ysisof results are
sufficient but
somewhat lacking in
thoughtfulness and
insight, are not as
clearly informed by
the study’s results,
and do not as
thoroughly address
how they supported,
refuted, and/or
informed the
hypotheses/propositi
on
 Discussion of how
the study relates to
and/orenhances the
present scholarship
in this areais
adequate.
 Suggestions for
furtherresearch in
this area are
adequate.
 Interpretations/analy
sisof results lacking
in thoughtfulness
and insight, are not
clearly informed by
the study’s results,
and do not
adequately address
howthey supported,
refuted,and/or
informed the
hypotheses/propositi
ons
 Discussion of how
the study relates to
and/orenhances the
present scholarship
in this areais
limited.
 Suggestions for
further research in
this area arevery
limited.
 Interpretations/anal
ysisof results
severely lacking in
thoughtful ness and
insight, are not
informed by the
study’s results, and
do not address how
they supported,
refuted, and/or
informed the
hypotheses/propositi
ons
 Discussion of how
the study relates to
and/orenhances the
present scholarship
in this areais
severely limited
and/or absent
altogether.
 Suggestions for
further research in
this area areseverely
limited and/or absent
altogether.

9. Documentatio
n of Sources,
Quality of
Sources
 Cites all data obtained
from other sources. APA
citation style is
accurately used in both
text and bibliography.
 Sources are all scholarly
and clearly relate to the
research focus.
 Cites most data obtained
from other sources. APA
citation style is used in
both textand
bibliography.
 Sources are primarily
scholarly and relate to
the research focus.
 Cites some data obtained
from other sources.
Citation style iseither
inconsistent or incorrect.
 Sources are not
primarily scholarly and
relate to the research
focus but somewhat
tangentially.
 Does not cite sources.
 Sources are
disproportionately non-
scholarly and do not
clearly relate to the
research focus.
Spelling &
Grammar
 No spelling & grammar
mistakes
 Minimal spelling &
grammar mistakes
 Noticeable spelling and
grammar mistakes
 Excessive spelling
and/or grammar
mistakes
Manuscript
Format
 Title page has proper
APA formatting
 Used correct headings &
subheadings consistently
 Title page
approximates APA
formatting
 Used correct headings
& subheadings almost
consistently
 Title page deviates a bit
more from APA
formatting
 Headings & subheadings
less consistent
 Title page completely
deviates from APA
formatting
 Headings and
subheadings completely
deviate from suggested
formatting or are absent
altogether
Additional Comments:
3/RUBRIC of Individual - weekly evaluation

10. ‫انًشروع‬ ‫اسى‬
:
Project title
‫العام‬
‫الدراسي‬
-
year
:
‫الفصل‬
‫الدراسي‬
:
‫انراريخ‬
/
‫انطانة‬ ‫اسى‬
-
student name
:
‫اسم‬
‫المشرف‬
-
supervisoer
:
‫د‬
/
Evaluati
ons
Standers
3
2
1
0
STUDENT BACKGROUND ABOUT THE PROJECT - ‫انًشروع‬ ‫عن‬ ‫انطانة‬ ‫خهفيح‬
1
Title - ‫الوشروع‬ ‫عٌىاى‬
Objectives - ‫الوشروع‬ ‫اهداف‬
Latest points in the projects and steps done - ‫الوشروع‬ ‫في‬ ‫حن‬ ‫ها‬ ‫اخر‬
STUDENT'S TASKS - ‫انًشروع‬ ‫في‬ ‫انطانة‬ ‫يهاو‬
2
Date of tasks submission - ‫الخسلين‬ ‫بزهي‬ ‫الطالب‬ ‫الخزام‬
Cooperation with the group - ‫الطالب‬ ‫حعاوى‬
‫الوجوىعت‬ ‫هع‬
Student Discipline and on time attendance - ‫الوحدد‬ ‫الىقج‬ ‫والحضىرفي‬ ‫االًضباط‬
Adhere to the task's headline - ‫الطالب‬ ‫لوهوت‬ ‫الوحددة‬ ‫بالعٌاويي‬ ‫االلخزام‬
Research ethics and citation - ‫واالقخباس‬ ‫البحذ‬ ‫اخالقياث‬
INITIATIVE - ‫انًثادرج‬
3
Knowledge background about the research methods - ‫البحىد‬ ‫كخابت‬ ‫طريقت‬ ‫عي‬ ‫الطالب‬ ‫خلفيت‬
Communication with the supervisor - ‫اليه‬ ‫والرجىع‬ ‫الوشرف‬ ‫هع‬ ‫الخىاصل‬

11. ‫نًدج‬ ‫اننقاط‬ ‫ذجًيع‬ ‫يرى‬
4
‫يجًىعه‬ ‫تًا‬ ‫يررانيح‬ ‫اساتيع‬
312
‫نقطح‬
‫حصهد‬ ‫انطانثح‬ ‫يثال‬
311
‫انرقييى‬ ‫ين‬ ‫درجح‬
‫في‬ ‫انناذج‬ ‫وضرب‬ ‫انكهي‬ ‫انًجًىع‬ ‫عهى‬ ‫نقاط‬ ‫ين‬ ‫انطانة‬ ‫عهيه‬ ‫حصم‬ ‫يا‬ ‫ذقسيى‬ ‫يرى‬
22
‫انًسرًر‬ ‫انرقييى‬ ‫في‬ ‫انطانة‬ ‫درجاخ‬ ‫عهى‬ ‫نهحصىل‬
Reference:
1- Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence, Carnegie Mellon University
Adapted from Huba, M.E., & Freed, J.E. Learner-centered assessment on college campuses: Shifting the focus from teaching to
learning (pp. 156-157). Allyn & Bacon: Needham Heights, MA
2- Swygart-Hobaugh, A. J. (Some elements adapted from vom Saal, F., “Scoring Rubric—Scientific Paper”
http://www.biology.missouri.edu/courses/Bio4984_vomSaal/pdf/Sci_Paper_Critique.pdf and Cornell College/Colorado College.,
“Figure 1:Research Paper Rubric” http://www.coloradocollege.edu/library/acmassign/tools.html
The impression of the team leader - ‫الطالب‬ ‫عي‬ ‫الفريق‬ ‫قائد‬ ‫اًطباع‬
Total = 33 points
311
/
312
‫ذقسيى‬
22