Service-Learning Poster Grading Rubric - DRAFT 11/19/15 (KB)

Excellent / Good / Poor
INTRODUCTION/
LEARNING GOALS / Introduction contains a clear statement of the learning goals for the SL experience. / Introduction contains learning goals but is not specific to the SL experience. / Introduction lacks learning goals.
COMMUNITY PARTNER / -Identifies the purpose of the SL project and the community need is addresses.
-Identifies the mission or purpose of the community partner / Description of the community partner and the project need is present but vague. / Description of the community partner and the project need is absent.
METHOD / Describes service-learning activity thoroughly (what and how). / Describes either what or how, but not both / Does not provide a method category
RESULTS/IMPACT / Clearly describes the results of their work, how it addressed the needs of the community, and the impact it had on the community. / Provides undescriptive results of their work / Provides no evidence of the work results
COURSE CONCEPTS: / Examines connection between service-learning and course concepts.
-Identifies and explains specific course concepts and how they applied to SL experience.
-Clarifies if the course theories supported or contradicted the SL experience, etc. / -Connection between service-learning and course concepts is vague/ambiguous.
-Specific course concept/objectives are not provided or explained / Connection between service-learning and course concepts is not evident.
REFLECTION / Clearly articulates what they learned about community involvement and their role in the community.
-Identifies when and how they learned it
-Describes what they are going to do now because of their learning. / Mentions what they learned about community involvement and their role in the community, including future plans, but it is vague. / Does not describe learning about the community involvement and their role.
LAYOUT AND DESIGN / The poster flows well, the titles and subheadings are clear, and all information on the poster is in clearly visible.
Clearly includes basic content items, including: participants name, course name, course number, semester, instructors name, community partner(s) names, and community partner’s mission. / The flow good, there are titles and headings, and most of the information on the poster is clearly visible.
Missing a one or two of the basic content items. / The flow is identifiable, titles and subheadings are missing or do not help the reader.
Missing many of basic content items.
QUALITY OF GRAPHICS / All graphics are related to the topic and make it easier to understand.
The overall poster is visually appealing and reader-friendly / All graphics are related to the topic and most make it easier to understand.
The overall poster is visually basic. / All graphics are not related to topic.
The poster lacks any design.
SOURCES AND MECHANICS / All sources (information and graphics) are accurately documented. No grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors.
Use of photos (photo release present for pictures with community partner members or clients) AND/OR data is presented in clearly labeled tables or graphs. / All sources (information and graphics) are accurately documented, but there are a few errors in the format. Almost no grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors.
Photos have proper releases, but are of poor quality (pixilated). / Not all sources are documented accurately. A few grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors.
Photos with people have no photo release, or picture has no relevance to poster.