|
|
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 or 0 |
|
|
Application of concepts and terminology |
Applies course concepts and terminology very effectively in all respects; exceeds requirements | Applies course concepts and terminology very effectively in most respects; reflects requirements | Attempts to apply course concepts and terminology and to cover requirements; some lapses may occur | Incomplete in most respects; does not reflect requirements | |
|
Appreciation of music |
Demonstrates a sophisticated appreciation of or criticism of music | Demonstrates an accomplished appreciation of or criticism of music | Demonstrates an acceptable appreciation of or criticism of music | Demonstrates an inadequate appreciation of or criticism of music | |
|
Length, style, completeness |
Review is of the proper length and is well-constructed and interesting. | Review falls within length guidelines and is effectively constructed | Review is more or less the proper length; style is adequate and review is basically complete | Review fails to acknowledge requirements or does not indicate that student has experienced a concert as assigned. | |
|
Writing mechanics |
Writing demonstrates a sophisticated clarity, conciseness, and correctness | Writing is accomplished in terms of clarity and conciseness and contains only a few errors | Writing lacks clarity or conciseness and contains numerous errors | Writing is unfocused, rambling, or contains serious errors | |
|
Total |
|||||
Note: Criteria are evaluated on a 4-3-2-1-0 basis. Total rubric points are converted first to a letter grade and then to a numerical equivalent based on a 0–100 scale: 16 = A (93–100); 15 = A– (90–92); 14 = B+ (88–89); 12– 13 = B (83–87); 11 = B– (80–82); 10 = C+ (78–79); 8–9 = C (73–77); 7 = C– (70–72); 3–6 = D (60–69); 0–2 = F (below 60).