Capstone Checklist
http://manoa.hawaii.edu/assessment/howto/capstone.htm
The program has:
1. Identified the relevant program SLOs that will be assessed using the capstone experience.
2. Identified lines of evidence and routinely collect that evidence
3. Developed explicit evaluation criteria (e.g., rubrics)
4. Identified examples of student performance at varying levels of mastery for each outcome.
5. Pilot tested and refined evaluation criteria (e.g., rubrics). Used feedback from external reviewers
to improve the assessment process; used external benchmarking data.
6. Informed students of the evaluation criteria.
7. Calibrated those who apply the evaluation criteria and routinely check inter-rater reliability.
8. Informed students of the purpose and outcomes of the capstone and students embrace the
capstone experience.
9. Made information about the capstone readily available.
FOOTNOTE #1. Sources
“Toward a Model for Capstone Experiences: Mountaintops, Magnets, and Mandates” by C.J.
Rowles, D.C. Koch, S.P. Hundley, & S.J. Hamilton. Assessment Update, Jan/Feb 2004, 16(1)
[Available online via E-Resources, Hamilton Library.]
“Capstone Experiences and Their Uses in Learning and Assessment,” workshop by S.P.
Hundley, Assessment Institute (sponsored by IUPUI), October 2008. updated 01/28/2013
http://www.wascsenior.org/files/10%20CapstoneRubric.pdf
Oral Presentation Example Rubric
Outcome: Students will graduate with the ability to give professional presentations.
Work Product: Oral presentation
Outcome/Skills
Idea development, use of
language, and the
organization of ideas are
effectively used to
achieve a purpose.
Advanced
A. Ideas are clearly organized,
developed, and supported to
achieve a purpose; the purpose
is clear.
B. The introduction gets the
attention of the audience.
C. Main points are clear and
organized effectively.
D. Supporting material is
original, logical, and relevant
(facts, examples, etc.).
E. Smooth transitions are used.
F. The conclusion is satisfying.
G. Language choices are vivid
and precise.
H. Material is developed for an
oral rather than a written
presentation.
Emerging
A. Idea “seeds” have not yet
germinated; ideas may not be
focused or developed; the main
purpose is not clear.
B. The introduction is undeveloped
or irrelevant.
C. Main points are difficult to
identify.
D. Inaccurate, generalized, or
inappropriate supporting material
may be used.
E. Transitions may be needed.
F. The conclusion is abrupt or
limited.
G. Language choices may be
limited, peppered with slang or
jargon, too complex, or too dull.
A. The delivery is natural,
confident, and enhances
the message — posture,
eye contact, smooth gestures,
facial expressions, volume,
pace, etc. indicate confidence, a
commitment to the topic, and a
willingness to communicate.
B. The vocal tone, delivery
style, and clothing are
consistent with the message.
C. Limited filler words (“ums”)
are used.
D. Clear articulation and
pronunciation are used.
Developing
A. The main idea is evident,
but the organizational structure
may need to be strengthened;
ideas may not always flow
smoothly.
B. The introduction may not be
well-developed.
C. Main points are not always
clear.
D. Supporting material may
lack in originality or adequate
development.
E. Transitions may be
awkward.
F. The conclusion may need
additional development.
G. Language is appropriate,
but word choices are not
particularly vivid or precise.
A. The delivery generally
seems effective—however,
effective use of volume, eye
contact, vocal control, etc. may
not be consistent; some
hesitancy may be observed.
B. Vocal tone, facial
expressions, clothing and
other nonverbal expressions
do not detract significantly
from the message.
C. Filler words are not
distracting.
D. Generally, articulation and
pronunciation are clear.
The nonverbal message
supports and is
consistent with the verbal
message.
Idea development, use of
language, and the
organization of ideas for
a specific audience,
setting, and occasion are
appropriate.
A. Language is familiar to the
audience, appropriate for the
setting, and free of bias; the
presenter may “code-switch”
(use a different language form)
when appropriate.
B. Topic selection and
examples are interesting and
relevant for the audience and
occasion.
C. Delivery style and clothing
choices suggest an awareness
of expectations and norms.
A. Language used is not
disrespectful or offensive.
B. Topic selection and
examples are not inappropriate
for the audience, occasion, or
setting; some effort to make
the material relevant to
audience interests, the
occasion, or setting is evident.
C. The delivery style, tone of
voice, and clothing choices do
not seem out-of-place or
disrespectful to the audience.
A. Language is questionable or
inappropriate for a particular
audience, occasion, or setting.
Some biased or unclear language
may be used.
B. Topic selection does not relate to
audience needs and interests.
C. The delivery style may not match
the particular audience or
occasion—the presenter’s tone of
voice or other mannerisms may
create alienation from the audience;
clothing choices may also convey
disrespect for the audience.
A. The delivery detracts from the
message; eye contact may be very
limited; the presenter may tend to
look at the floor, mumble, speak
inaudibly, fidget, or read most or all
of the speech; gestures and
movements may be jerky or
excessive.
B. The delivery may appear
inconsistent with the message.
C. Filler words (“ums,”) are used
excessively.
D. Articulation and pronunciation
tend to be sloppy.
Rubric is a modification of one presented by: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (1998). Oral presentation
rubric. Retrieved October 23, 2008 from http://www.nwrel.org/assessment/pdfRubrics/oralassess.PDF
http://www.lmu.edu/about/services/academicplanning/assessment/Assessment_Resources/Rubrics/Example_Rubrics
/Oral_Presentation_Example_Rubric.htm
Capstone Scoring Guide
Elements
Project
Selection and
Problem
Identification
Context
Procedures
Assessment/
Impact
Presentation
Reflection
1
2
3
4
Project is somewhat
relevant, although
there is no obvious
connection to student
achievement. There is
little or no linkage of
the project to the
Kentucky Teacher
Standards.
Project seems relevant,
although there is no obvious
collaboration with school
and/or district
professionals. The linkage
or connection to in student
achievement is
serendipitous at best. There
is limited linkage of the
project and the Kentucky
Teacher Standards.
Project was selected and
planned with some
collaboration with school
and/or district
professionals There are
some connection to
student achievement
although not measurable.
The candidate links the
project to the Kentucky
Teacher Standards.
Project was selected and
planned with a variety of
collaboration sessions
with school and/or
district professionals. A
direct connection to
student achievement is
made. The candidate
links the project to the
Kentucky Teacher
Standards.
The candidate’s
presentation of context
fails to clearly identify
the setting for the
project.
Candidate shares context of
his/her project. The role
group(s), setting, policies
and procedures, and
barriers are articulated, but
the candidate’s presentation
leaves questions about more
than one aspect of the
context.
Candidate shares context
of his/her project. The
role group(s), setting,
policies and procedures,
and barriers are
articulated, but the
candidate’s presentation
leaves questions about
one aspect of the context.
Candidate shares a clear
picture of context of
his/her project. The role
group(s), setting, policies
and procedures, and
barriers are articulated.
Methodology is not
shared.
Candidate fails to share
methodology and/or people
involved, and/or a general
idea of the timeline used in
the project.
Candidate shares
methodology, people
involved, and a general
idea of the timeline used
in the project.
Candidate clearly shares
methodology including
people involved as well
as a timeline of the work.
There is little or no
evidence of an
assessment plan, and
there is little evidence
that the process and
outcome have been
analyzed and
evaluated.
There is little or no evidence
of an assessment plan, or
there is little evidence that
the process and outcome
have been analyzed and
evaluated.
The plan for assessment
was not integrated into
the planning and the
success of the candidate’s
efforts is sketchy and/or
there is evidence that the
process and outcome have
been analyzed and
evaluated; however,
application of the findings
is missing.
A plan for assessment
was initiated at the
beginning of the project,
implemented, and results
reported. There is
evidence that the
process and outcome
have been carefully
analyzed and evaluated.
A plan for refinement is
presented.
The audience receives a
garbled message due
to problems relating to
the presentation.
Due to the form and
presentation of the oral and
visual text, parts of the
presentation are unclear.
The presenter’s message
is understandable in its
format.
The form and
presentation of the oral
and visual text enhances
the ability of the
audience to understand
and connect with the
message.
Reflection does not
adequately or
accurately connect the
project lessons learned,
suggestions for what
might be done
differently if project
were implemented
again, and/or limited or
no linkage to improved
student achievement.
Reflection is minimally
connected to lessons
learned. Little or no
discussion related to what
might be done differently if
project were implemented
again and loose linkages to
improved student
achievement.
Reflection connects
project to lessons learned,
provides some general
ideas about what might be
done differently if project
were implemented again,
and some general linkage
to improved student
achievement.
Reflection specifically
connects project to
lessons learned, provides
suggestions for what
might be done differently
if project were
implemented again, and
a clear linkage to
improved student
achievement.
http://www2.moreheadstate.edu/tl/index.aspx?id=49391
Rubric for Assessment of Team Working Skills
Some of the ideas for this rubric came from information at:
http://www.uwstout.edu/soe/profdev/rubrics.shtml.
Name of person being evaluated: __________________________________________
Course and quarter of evaluation: __________________________________________
1
Does not collect any
Contribution to
relevant information; no
the team
useful suggestions to
project/work
address team's needs;
Taking
responsibility
Does not perform
assigned tasks; often
misses meetings and,
when present, does not
have anything
constructive to say; relies
on others to do the work;
Points
assigned
2
3
4
Collects information
when prodded; tries to
offer some ideas, but not
well developed, and not
clearly expressed, to
meet team's needs;
Collects basic,
useful information
related to the
project;
occasionally offers
useful ideas to meet
the team's needs;
Collects and presents
to the team a great deal
of relevant
information; offers
well-developed and
clearly expressed ideas
directly related to the
group's purpose.
Performs assigned tasks
but needs many
reminders; attends
meetings regularly but
generally does not say
anything constructive;
sometimes expects
others to do his/her
work;
Performs all
assigned tasks;
attends meetings
regularly and
usually participates
effectively;
generally reliable;
Performs all tasks very
effectively; attends all
meetings and
participates
enthusiastically; very
reliable.
Generally listens to
others' points of
view; always uses
appropriate and
respectful language;
tries to make a
definite effort to
understand others'
ideas;
Always listens to
others and their ideas;
helps them develop
their ideas while giving
them full credit;
always helps the team
reach a fair decision.
Usually does much of
the talking; does not pay
Often argues with team
much attention when
mates; doesn't let anyone others talk, and often
else talk; occasional
assumes their ideas will
Valuing other personal attacks and "put- not work; no personal
attacks and put-downs
team members downs"; wants to have
things done his way and but sometimes
does not listen to alternate patronizing; when others
approaches;
get through to him,
works reasonably well
with them;
Total:
Evaluator's name: __________________________________________
Date of evaluation: __________________________________________
http://www.uwf.edu/cutla/QEP/presentations/COB_Capstone2006.pdf