“In my Shoes” Rubric

“Ticket in the Door” . . .

Length 7-9 pages

Support with additional research 2-3resources

Typed 12 font 1 ½ -double spaced

Thoroughly describes the challenges, frustrations, and insights of being disabled for a day. Provides numerous, specific examples of events, responses, and enlightening incidents that occurred. A reader would get a deep, complex sense of what it was like to be disabled for a day.

Draws perceptive, insightful conclusions based on these specific occurrences. Attempts to deepen understanding through keen observation, dialogue, and questioning.

Provides clear, substantial guidelines for addressing the needs of an individual with that particular disability. These guidelines are based on the experience and supported by many credible, reliable resources that directly support the topic.

Research information shared is thorough and accurate. The writer has “digested” the information and shares her/his learning in her own words with sources cited.

Organization enhances the overall impact of the paper. The controlling idea or essential question is clearly presented in a compelling introduction. The main points are clearly stated, elaborated upon, and followed by a strong conclusion.

Flawless use of writing mechanics makes the paper very easy to read and understand.

Describes the challenges, frustrations, and insights of being disabled for a day. Provides specific examples of events, responses, and enlightening incidents that occurred. A reader would get a clear picture of what it was like to be disabled for a day.

Perceptions are noted and clearly stated.

Provides relevant, well thought out guidelines for addressing the needs of an individual with that particular disability. Credible, reliable resources that relate to the topic support these guidelines.

Clear connections are made to research and paraphrasing with cited sources is evident. It is obvious that the writer knows about this topic.

The paper is well organized and focused. The controlling idea is clearly stated. The main points are presented with some elaboration and a conclusion is obvious.

The mechanics of writing have been attended to. Errors are few and do not interfere with understanding.

Some challenges, frustrations and insights on the day have been provided but the reader is left with an incomplete picture supported by general commentary and few examples of events, responses, and enlightening incidents. A reader would have many questions about the experience.

Perceptions are noted but may be confusing.

Some guidelines for addressing the needs of an individual with that disability have been noted but these are general with limited support from research.

Research information shared is limited, incomplete, or has some inaccuracies. Writing may frequently use verbatim text from sources. The reader is left with the impression that the writer’s understanding of the topic is limited or superficial.

Organization is attempted but the paper may be difficult to follow at times. Main points are general or unclear with little support or elaboration. Writing may rely on opinion to carry the paper.

Errors in mechanics interfere with understanding the paper.

Description of the day is vague and general. A reader would get little sense of the experience.

Perceptions are not noted or are very difficult to extract form the writing.

Few or no guidelines are provided for addressing the needs of the individual. If guidelines are provided they may seem irrelevant or unsupported.

Few connections are made to the limited information accessed. Research may come from unreliable sources.

Writing is very thin or brief with little focus. Paper is difficult to follow because of poor organization.

Errors in mechanics make paper difficult to read.