- This course relies on timely, ongoing professional dialogue, not isolated submissions. Weekly article summaries (written discussion assignments) are due by Monday each week. This deadline exists to ensure your peers have adequate time to read, reflect, and engage in substantive discussion. I value sustained, thoughtful exchanges with one peer far more than surface-level comments on multiple posts.
- Late weekly discussion submissions may still be read, but they may limit your peers’ ability to engage meaningfully with your ideas and, as a result, may affect how the work is evaluated. If circumstances arise that interfere with timely submission, communicate proactively.
- The final reflective paper must be submitted by the end of Week Five of the session. This deadline is firm, as it allows sufficient time for me to read, reflect on, and respond thoughtfully to your work. Late final papers may not receive the same level of feedback.
- Make-up work is considered on a case-by-case basis and typically requires prior communication. The goal is not to penalize, but to preserve the integrity of the learning process for both you and your peers.
Grading Philosophy and Self-Assessment
Grading in this course emphasizes professional responsibility, reflective honesty, and growth, rather than point accumulation. You will assess your own performance using a self-grading rubric that includes the following categories:
- Time
- Effort
- Willingness to share and participate
- Personal growth and learning
- Commitment to continued learning as a master teacher in a 21st-century context
- Quality and timeliness of work
Self-assessment should be candid and well-reasoned. Inflated or underdeveloped self-ratings will prompt further conversation. My role is to review your self-assessment, consider the evidence provided across the course, and arrive at a final grade through professional judgment.
Use of AI Tools and Data Privacy
To support timely and thoughtful feedback, I may collaborate with AI tools (including ChatGPT) when responding to some assignments. Any materials shared with these tools are fully anonymized and contain no personally identifiable student information. This practice complies with FERPA, data privacy standards, and Southern Utah University policies. AI tools are used solely to assist with feedback quality and efficiency—not for grading decisions or student identification.
EDUC 6915 — Self-Grading Rubric
This course operates from a trust-based model. You are expected to evaluate your own performance honestly and thoughtfully, using the criteria below. The purpose of self-grading is not self-promotion or self-penalization, but accurate professional self-assessment—a core habit of master teachers.
Your final score will be calculated by you assigning points in each category, totaling the points, and then converting the total to a percentage score (e.g., 92/100). This percentage will be recorded as your final course grade.
Scoring Overview
CategoryPoint Value
Time | 100
Effort | 100
Willingness to Share and Participate | 100
Quality and Timeliness of Work | 100
Personal Growth and Learning | 50
Commitment to Continued Learning as a Master Teacher | 50
Total Possible Points | 500
Rubric Categories and Performance Descriptors
1. Time (0–100 points)
100–90
I consistently devoted sufficient, focused time to this course. I engaged with readings, discussions, and writing in ways that reflect thoughtful preparation rather than last-minute completion.
89–80
I generally managed my time well, though a few weeks reflected uneven pacing or compressed work.
79–70
Time invested met minimum expectations but often felt rushed or reactive.
Below 70
Time investment was inconsistent or insufficient to support deep engagement.
2. Effort (0–100 points)
100–90
I approached this course with sustained intellectual effort, curiosity, and persistence—even when the work felt uncomfortable or unclear.
89–80
I demonstrated solid effort, though at times relied more on completion than exploration.
79–70
Effort met basic requirements but lacked depth or follow-through.
Below 70
Effort was minimal, inconsistent, or largely compliance-driven.
3. Willingness to Share and Participate (0–100 points)
100–90
I consistently contributed ideas, questions, and reflections. I engaged openly, respectfully, and meaningfully with peers and the instructor.
89–80
I participated regularly and thoughtfully, though not always generatively.
79–70
Participation occurred but was cautious, minimal, or surface-level.
Below 70
Limited engagement or reluctance to contribute to shared learning.
4. Quality and Timeliness of Work (0–100 points)
100–90
Work was consistently thoughtful, well-crafted, and submitted on time. Quality reflected care, clarity, and professional pride.
89–80
Work met expectations with occasional lapses in depth or timeliness.
79–70
Work was adequate but uneven in quality and/or timeliness.
Below 70
Work was frequently late, incomplete, or underdeveloped.
5. Personal Growth and Learning (0–50 points)
50–45
I experienced clear growth in my thinking, awareness, and professional judgment. I can articulate how my perspectives evolved during the course.
44–40
Some growth is evident, though not consistently examined or articulated.
39–35
Growth occurred incidentally rather than intentionally.
Below 35
Little evidence of reflection or learning beyond task completion.
6. Commitment to Continued Learning as a Master Teacher (0–50 points)
50–45
I leave this course with a clear commitment to continued inquiry, reflection, and growth as a 21st-century educator.
44–40
I recognize the importance of continued learning, though next steps may remain general.
39–35
Commitment is expressed but lacks clarity or direction.
Below 35
Limited evidence of forward-looking professional engagement.
Final Grade Calculation
- Add all category scores (maximum 500 points)
- Divide total by 5 to generate a percentage score (e.g., 460 ÷ 5 = 92%)
- The resulting percentage will be recorded as your final course grade
Important Note on Academic Standing
In graduate coursework, anything below a B- is considered failing. If, based on your honest self-assessment, you believe your performance falls below that level, you are expected to meet with me prior to submitting your final grade. That conversation will focus on understanding contributing factors and, when appropriate, identifying remedies.
This self-grading process is a living example of trust: I trust you to be honest, reflective, and professionally accountable. My expectation is that you will meet that trust with integrity.