RETURN TO T11 Activities



Action Research ePortfolio Rubric
Margaret Riel
Action Research Stand
Masters in Art in Learning Technologies Program (blended-online)


Element
Excellent (4-5)
Good (2-3)
Needs Work (1)
Opening page
Clear that it is action research, it has a title that hints as topic and the name of the researcher is well placed. There is a good and inviting overview and the navigation seems clear
Either identified as action research or has a topic but one of these is missing, name is present but not prominent, the navigation is present but things appear out of order
Not clear that it is action research and not clear what the topic is. The opening does not help you understand what was done or how to move through the website
Statement of the problem
The problem is clearly stated, its significance is discussed, and connections to the researcher are clear.
The problem is well stated but it is not clear why this problem was selected or why it is important to address it.
The problem is poorly stated or not stated at all, it is not clear why this problem was selected or how it is relevant to others.
Review of Literature
Prior knowledge of and experience with this problem is addressed by reviewing a set of central studies. The works provides evidence that the student knows how to locate relevant information, synthesize and organize information into a coherent frame related to the problem; and support assertions with data using citations and references in APA style. Claims are stated, supported by research data and inferences follow logically from the claim and data.
There was an effect to tie the problem to prior knowledge, but the information selected is not relevant to the problem setting. Research studies are listed in sequence with little organizational or conceptual framing or effort to use the content to build an argument. Most of the writing involves definitions with little engagement with research data. There were gaps in the use of APA style.
Prior knowledge of problem is addressed minimally. The review of the literature is a list of references with minimal structure.

There are many Statements like "research proves" or "this problem occurs in all schools" without citations. The writer makes lots of unsupported imperatives. “This must be done… or the “The only way this can be accomplished is ...”
Research Context
The report provides a clear description of the relevant details about the setting, including a general description of the community that exists around the practice. Assumptions about probably outcomes are entertained. The identity of the actors in the setting are described in terms of relevant identity markers or in terms of their group membership. Initials or pseudonyms are used when appropriate.
The description of the context is not clear or lacks some relevant details about the individuals or about the organization. It is not clear who is involved and what is the role of the researchers as well as that of others in the context. There may be a lack of respect for the perspective of others.
The description of the context is missing or not clear, or lacks relevant details about the social interaction of participants

The actors in the setting are ignored or only briefly described, the description lacks relevant details to lead to an understanding of their actions.
Action Research Questions
There is an overarching research question that signals the domain of work.

For each cycle there is a research question that contains two clauses, one clearly identifies the action taken to solve the problem and the second suggests a measurable outcome.

Example:
If I give team members choice rather than assigning tasks, how will this affect the quality and/or speed of project completion?
The overall research questions is missing.

The action cycles questions do not identify the action. The outcome is listed in such a general way that it would be difficult to find any way of relating the action to the outcome.
Example:
If I change my style of teaching, will my students develop life long learning skills.
No general or cycle questions are listed or they only vaguely conceptualize the actions to be taken.
Action Research cycles- Action and outcomes
The report has a clearly developed narrative which describes how the action flowed from cycle to cycle. The reactions of the researcher and the participants to the action sequence are described with supporting evidence, i.e., dialogue exchanges, examples of responses to activities, descriptions of participant actions, and reactions during the activities.
The report narrative is well organized or fully developed. It fails to make connection between the cycles so that each cycle is a completely new project.

The reaction to the action are adequately described.
The report narrative is poorly organized, making it difficult to follow either what the researcher did or how any reactions of the community were tracked. Statements are frequently made about the intentions or thoughts of others with no evidence that these are valid statements.
Action Research Cycles- Analysis and Interpretation
The report explains how the researcher made sense of what happened by examining what worked and didn't work with regard to participants' learning and understanding.
The analysis provides reasons, motives, and rationale for why the researcher thinks the actions unfolded as they did. The analysis draws upon theoretical ideas about learners and learning, transfer, culture, curriculum, instructional design, and teaching methods to support claims and explanations in the report.
The report explains how the researcher made sense of what happened, but is lacking in some relevant details.The analysis provides some reasons, motives, and rationale for why the researcher thinks the actions unfolded as they did, but the explanations are not fully developed
The analysis may draws on larger, theoretical ideas about learners and learning, but only to a minimal degree. Connections among ideas are under developed.
The report does not help the reader understand the reasons for the actions that occurred.

The analysis provides minimal or no explanation for why the researcher thinks the actions unfolded as they did.


The analysis is very weak or missing and the writer draws on assumptions or hunches with little effort to think about the outcomes.
Reflections- What was learned?
The final reflection retrospectively explored what was learned from the research in a clear and thoughtful manner. There was a clear indication of a few strong insights. Changes are described in terms of self-development, deeper understanding of their workplace change, and a sense of how the action research connects with learning.
The reflection is a review or summary of the action research activities with less focus on insights.
The reflection might suggest how future actions are affected by a new understanding, but the ideas are not fully developed and it is difficult to see what has changed.
This section is mainly descriptive writing with little or no attempt to suggest an understanding of underlying causes or any speculations of how they might be linked to different approaches to the future.The researcher's reflection is superficial and does not lead to any new knowledge about the project or the person's role in effecting change.
Quality of writing: Giving attention to the crafting of the web report
The report engages the reader, using vivid language and details of the interaction and holds the reader's interest by presenting a provocative or compelling story. The organization of report is easy to follow. For a web report, you can move flexible through the parts and access relevant supporting details. Writing is clear and uses conventions (grammar, spelling, etc.) appropriately.
The report engages the reader with a clearly developed story, but is lacking in details.
The organization of report is subtle, but the report can still be understood. There is a menu but it changes and it is difficult to move through the document. Writing is somewhat clear and conventions are sometimes used (grammar, spelling, etc.) appropriately.
The report fails to engage the readers; poor organization and lack of details makes it difficult to follow the story. The organization of report is not easy to follow. You frequently have to revisit or reread to make sense of the report. Writing is not clear and does not use conventions (grammar, spelling, etc.) appropriately.
Technology Use
The website uses graphics, color and navigation tools in a way that was easy to follow and visually pleasing. It was clear when a link file would initiate a download and when the it would lead to display content. Most content is well presented and formatted online and does not require the material to be downloaded. Multimedia tools are linked to the overall project and have been tested for multiple browsers and platforms or identify which to use.
The website has some errors in pages not opening or layout is difficult to explore or hard to read. But the content is organized and all parts of the research are displayed as a coherent website.
The website is difficult to follow, the color choices make the content hard to read. The sections are not organized and it is not clear how the different sections relate the overall project. Most of the links are to resources that need to be downloaded rather read online.