|Running Record had an introduction. The observation followed the format that was indicated in the instructions. The observation had the times observed in the left-hand margin. The observation was descriptive and detailed. The observation was as objective as possible per instructions. It was well organized. 14-15 Pts.||Running Record had an introduction. The observation for the most part followed the format that was indicated in the instructions. The times observed were in the left-hand margin. The observation was descriptive and there was evidence of some detail but at times was too brief. The observation did not always use non-judgmental language. It was satisfactorily organized. 12-13 pts||Running Record did not follow the format that was indicated in the instructions. The observation had no descriptive words and had no details. The observation used subjective language throughout. The observation was not organized or student failed to turn it in.
|The observation had the notes attached to the running record with a signature of employee from the center where observation took place. The notes demonstrated as much detail needed in order to write the running record. Notes demonstrated that the observer was paying attention to detail, conversation, environment, and behaviors as much as possible.
|Observation notes were attached to the running record with a signature of employee where the observation took place. The notes demonstrated that the observer had some idea as to what they needed to observe as far as detail, conversation, environment, and behaviors but lacked in content and did not have specific descriptions or quotes. 2-3 pts||Observation notes were attached but lacked detail, descriptions, direct quotes, environmental observation, and very few behavioral descriptions. Observation notes were not turned in at all. 0 – 1 pt|
|Part II/Part III||Conclusion is clearly stated and connected to the observation. Both parts are clear and relevant. The observer used terms that are associated with developmental theories. The summary and subjective analysis was logical as it pertained to the running record. 14-15 pts||Conclusion is clearly stated and has connections to observation and is mostly clear. Some aspects may not be connected to what was observed and there are some illogical statements that cannot be tied to what was observed. 12-13 pts||Conclusion may not be clear and the connections to the observation are incorrect or unclear or just a repetition of the findings without explanation. Underlying logic has major flaws; connection to what was observed as not evident. The observation was not submitted. 0-5 Pt.|
|Writing||Paper is coherently organized and the logic is easy to follow. There is no spelling or grammatical errors and Marsden terminology is clearly defined. Writing is clear and concise and is persuasive within the subjective analysis. 14-15 pts||Paper is generally well organized and most of the paper is easy to follow. There is only a few minor spelling or grammatical errors, or terms that are not clearly defined. Writing is mostly clear but may lack conciseness. 12-13 pts||Paper is poorly organized and difficult to read – does not flow logically from one part to another. There are several spelling and/or grammatical errors; technical terms may not be defined or are poorly defined. Writing lacks clarity and conciseness. The observation was not turned in. 0-3 pts|
CD 170 Marsden