Rubric for Interview

4

3

2

1

Prepares and asks relevant questions that are aptly informed by the historical context  and the subject’s potential misunderstanding or biases.

Prepares and asks largely relevant questions that demonstrate an understanding, if not mastery, of the historical context  and the subject’s potential misunderstanding or biases.

Prepares and asks question that demonstrate a minimal understanding of the historical context, and the subjects’ potential misunderstanding or biases.

Questions and their delivery indicate little preparation and attention to historical context, and the subjects’ misunderstanding or biases.

Selects subjects whose perspectives are likely to be different.

Selects subjects whose perspectives are likely to be different.

Selects subjects whose perspectives may be more similar than different; or whose interviews are written as if they are similar.

Selects inappropriate subjects or reduces interviews to a level that renders different perspectives as similar.

Demonstrates careful listening by interjecting effective follow up questions to significant responses. Effectively elicits relevant elaboration of answers.

Demonstrates attentiveness by interjecting follow-up questions to responses that may have greater significance, if pursued. May elicit some relevant elaboration of answers.

Gives little evidence of careful listening by largely ignoring potentially relevant responses and moving on to the next prepared question. Elicits little elaboration.

Gives little or no evidence of listening; marches through prepared questions without regard to responses. Does not elicit elaborated responses.

Uses language that conveys maturity, sensitivity, and respect.

Uses language that, for the most part, conveys maturity, sensitivity, and respect.

Uses language that is deficient in one or all of the following qualities: maturity, sensitivity, and respect.

Uses language that characteristically demonstrates little maturity, sensitivity, and respect.

Makes careful notes of interview.

Makes useful notes of the interview.

Makes few or careless notes.

Makes careless or no notes.

Demonstrates clear understanding of interview’s purpose through selection of detail included in final written draft.

Demonstrates, but less consistently, the interview’s purpose through selection of detail included in the final written draft.

Suggests a weak understanding of the interview’s purpose through inclusion of irrelevancies, or details that distract from the subject’s perspective.

Suggests little or no understanding of the interview’s purpose through inclusion of irrelevancies, or details too inadequate or distracting to establish a perspective.

Presents the written interview in the appropriate format, demonstrating mastery of grammar, usage, and conventions.

Presents the written interview in the appropriate format, with a minimum of grammatical or usage errors.

Presents the written interview in the appropriate format but one that includes distracting errors of grammar or usage.

Presents the written interview in an unconventional or sloppy format with errors of grammar or usage that impede understanding.