Grading Rubric (see also, Evaluation Criteria )
| STRONG |
GOOD |
O.K. |
WEAK |
|
| Clearly stated thesis |
|
|
|
|
| Addresses
the assigned topic |
|
|||
| Content and Organization |
|
|
|
|
| Clarity and coherence of ideas |
|
|
|
|
| Adequate evidence to support claims |
|
|
|
|
| Appropriate use and citation of sources (ASA Standard) |
|
|
|
|
| Bibliography
(at least 2 annotated sources integrated into the outline per student for group project, 5 sources for final project) |
|
|
|
|
| Style and tone; language, sentences, wording |
|
|
|
|
| Group Evaluation: self and other--contributions, quality, assistance | ||||
| Use of Wiki Tools: image, links, etc. |
||||
| Relevant multiple choice questions per member, in proper format (3 questions for group project, 5 questions for final project) |
||||
| Mechanical
correctness |
|
|
|
|
| Category |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| Organization |
Sequence of Information is difficult to follow. |
Reader has difficulty following work because author jumps around. |
Author presents information in logical sequence which reader can follow. |
Information in logical, interesting sequence which reader can follow. |
| Content & Knowledge |
Author does not have grasp of information; author cannot answer questions about the subject. |
Author is uncomfortable with content and is able to demonstrate basic concepts. |
Author is at ease with content, but fails to elaborate. |
Author demonstrates full knowledge (more than required). |
| Grammar & Spelling |
Work
has four or more |
Presentation has three misspellings and/or grammatical errors. |
Presentation has no more than two misspellings and/or grammatical errors. |
Presentation has no misspellings or grammatical errors. |
| Group Evaluation: self and other--contributions, quality, assistance | Limited presence minimal work or effort | Communicated, but irregular. Completed assigned task | Frequent discussion and timely completion of project, provided assistance to others as required | Leader--takes initiative. Encourages discussion and makes frequent contributions. |
| Use of Wiki Tools: image, links, etc. |
Limited--no
real effort to explore |
A few relevant hyperlinks, but no focus on developing an online presentation. | Good use of images and links,but treated as "add-ons." | Creative use of images and hyper-links integrated into presentation. |
| Neatness |
Work is illegible. |
Work has three or four areas that are sloppy. |
Work has one or two areas that are sloppy. |
Work is neatly done. |
| References |
Work displays no references. |
Work does not have the appropriate number of required references. |
Reference section was completed incorrectly. |
Work displays the correct number of references, written correctly. |
Source:
Till,
Karen. Project Two Grading Criteria, Geography 1301. Department
of Geography,
Unless otherwise noted, all pages within the web site http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/ ©2015 by
Robert O. Keel.
Click here to Report Copyright Problems