|
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
SURVEY
|
Survey includes 10 or more valid questions.
Survey is distributed to at least 50 people.
Results are calculated accurately and represented in a spreadsheet with graphs.
Data interpretations are logical, and an original action statement is included. |
Survey includes 7 to 9 valid questions.
Survey is distributed to 40 to 49 people.
Most results are calculated accurately and represented in a spreadsheet with graphs.
Data interpretations are mostly logical, and an action statement is included. |
Survey includes less than 7 questions, and only a few questions are valid.
Survey is distributed to 20 to 39 people.
Some calculations of results are inaccurate, and results are not represented in a spreadsheet or graph.
Data interpretations are made but have logistic problems, and an action statement is weak or not included. |
Survey includes only a few questions, and none of the questions are valid.
Survey is distributed to less than 20 people.
Results are not calculated.
Data interpretations and an action statement are not made. |
| RESEARCH |
Research is organized and is original in presentation.
Research project shows evidence of collaborative work among group and synergy.
All sources are cited accurately with proper format, and an extensive variety of resources is used.
Thesis or proposal is supported thoroughly by the research.
Mechanics and usage are proficient and enhance the communication of the thesis or proposal. |
Research is organized and presented through a traditional format.
Research project shows evidence of collaboration.
All sources are cited with few formatting errors, and a variety of resources is used.
Thesis or proposal is supported by the research.
Mechanics and usage are proficient. |
Research has some organizational and presentation format problems.
Research project shows some evidence of collaboration.
Most sources are cited with some formatting problems.
Thesis or proposal is somewhat supported by the research.
Mechanics and usage problems interfere with the communication of the thesis or proposal. |
Research is unorganized and presentation format is ill-prepared.
Research project lacks evidence of collaboration.
Several sources are not cited or are not cited properly.
Thesis or proposal is not supported by the research.
Mechanics and usage problems interfere with the communication of the thesis or proposal. |
|
COMPOST EXPERIMENT |
Compost design and experiments create a high quantity and quality of compost.
Compost design is practical and efficient.
Compost log is detailed and answers questions thoroughly about conservation of mass and chemical reactions, and all areas outlined in the syllabus are investigated and written in the log.
Experiment plan follows scientific process and is implemented with reasonable monitoring and adjusting.
A strong collaboration effort among group members is evident. |
Compost design and experiments create an average quantity and quality of compost.
Compost design is somewhat practical and efficient.
Compost log addresses all the components but needs more detail and explanations.
Experiment plan follows scientific process.
Collaboration among group members is evident. |
Compost design and experiments are below average in quantity and quality of compost.
Compost design is impractical or inefficient.
Compost log is lacking some components and needs more detail and explanations.
Experiment plan is written but not followed or adjusted.
Collaboration among group members is weak. |
Compost design and experiments failed to create adequate compost.
Compost design does not work.
Compost log is lacking several components and needs much more detail and explanations.
Experiment plan is not used or completed.
Group did not work well together. |
| FINAL PRESENTATION CONTENT |
Presentation creatively addresses the Unit Questions with originality.
Data represented is detailed and easy to interpret.
Details from compost experiments are concise, and scientific information is accurate and relayed with understanding.
Research is integrated into the final presentation and used to support and enhance the final project. |
Presentation effectively addresses the Unit Questions.
Data is represented but is somewhat difficult to interpret.
Details from compost experiments are included, and scientific information is relayed with understanding.
Research is integrated into the final presentation. |
Presentation does not effectively address the Unit Questions and lacks detail.
Data is represented but is incomplete and difficult to interpret.
Details from compost experiments are vague, and scientific information is lacking or inaccurately explained.
Research is somewhat integrated into the final presentation. |
Presentation does not address the Unit Questions.
Data is not represented.
Details from compost experiments are confusing, and scientific information is lacking or inaccurate.
Research is not integrated into the final presentation. |
| FINAL PRESENTATION STYLE |
Technology used enhances the presentation and is varied.
Organization is easy to follow and understand, and retains the interest of the audience.
Collaboration and synergy among team members is evident.
Mechanics, usage, and presentation skills are outstanding. |
Technology used is typical but effective.
Organization is easy to follow and understand.
Collaboration among team members is evident.
Mechanics, usage, and presentation skills are proficient. |
Technology used is cumbersome to the presentation.
Organization effort is recognized but organization is lacking.
Collaboration among team members is weak.
Mechanics, usage, and presentation skills sometimes interfere with the understanding of the presentation. |
Technology is not used appropriately. Presentation lacks organization.
Collaboration among team members is not evident.
Mechanics, usage, and presentation skills interfere with the understanding of the presentation. |