|
Ecology Explorers: Report and Presentation Scoring Guide
|
|
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
Points/
Comments |
| Introduction |
A thorough introduction shows that the writer is very aware of the intended reader/ audience. Provides compelling reasons for the audience to read/ listen to the content that will follow. Includes hook, background, and thesis. |
A clear introduction with hook, background, and thesis. Somewhat tailored to the intended audience. |
A general overview of the content that will follow, but not tailored to the intended audience. Contains missing or incomplete elements of an introduction. |
No information given as to what to expect in report/presentation. |
|
Research(body of report)
Points: x 5 |
Addresses all questions in the Webquest and research paper outline. Presents many supporting details. Responses show superior understanding of the material. Clearly writes for the intended audience. |
Addresses all questions in the Webquest and research paper outline. Shows significant understanding of the material. Some evidence that the report is written for a specific audience. |
Addresses most questions in the Webquest and research paper outline. Shows satisfactory understanding of the material. Little evidence that the report is written for a specific audience. |
Addresses few questions in the Webquest. Shows limited understanding of the material. Disregard for the intended audience. |
|
| Conclusion |
Conclusion offers many recommendations for protecting a species. Recommendations based on reasoned analysis and justified by research. Takes into consideration whether solutions are practical and economically feasible. Insightful and imaginative solutions. |
Conclusion offers several recommend-ations for protecting a species. Recommendations based on reasoned analysis and justified by research. Some solutions do not include evidence that they are practical or economically feasible. |
Conclusion offers few recommendations for protecting a species. Recommendations not clearly based on reasoned analysis or justified by research. No discussion as to whether solutions are practical or economically feasible. |
Does not offer concluding recommendations for protecting a species. No discussion as to whether solutions are practical or economically feasible. |
|
| Sentence Fluency, Organization, and Conventions |
Superior writing. Ideas are well stated. Work shows high level of organization. No notable grammar and spelling errors. Includes a complete bibliography with more than three sources. |
Ideas are stated clearly. Work is organized. Few grammar and spelling errors, which detract from the work somewhat. Includes a complete bibliography. |
Some ideas stated clearly. Organization is weak. Frequent grammar and spelling errors detract from the work. Bibliography is incomplete or missing. |
Ideas not stated clearly. Work lacks organization or is incomplete. Grammar and spelling errors make report difficult to read. Bibliography is missing. |
|
Presentation
Points: x 5 |
Presentation is very effective. Work surpasses standard. Smooth delivery. Comparisons of all assigned species reflect insightful understanding of their issues. Multimedia choices greatly enhance the message. |
Presentation is clear and presented in an effective manner. Comparisons of all assigned species reflect a good understanding of their issues. Multimedia choices support the message. |
Some elements of the presentation were confusing or ineffective. Delivery needs more practice. Comparisons of all assigned species reflect a basic understanding of their issues. Some multimedia choices do not clearly support the message. |
Presentation is not effective. Practice not evident. Comparisons of all assigned species are incomplete or do not reflect an understanding of their issues. Multimedia elements are completely lacking or distort/distract from message. |
|
| Total Points |
|
|
|
|
| |
< Return to Assessment Plan
< Return to Ecology Explorers