Skip to main content
iRubric: Literature Review - particle tech - 1st deliverable - 2019-1 rubric

iRubric: Literature Review - particle tech - 1st deliverable - 2019-1 rubric

find rubric

edit   print   share   Copy to my rubrics   Bookmark   test run   assess...   delete   Do more...
Literature Review - particle tech - 1st deliverable - 2019-1 
Literature Review - particle tech - 1st deliverable - 2018-2
Students must hand in a 1st deliverable for a design project for particle technology engineering. this paper reports on production process from farm to packing of a staple product, rice, soy, beans, etc. process block diagram and other products and byproducts from the food industry
Rubric Code: HXCXA3X
By tebbiechale
Ready to use
Public Rubric
Subject: Engineering  
Type: Writing  
Grade Levels: Undergraduate

Powered by iRubric Project deliverable
Particle technology and engineering
  did not deliver

0 pts

Poor

1.5 pts

Fair

3 pts

Good

4.5 pts

Excellent

5 pts

Document content
80 %
Content of Document
60 %

Students complied with content items with good quality
did not deliver

did not deliver
Poor

Document fails greatly to meet the requested contents, provides excesive additional information with little relevance to the future design project
Fair

Document fails to showcase two or more of requested content items, or present two or more in a very superficial manner, fails to provide relevant information to the future design in some items.
Good

Document contains most of the requested items and coverage is mainly of good quality, some deficiencies of coverage or content may be evident but overall is a pretty much a complete document, with good insights for the future design project.
Excellent

Document contains all requested items and are developed with equal rigor, provides good information and some additional information that will be relevant for future design of the process plant
Sentence Structure
10 %

Students are able to present clear ideas
did not deliver

did not deliver
Poor

Errors in sentence structure are frequent enough to be a major distraction to the reader, or Whole paragraphs seem to be taken directly from sources without any editing attempt,
Fair

Some sentences are awkwardly constructed so that the reader is occasionally distracted or, Sentence structure greatly varies from one section to another of the paper, showing little effort to editing,
Good

Sentences are well-phrased and there is some variety in length and structure. Flow from sentence to sentence is generally smooth. or, In general sentence structure is uniform some editing was done, presentation is good
Excellent

Sentences are well-phrased and varied in length and structure. They flow smoothly from one to another. and The text has been comprehensively edited, and well presented
Effort put forth
10 %

All document content was written in english, figures and graphs were adapted or redone
did not deliver

did not deliver
Poor

many images, tables and flow charts were taken directly from a secondary source and no translation was put forth for them
Fair

a few charts, diagrams, tables or figures were taken from secondary sources with little translation attempt.
Good

One or two diagrams, figures, tables or charts were taken from secondary sources but are in english.
Excellent

All charts, diagrams and figures were adapted by students or rewritten by them, and all are in english.
Grammar, spelling, punctuation
5 %

Students show good grammar and spelling
did not deliver

did not deliver
Poor

There are so many errors the meaning is obscured. Student obviously did not proof read the paper at all.
Fair

Paper has many distracting errors. Perhaps some editing did occur.
Good

There are occasional errors, but they are not too distracting and do not obscure the meaning of the sentence.
Excellent

Writing is free or almost free of errors.
Use of References
15 %

Students show respect for authorship
did not deliver

did not deliver
Poor

Student failed to cite sources. Very few references given throughout paper, even though the content clearly did not originate from the student.
Fair

Although attributions are occasionally given, many statements seem unsubstantiated. Sources of information are unclear.
Good

Professionally legitimate sources are generally present and attribution is, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. Student made a good effort at citing sources.
Excellent

Compelling evidence from legitimate sources are given. Attribution is clear and fairly represented.
Timely delivery
20 %
on time
100 %

did not deliver

more than 2 hours late
Poor

more than 1 hour late
Fair

more than 10 min late
Good

less than 15 minutes late
Excellent

on time



Keywords:
  • technical writing, literature review, science, engineering

Subjects:

Types:

Discuss this rubric




Do more with this rubric:
Preview

Preview

Preview this rubric.
Edit

Edit

Modify this rubric.
Copy

Copy

Make a copy of this rubric and begin editing the copy.

Print

Print

Show a printable version of this rubric.
Categorize

Categorize

Add this rubric to multiple categories.
Bookmark

Bookmark

Bookmark this rubric for future reference.
Assess
Test run

Test run

Test this rubric or perform an ad-hoc assessment.
Grade

Grade

Build a gradebook to assess students.
Collaborate

Collaborate

Apply this rubric to any object and invite others to assess.
Share
Publish

Publish

Link, embed, and showcase your rubrics on your website.
Email

Email

Email this rubric to a friend.
Discuss

Discuss

Discuss this rubric with other members.
 

Do more with rubrics than ever imagined possible.

Only with iRubrictm.


Copyright © 2024 Reazon Systems, Inc.  All rights reserved.
n98