iRubric: Fish Kill Town Meeting rubric

edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...

Fish Kill Town Meeting

Students will present in a special interest group in Riverwood to determine the cause of the fish kill and what compensation will be for the town.

Rubric Code: JAW53

By crockerc

Ready to use

Private Rubric

Subject: Chemistry

Type: Project

Grade Levels: 6-8, 9-12, Undergraduate

Fish Kill - Finding the Solution
	Unacceptable 2 pts	Poor 4 pts	Fair 6 pts	Good 8 pts	Great 10 pts	Score (N/A)
Organization	Unacceptable Team members were poorly organized and poorly prepared. Assignments and forms were not submitted on time.	Poor Team members were fairly organized and prepared. Assignments and forms were not submitted on time.	Fair Team members were fairly organized and prepared. Assignments and forms were submitted on time.	Good Team members were mainly organized and prepared. Assignments and forms were submitted on time.	Great Team members were organized and well prepared. Assignments and forms were submitted on time.	Score
Group Arguments	Unacceptable Students presented arguments that are not appropriate to their special interest group and are not based on the data. Arguments were mainly personal attacks or sensationalism.	Poor Students presented arguments that are somewhat appropriate to their special interest group and based on the data. Arguments were occasionally based upon facts, and were more often personal attacks or sensationalism.	Fair Students presented arguments that are mainly appropriate to their special interest group and based on the data. Arguments were sometimes based upon facts, not personal attacks or sensationalism.	Good Students presented arguments that are mainly appropriate to their special interest group and based on the data. Arguments were based upon facts, not personal attacks or sensationalism.	Great Students presented well thought-out arguments appropriate to their special interest group and based on the data. Arguments were based on facts, not personal attacks or sensationalism.	Score
Questions for Other Groups	Unacceptable Questions were not well prepared and were not designed to clarify the issue. Alternate questions were not prepared.	Poor Questions were not well thought out and only somewhat clarified the issue. Alternate questions were not prepared.	Fair Questions were thought out and somewhat clarified the issue. Alternate questions were prepared for only a few groups.	Good Questions were thought out and mostly clarified the issue. Alternate questions were prepared.	Great Questions were well conceived and designed to clarify the issue. Alternate questions were also prepared.	Score
Quality of Rebuttals	Unacceptable Teams were unprepared for questions and provided answers that were not based on facts and data.	Poor Teams were somewhat prepared for questions and provided answers that were not always based on facts and data.	Fair Teams were somewhat prepared for questions and provided some answers based on facts and data.	Good Teams were mainly prepared for questions and provided answers that were mainly based on facts and data.	Great Teams were prepared for questions and provided effective answers based on facts and data.	Score
Application of Science Concepts	Unacceptable Students did not apply knowledge gained in the unit as they interpreted data and presented arguments. Answers to questions did not use application of science concepts.	Poor Students sporadically applied knowledge gained in the unit as they interpreted data and presented arguments. Answers to questions rarely reflected appropriate application of science concepts.	Fair Students sometimes applied knowledge gained in the unit as they interpreted data and presented arguments. Answers to questions sometimes reflected appropriate application of science concepts.	Good Students applied knowledge gained in the unit as they interpreted data and presented arguments most of the time. Answers to questions usually reflected appropriate application of science concepts.	Great Students applied knowledge gained in the unit as they interpreted data and presented arguments. Answers to questions reflected appropriate application of science concepts.	Score
Visual Aids	Unacceptable Students did not use audio/visual aids or presentation materials.	Poor Students used a few audio/visual aids or presentation materials, which may or may not have been appropriate.	Fair Students sometimes made appropriate use of audio/visual aids and presentation materials.	Good Students used many appropriate use of audio/visual aids and presentation materials, but could have benefitted from the use of additional aids.	Great Students made appropriate use of audio/visual aids and presentation materials.	Score
Group Involvement	Unacceptable One individual on the team dominated the presentation.	Poor Some team members contributed to the presentation, but not equally.	Fair Most team members contributed to the presentation, but not necessarially equally.	Good All team members contributed to the presentation, but not always equally.	Great All team members contributed to the presentation equally.	Score
Presentation	Unacceptable Students did not sucessfully adopt their roles and did not present information appropriate to their special interest group. Students did not use costumes and props to identify their group.	Poor Students did not effectively adopt their roles and did not necessarially present information appropriate to their special interest group. Students used minimal costumes and props to identify their group.	Fair Students somewhat effectively adopted their roles and sometimes presented information appropriate to their special interest group. Students used some costumes and props to identify their group.	Good Students were mainly effective in adopting their roles and presenting information appropriate to their special interest group. Students used many appropriate costumes and props to identify their group, but could have distinguished themselves more.	Great Students effectively adopted their roles and presented information appropriate to their special interest group. Students used appropriate costumes and props to identify their group.	Score
Atricle/Letter to Editor	Unacceptable Writing did not summarize the Town Meeting or evaluate the decision from the perspective of the special interest group. The article or letter did not display appropriate clarity, grammar, or style.	Poor Writing somewhat summarized the Town Meeting and somewhat evaluated the decision from the perspective of the special interest group. The article or letter occasionally displayed appropriate clarity, grammar, and style.	Fair Writing mainly summarized the Town Meeting and somewhat evaluated the decision from the perspective of the special interest group. The article or letter sometimes displayed appropriate clarity, grammar, and style.	Good Writing mainly summarized the Town Meeting and mainly evaluated the decision from the perspective of the special interest group. The article or letter mainly displayed appropriate clarity, grammar, and style.	Great Writing effectively summarized the Town Meeting and evaluated the decision from the perspective of the special interest group. The article or letter displayed appropriate clarity, grammar, and style.	Score
Science, Tchnology, and Society	Unacceptable Students did not make appropriate connections between science and technology issues and the social issues in this exercise.	Poor Students made a couple of appropriate connections between science and technology issues and the social issues in this exercise.	Fair Students made some appropriate connections between science and technology issues and the social issues in this exercise.	Good Students made many appropriate connections between science and technology issues and the social issues in this exercise.	Great Students made appropriate connections between science and technology issues and the social issues in this exercise.	Score

Keywords:

Chemistry Group Project Presentation

Subjects:

Chemistry

Types:

Discuss this rubric