iRubric: Janine Weisman - Government: Member Gov't rubric

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

Janine Weisman - Government: Member Gov't

Government: Member Gov't

Rubric Code: TXC9C33

By Kevin1952

Ready to use

Public Rubric

Subject: Communication

Type: Presentation

Grade Levels: Undergraduate

Member of the Government
	Poor 1.5 pts	Fair 2.85 pts	Good 3.45 pts	Excellent 4 pts
Time Generally 4-6 min (30 sec over grace period allowed)	Poor Constructive phase time: 3:29 or under; 6:46+	Fair Constructive phase time: 3:30-3:59 or 6:31-6:45	Good Constructive phase time: 4-4:29	Excellent Constructive phase time: 4:30-6:30
Constructive Responsibilities: Greet judges & class State resolution clearly Review progress of debate thus far Show clash with Leader Opp Rebuild and reinforce Gov't case Outline reasons why Gov't resolution should prevail Use anecdote, illustration or example to get audience's attention and strengthen Gov't case Outline main points clearly and provide brief discussion for each point. <	Poor Failed to acknowledged judges, class & opposing team; did not state resolution clearly No attention getter Gave no explanations, anecdotes, examples to interest audience in topic of debate Outlined only 1 main point and provided brief, vague discussion with little detail or supporting evidence. No sense of ending	Fair Acknowledged judges, class & opposing team; stated resolution clearly Used attention getter Gave no explanations, anecdotes, examples to interest audience in topic of debate Outlined at least 2 main points and provided brief discussion for each point. Abrupt ending	Good Acknowledged judges, class & opposing team; stated resolution clearly Used attention getter Expanded each point raised in Prime Minister's constructive speech Offered explanations, anecdotes, examples to interest audience in topic of debate; made topic salient Outlined at least 3 main points against the Opp case and provide brief discussion for each point. Mostly memorable ending	Excellent Acknowledged judges, class & opposing team; stated resolution clearly Used effective attention getter Effectively expanded each point raised in Prime Minister's constructive speech Offered clear explanations, anecdotes, examples to interest audience in topic of debate; made topic salient Clearly outlined at least 3 main points against the Opp case Memorable ending
Analysis Responsibilities: Present clear, logical arguments to support Gov't case Avoid fallacies Deconstruct and refute Opp arguments against case	Poor Failed to refute points Failed to point out fallacies in other team's arguments Presented faulty logic Showed no clash with other team Confusing or vague arguments No order, no signposting of points	Fair Left some arguments by other team unaddressed Missed some opportunities to show clash with definitions, context or background presented by Gov't Somewhat confusing or vague arguments Not well organized, no clear signposting	Good Addressed all Opp team's arguments Showed clash with definitions, context or background presented by Opp team Generally sound arguments, pointed out fallacies in other team's arguments Organized presentation of points with signposting	Excellent Effectively addressed all Opp team arguments Showed clash with definitions, context or background presented by Opp team Generally sound arguments, pointed out fallacies in other team's arguments Well-organized presentation of points with clear signposting
Delivery	Poor Not persuasive Very little eye contact Multiple awkward moments Spoke in monotone with no variation in pitch, pacing Volume not loud enough Failed to connect with audience Was offensive to other team or audience	Fair Little persuasive skill demonstrated Some eye contact Awkward pauses Volume not loud enough at times Spoke in monotone with no variation in pitch, pacing Not much connection with audience Showed little respect to other team	Good Mostly confident, mostly persuasive Good eye contact Spoke clearly and deliberately Successfully invoked ethos, pathos, logos Respectful of other team	Excellent Confident and persuasive speaker Excellent eye contact Effectively used humor Successfully invoked ethos, pathos, logos Engaged audience Respectful of other team
Preparation	Poor Showed little knowledge of topic No debate flow notes submitted	Fair Showed fair amount of knowledge of topic Submitted flow notes of debate	Good Showed good amount of knowledge of topic Submitted flow notes of debate	Excellent Well-informed on topic; offered background information when needed Submitted flow notes of debate
Bibliography Bibliography Responsibilities: *4 sources properly formatted APA style uploaded to assignment on Bridges before start of class on scheduled debate day. When in doubt place in dropbox!	Poor 1 source, or supplied only a list of links instead of formatted material	Fair 2+ sources, not formatted properly	Good 3-4 sources somewhat formatted properly	Excellent 4 or more sources properly formatted in APA style

Subjects:

Communication

Types:

Presentation

Discuss this rubric