- Username
- Password
forgot?

iRubric: Open debate - Ecotourism rubric

edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...
Open debate - Ecotourism The following rubric will be used to assess students in the final activity consisting of an open debate about ecotourism implications in Mursi area. Rubric Code: V22C927 By ahuguet7 Ready to use Public Rubric Subject: Vocational Type: Assessment Grade Levels: (none)

Debate - Ecotourism
	Excellent 4 pts	Good 3 pts	Fair 2 pts	Poor 1 pts
Organization Clarity and order.	Excellent Points of view are absolutely clear and presented orderly supporting a main idea.	Good The major part of the interventions is clear and orderly according to a principal idea.	Fair Some ideas seem to be clear supporting the viewpoint, but not over all.	Poor Viewpoints are unclear in most parts. They do not follow a logical order.
Information Relevance of info to support points of view (reasons).	Excellent Most relevant reasons given. Information is clear, precise and well-documented.	Good Many reasons given. Fairly relevant. Just few information is not well-founded.	Fair Some relevant reasons given. Information is often unclear and not well-founded.	Poor Few or not relevant reasons given. Information is not clear and often mistaken.
Use of facts Examples given to support ideas/reasons.	Excellent Every reason is well supported with relevant facts.	Good The majority of main reasons/ideas are supported with relevant facts.	Fair Main arguments are supported with some relevant examples.	Poor Main reasons/ideas are supported with few or not relevant facts
Participation Interactions. Use of rebuttal. Dealing with counter-arguments. Effectiveness.	Excellent Lots of interactions (alive debate). Counter-arguments are made effectively: precise, strong and relevant.	Good Many interactions. The major part of counter-arguments made are strong and well founded.	Fair Some interactions. Few effective counter-arguments made. Some weak and not very relevant.	Poor Few interactions. Counter arguments are very poor and irrelevant. Deficient effectiveness.
Performance Body language (eye-contact, gestures, position) voice (tone and rhythm) and enthusiasm.	Excellent The team made use of facial and body expressions to catch people attention. Eye contact was constant, tone of voice adequate and enthusiasm was very persuasive.	Good The team made use of facial and body expressions to catch people attention. Eye-contact was often made, tone of voice adequate and enthusiasm was mostly convincing.	Fair The team made use of few facial and body expressions to catch people attention. Eye-contact was often made, tone of voice fair and enthusiasm was quite convincing.	Poor The team made use of few facial and body expressions to catch people attention, but not effective. Eye-contact was barely made, tone of voice deficient and enthusiasm was barely convincing.