iRubric: Archaeology 392: Group Project Rubric

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

Archaeology 392: Group Project Rubric

Rubric Code: X7XAB3

By evandyk

Draft

Private Rubric

Subject: Humanities

Type: Project

Grade Levels: Undergraduate

Group Project: The Yamagats
	Excellent 4 pts	Good 3 pts	Fair 2 pts	Poor 1 pts
Introduction	Excellent Clearly identifies the central argument. Reveals the organization of the project structure and smoothly guides the reader into the project's focus.	Good Identifies central argument. Project's focus is made clear, but organization of project structure is not completely evident.	Fair Argument is partially identified. Project structure is vague.	Poor Introduction does not have a demonstrable argument.
Layout	Excellent The website has a ceative and captivating layout that exceeds expectation. Presentation is acceptable and comprehensible to a broad audience.	Good Website has a creative and clear layout. Presentation is acceptable and comprehensible to a broad audience.	Fair Website has an adequate layout, and an attempt at clear presentation has been made.	Poor Appeal and design is boring and uninteresting; does not attract audience at all.
Evidence (Including References)	Excellent Evidence chosen to support the thesis is detailed, elaborated and well established. Wide variety of sources are appropriately cited.	Good Evidence is established and well chosen to support argument. Wide variety of sources are appropriately cited.	Fair Evidence is presented, but may be irrelevant. Sources have been cited with a satisfactory attempt at proper style.	Poor Little or no evidence of which does not support the central argument.
Depth of Analysis	Excellent Website goes beyond expectations in depth to explore arguments. Carries the argument in insightful, original and/or creative ways. Demonstrates a strong connection of archaeological practices and knowledge in relation to the specific case study.	Good Website goes in depth in analyzing the argument. Argument is portrayed in original and intellectual ways. Demonstrates good archaeological practices and knowledge in relation to the specific case study.	Fair Website analyzes surface arguments in analysis. Demonstrates some uses of archaeological practices and knowledge in relation to the case study.	Poor Project does not address central argument and in inconsistant with archaeological principles.
Comprehension of Material	Excellent Displays an exceptional amount of comprehension of material. Clearly understand the significance and broader importance of the evidence and argument.	Good Displays general comprehension of material and understands the significance and broader importance of the evidence and argument.	Fair Displays some comprehension of material, and identifies some significance of evidence.	Poor Does not demonstrate any or very little understanding of the material. No comprehension of extensive significance.
Conclusion	Excellent Clearly synthesizes and restructures the website's key points. Suggests new perspectives or questions relevant to the central argument, and brings closure.	Good Synthesizes and restructures the website's key points. Suggests new perspectives or questions relevant to the central argument, and brings closure.	Fair Briefly suggests new perspectives.	Poor Is missing or basically repeats the introduction word for word.
Organization	Excellent The whole organization is excellently logical, clear, and easily comprehensible. Transitions between key ideas are smooth. Key points relate back to the introduction and central argument.	Good The whole organization is logical, clear, and comprehensible. Transitions between key ideas are adequate. Some key points relate back to the introduction and central argument.	Fair The organization is evident, and reasonably comprehensible.	Poor None or very little effort is demonstrated to organize webpage.
Mechanics	Excellent Webpage is clean and exceptionally formatted. Quotes are all properly attributed and cited. There are virtually no spelling or grammatical errors.	Good Webpage is clean and appropriately formatted. Most quotes are properly attributed and cited. Few spelling and/or grammatical errors.	Fair Webpage is generally formatted correctly. Quotes are cited when used. Some spelling and/or grammatical errors.	Poor Quotes are frequently not attributed or improperly cited, and there are various grammatical errors.

Subjects:

Humanities

Types:

Project

Discuss this rubric