iRubric: Team Project Website-Human Ecology rubric

Exceptionally clear explanation of the topic:
● Written language (spelling, grammar, sentence structure) has minimal errors
● Work is well organized (clear introduction, paragraph division, topic sentences, conclusion, sub-headings as necessary)
● Organization reinforces and clarifies main idea of the paper
● Draws upon relevant and compelling sources and examples to EVALUATE the subject
● The work follows the prompt and addresses the purpose of the assignment.

Clear explanation of the topic: ● Written language (spelling, grammar, sentence structure) has some errors ● The work is mostly organized (includes introduction, some paragraph division, some topic sentences, conclusion, may include subheadings)
● Organization mostly clarifies the main idea of the paper
● Draws upon some relevant sources and examples to ANALYZE the subject
● The work addresses the prompt and purpose of the assignment, but might require some further development

Topic is generic and lacks focus:
● Written language (sentence structure, spelling, grammar has errors and is inconsistent
● Could be better organized (missing some of the following: proper introduction, topic sentences, paragraph division, conclusion)
● Examples lack depth and APPLICATION of the associated ideas rely too heavily on quoted passages
● Attempts to address the prompt and purpose of the assignment, but lacks development.

Does not demonstrate a satisfactory understanding of the prompt and purpose of the assignment:
● Written language (spelling, grammar, sentence structure) includes many errors, and requires extensive revising
● The work is missing many of the organizational elements (introduction, paragraph division, topic sentences, and conclusion)
● The work falls short in terms of word count and development

Does not understand the prompt or purpose of the assignment:
● Poorly written and difficult to read
● Poorly organized and extremely difficult to follow
● Work is incomplete

ONE EXCELLENT QUALITY SUBMISSION PER STUDENT on "Annotated Citations" webpage. FIVE evaluative annotations total from reliable and credible sources. EXCELLENT QUALITY ANNOTATIONS MUST INCLUDE 5 OF 5 OF THE FOLLOWING: 1. Author’s credentials
2. Description of type of source/audience
3. Discussion of purpose/point of view/bias
4. Discussion of currency of the source
5. Explain why the source is relevant to the assignment.

ONE GOOD QUALITY SUBMISSION PER STUDENT on "Annotated Citations" webpage. FIVE evaluative annotations total from reliable and credible sources. GOOD QUALITY ANNOTATIONS MUST INCLUDE 4 OF 5 OF THE FOLLOWING:  1. Author’s credentials
2. Description of type of source/audience
3. Discussion of purpose/point of view/bias
4. Discussion of currency of the source
5. Explain why the source is relevant to the assignment.

ONE FAIR QUALITY SUBMISSION PER STUDENT. FIVE evaluative annotations total from reliable and credible sources. FAIR QUALITY ANNOTATIONS MUST INCLUDE 3 OF 5 OF THE FOLLOWING:
• Sources must appear as in-text citations and on a works cited page.
• ANNOTATIONS must include:
1. Author’s credentials
2. Description of type of source/audience
3. Discussion of purpose/point of view/bias
4. Discussion of currency of the source
5. Explain why the source is relevant to the assignment.

Inadequate annotations and/or low quality sources on "Annotated Citations" webpage.
• The annotation may be incomplete
• The source(s) may be of low quality
• The sources do not appear as in-text citations and/or on a works cited page.

No "Annotated Citations" webpage - no annotations - no quality sources at all (0 points)