Assessment Rubric: STS Project
Part A (10 Points): Issues Introduction
10 pts--Position of issue was clearly stated and supported by careful reasoning.Part B (20 Points): Chemical Background Information7 pts--Position was clearly stated, and reasons showed some correlation to the position.
5 pts--Position was clearly stated, but reasons showed lack of correlation to the position.
3 pts--Position was not clearly stated, and reasons showed lack of correlation to the position.
0 pts--No position was submitted.
20 pts--Articles submitted related to the project and all chemical or scientific information was clearly marked. Summary of the information was clear and correct.Part C (20 Points): Debating the Opposite of the Issue15 pts--Articles submitted related to the project, but all chemical or scientific information was not clearly marked. Summary of the information was acceptable.
10 pts--Articles submitted related to the project, but all chemical or scientific information was not clearly marked. Summary of the information was vague or incorrect.
5 pts--Articles submitted showed poor relation to the project or were insufficient in number, but all chemical or scientific information was marked. Summary of the information was clear and correct.
0 pts--Articles showed no relation to the project or were not submitted.
20 pts--Opposing argument given fully and without bias. Points were enumerated clearly and without bias for each aspect.Part D (20 Points): Interviews with the Experts15 pts--Opposing argument given but lacking in some aspects . Points were enumerated for each aspect.
10 pts--Opposing argument supported, but points were enumerated poorly or with bias.
5 pts--Opposing argument poorly supported.
0 pts--Opposing argument not presented.
20 pts--Interviews carried out , with supporting documentation submitted. Questions were thought out and suitable for the topic.Part E (20 Points): A Survey on the Issue15 pts--Interviews carried out, with supporting documentation submitted. Questions were vague, showed lack of understanding by the questioner, and/or not suitable for the topic.
10 pts--Interviews carried out, but some supporting documentation missing. Questions were satisfactory.
5 pts--Interviews carried out, but person(s) questioned had little expertise with the topic.
0 pts--Interviews not carried out, or not submitted.
20 pts--Survey parameters were followed fully and were appropriate to the topic and all supporting documentation was submitted.Part F (10 Points): Summary of the Issue15 pts--Survey parameters were followed sufficiently and were appropriate to the topic., and supporting documentation was submitted.
10 pts--Survey parameters were not followed and/or were not appropriate to the topic, and supporting documentation had omissions.
5 pts--Survey parameters were poorly followed and were inappropriate to the topic, and/or supporting documentation was not submitted.
0 pts--Survey and documentation were not submitted.
10 pts--Present position clearly stated with well thought-out reasoning provided as support for this position.Part G (10 Points): Recommendations for Further Study on the Issue8 pts--Present position clearly stated with adequate reasoning provided.
5 pts--Present position stated, but reasoning vague or not appropriate.
3 pts--Present position stated, but without supporting reasoning.
0 pts--Present position not given.
10 pts--at least 10 sub-issues that would be valid and appropriate extensions of the issue were submitted.Total Points: /out of 110 pts8 pts--at least 8 sub-issues that would be valid and appropriate extensions of the issue were submitted.
5 pts--at least 5 sub-issues that would be valid and appropriate extensions of the issue were submitted.
0 Pts--no recommendations for further study of the issue were submitted.
|
Send questions, comments or suggestions to Gwen Sibert, at the Roanoke Valley Governor's School gsibert@rvgs.k12.va.us |
Back to STS Menu | Back to ACT Menu |