10 pts--Position of issue was clearly stated and supported by careful reasoning.
7 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.
Part B (20 Points): Chemical Background Information
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.
15 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.
Part C (20 Points): Debating the Opposite of the Issue
20 pts--Opposing argument given fully and without bias. Points were enumerated clearly and without bias for each aspect.
15 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.
Part D (20 Points): Interviews with the Experts
20 pts--Interviews carried out , with supporting documentation submitted. Questions were thought out and suitable for the topic.
15 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.
Part E (20 Points): A Survey on the Issue
20 pts--Survey parameters were followed fully and were appropriate to the topic and all supporting documentation was submitted.
15 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.
Part F (10 Points): Summary of the Issue
10 pts--Present position clearly stated with well thought-out reasoning provided as support for this position.
8 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.
Part G (10 Points): Recommendations for Further Study on the Issue
10 pts--at least 10 sub-issues that would be valid and appropriate extensions of the issue were submitted.8 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.
Total Points: /out of 110 pts
|
You may email me if you need some help finding sources. gsibert@rvgs.k12.va.us |
Back to STS Menu | Back to AP Chemistry Menu |