|
1
Unsatisfactory
0.00%
|
2
Less than Satisfactory
65.00%
|
3
Satisfactory
75.00%
|
4
Good
85.00%
|
5
Excellent
100.00%
|
| 45.0 %Content |
| 45.0 % Analysis (Components a-f of the assignment criteria.) |
Includes little knowledge about the topics. Subject knowledge is not evident. Analysis of the criteria is not outlined or outlined poorly. Does not distinguish pros and cons. |
Includes little knowledge about the topics with few supporting details and examples. Little subject knowledge is evident. Ignores or superficially evaluates the criteria. Draws unwarranted or fallacious conclusions. Recognizes pros and cons without providing rationale. |
Includes knowledge about the topics with supporting details and examples. Some subject knowledge is evident. Surface level of evaluation of the content is offered. Describes basic pros and cons. |
Includes essential knowledge about the topics with supporting details and examples. Subject knowledge appears to be good. Analysis is direct, competent, and appropriate of the criteria. |
Covers topics in-depth with extensive details and examples. Subject knowledge is excellent. Thoughtfully analyzes and evaluates major points of the criteria. Draws warranted, judicious, non-fallacious conclusions. Identifies the salient arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con providing explicit examples and details. |
| 35.0 %Presentation |
| 25.0 % Speaker Notes |
The speaker notes lack a clear point of view and logical sequence of information. Includes little persuasive information. Sequencing of ideas is unclear. |
The speaker notes are vague and do not convey a strong sense of purpose. Includes some persuasive information. |
The speaker notes are generally competent, but ideas may show some inconsistency in organization and/or in their relationships to each other. |
The speaker notes are written with a logical progression of ideas and supporting information, exhibiting a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Includes persuasive information from reliable sources. |
The speaker notes are written clearly and concise. Ideas universally progress and relate to each other. Provides specific information necessary to assist the audience in understanding each slide’s importance. |
| 10.0 % Layout |
The layout is cluttered, confusing, and does not use spacing, headings, and subheadings to enhance the readability. The text is extremely difficult to read with long blocks of text, small point size for fonts, and inappropriate contrasting colors. Poor use of headings, subheadings, indentations, or bold formatting is evident. |
The layout shows some structure, but appears cluttered and busy or distracting with large gaps of white space or a distracting background. Overall readability is difficult due to lengthy paragraphs, too many different fonts, dark or busy background, overuse of bold, or lack of appropriate indentations of text. |
The layout uses horizontal and vertical white space appropriately. Sometimes the fonts are easy to read, but in a few places the use of fonts, italics, bold, long paragraphs, color, or busy background detracts and does not enhance readability. |
The layout background and text complement each other and enable the content to be easily read. The fonts are easy to read and point size varies appropriately for headings and text. |
The layout is visually pleasing and contributes to the overall message with appropriate use of headings, subheadings, and white space. Text is appropriate in length for the target audience and to the point. The background and colors enhance the readability of the text. |
| 20.0 %Organization & Effectiveness |
| 10.0 % Language Use and Audience Awareness (Includes sentence construction, word choice, etc.) |
Inappropriate word choice and lack of variety in language use are evident. Writer appears to be unaware of audience. Use of “primer prose” indicates writer either does not apply figures of speech or uses them inappropriately. |
Some distracting inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. The writer exhibits some lack of control in using figures of speech appropriately. |
Language is appropriate to the targeted audience for the most part. |
The writer is clearly aware of audience, uses a variety of appropriate vocabulary for the targeted audience, and uses figures of speech to communicate clearly. |
The writer uses a variety of sentence constructions, figures of speech, and word choice in distinctive and creative ways that are appropriate to purpose, discipline, and scope. |
| 5.0 % Mechanics of Writing (Includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use.) |
Slide errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. |
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. |
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. |
Slides are largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. |
Writer is clearly in control of standard, written academic English. |
| 5.0 % Evaluating and Documenting Sources (In-text citations for paraphrasing and direct quotes, references page listing and formatting, as appropriate to assignment and style.) |
Contains no title slide, no references section, and no correctly cited references within the body of the presentation. |
Title slide is incomplete or inaccurate. References section includes sources, but many citation errors. Citations are included within the body of the presentation, but with many errors. |
Title slide has minor errors. References section includes sources, but they are not consistently cited correctly. Citations are included within the body of the presentation but with some errors. |
Title slide is complete. References section includes correctly cited sources with minimal errors. Correct citations are included within the body of the presentation. |
Title slide is complete. References section includes correctly cited sources. Correct citations are included within the body of the presentation. |
| 100 % Total Weightage |
