Scoring
Rubrics
Quizzes
Active Reading
In-Class Presentations
Exemplary
(6
pts)
General Approach. Addresses
the question. States a relevant, correct answer. Presents arguments in
a logical order. Uses acceptable style and grammar (no errors).
Comprehension. Demonstrates
a clear and complete understanding of the question. Backs conclusions with
scientific information and justification. Uses 2 or more ideas, examples
and/or arguments that support their answer.
Adequate
(4
pts)
General Approach. Does
not address the question explicitly, although does so tangentially. States
a somewhat relevant and justifiable answer. Presents arguments in a logical
order. Uses acceptable style and grammar (1-2 errors).
Comprehension. Demonstrates
only minimal understanding of question because does not back conclusions
with scientific information and justification. Uses only one idea to support
the answer. Less thorough than above.
Needs
Improvement (2 pt)
General Approach. Does
not address the question. States no relevant answers. Indicates misconceptions.
Is not clearly or logically organized. Fails to use acceptable style and
grammar (two or more errors).
Comprehension. Does
not demonstrate understanding of the question. Does not provide evidence
to support their answer to the question.
No Answer (0 pts) -- --
] Not all of these criteria will apply to all questions. ]
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Scoring
Rubric for Active Reading
Three Levels of Achievement
(2 pts possible for each
definition ...)
Exemplary
(2
pts)
Presents a clear definition of the words
or phrase. Demonstrates a clear and complete understanding of the words
or phrase. Clarifies terms in the context of the chapter topic, or gives
a relevant example. Written using a scholarly style and grammar (no errors).
Adequate
(1 pts)
"Dictionary definition" only. Does not clarify
the terms in the context of the chapter topic, or gives no relevant example.
Some writing style, grammar, or spelling errors.
Needs
Improvement (0 pt)
Does not present an explicit or clear definition
of the words or phrase. Definition is not presented in a biological context.
Demonstrates only minimal understanding of the terms. Uses unacceptable
style and grammar.
] Not all of these criteria will apply to all questions. ]
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Grading
Scheme for In-Class Presentations
Max.= 50 pts Group Score
Choice
of papers (max 10 pts):
Were they appropriate for
the topic (coevolution)?
10 pts: exemplary- 2 very appropriate papers; no question that they were relevant to the course & week’s topic
7 pts: adequate- for example, both papers were somewhat related to the course & week’s topic, but the connection was not initially obvious
4 pts: not adequate - for example, only one paper was really relevant
Main
content of the presentation (max 30 pts):
Problems/theories/interactions addressed
in papers - were these clarified ?
If methods were presented - were they
clarified?
Vocabulary - were critical terms clarified?
References provided?
(or in other words - When the presentation
was over did you understand ... problems, theories, interactions described
in the papers? ... the methods? ... the critical terms - that you couldn’t
look up yourself (vocabulary)?)
30 pts: exemplary - for example, the presentation helped me fully understand the papers and their relation to the topic of the week. Problems, ideas, and/or theories addressed in the paper were clear to me; arguments supporting the ideas were clear also. I could explaining this to my roommate this afternoon.
20 pts: adequate - for example, the presentation helped me understand the interactions mentioned in the paper, but the overall theory didn’t come across. OR the overall theory or point of the paper was clear, but how the authors supported the ideas was "muddy" (unclear).
10 pts: needed improvement - for example, the presentation seemed to go over some of the ideas in the papers, but the ideas were not synthesized to help us understand the main concepts. I’m more confused about the topic now than I was before class.
5 pts: needed major work - for example, only clarified terms. Discussion of content was scattered and I couldn’t follow it at all.
Conclusions
regarding evolution & coevolution (max 10 pts)
Were they presented and discussed?
10 pts: exemplary - 2 very appropriate papers; no question that they were relevant to the course & week’s topic
7 pts: adequate - for example, both papers were somewhat related to the course & week’s topic, but the connection was not initially obvious
4 pts: not adequate - for example, only one paper was really relevant