Persuasive Writing
(Individually
assessed by teacher) Based on current grade level ISAT. standards.
| 5 Opinion clearly stated in topic
paragraph, 3 reason paragraphs w/ strong support, convincing summary in
concluding paragraph, role evident, quality conventions. Meets or
exceeds ISAT standards. |
4 Same, but quality, clarity,
strength could be stronger. Meets ISAT standards. |
3 Same, but one area from 5 is missing
or very weak. Meets ISAT standards. |
2 Same, but two areas from 5 are
missing or weak. Does not meet many ISAT standards. |
1 Same, but three areas from 5 are
missing or weak Does not meet most ISAT standards. |
0 Little or no effort to follow ISAT
standards. |
|
Roles Assigned Evident (Individually
assessed by teacher) Based on above writing paper.
| 5 Geographical,
ecological, historical, and cultural concerns can be identified through
role assumed. Plus one other aspect (from suggestions in Task). |
4 Geographical,
ecological, historical, and cultural concerns can be identified through
role assumed. |
3 Three concerns
from 4 can be identified. |
2 Two concerns
from 4 can be identified. |
1 One concern from
4 can be identified. |
0 No concerns from
4 can be identified. |
Research (Individually assessed by teacher)
Based on above writing paper.
| 5 Five or more
items sited, use of internet and learning center materials. |
4 Four items sited,
use of internet and learning center materials. |
3 Three items sited, use
of internet or learning center materials. |
2 Two items sited,
use of internet or learning center materials. |
1 One item sited,
use of internet or learning center materials. |
0 No research items
sited. |
Authentic Product (Group assessed together
by teacher) Based on group's written product.
| 5 Extremely authentic, believable.
Fits with local, roles. Creative. |
4 Same, minor weak area from 5 |
3 Most areas of product authentic
and believable, but two weak areas or inconsistencies. |
2 Product is too general, but some attempt
to fit roles with local. |
1 Product has no use of roles or
local. Many inconsistencies. |
0 Product did not use roles or local.
Many consistencies or assumptions. |
Group Presentation (Group assessed together
by teacher) Based on group's oral presentation to class.
| 5 Strong speaking skills, organization,
creativity. Roles played out and readily identifiable. |
4 Good speaking skills, organization,
creativity. Most roles could be identified. |
3 Average speaking skills, organization.
Some creativity. Half of the roles assigned can be identified. |
2 Poor speaking skills, organization.
Little creativity. Most roles could not be identified. |
1 Poor speaking skills. Little
overall organization, creativity. Roles could not be identified. |
0 Little effort or organization.
Poor speaking skills. Did not attempt to use roles assigned in presentation. |
Group Dynamics (Individually
assessed by group) Based on group's work together, written
product, and oral presentation.
| 5 Assumed assigned role throughout,
worked well with all members of group, contributed beyond what was expected. |
4 Same, but one area from 5 could be stronger. |
3 Same, but two areas from 5 could
be stronger. |
2 All three areas from 5 are weak,
but individual made some attempts to comply with group expectations. |
1 All group dynamic skills of individual
was weak, but did participate. |
0 Very little positive participation
within group. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|