Rubric

Find Rubric
Keep in mind that 68 students have already been assessed using this rubric. Changing it will affect their evaluations.
SciComm Project Rubric (1)
SciComm Project Rubric (1)
Criteria Ratings Pts
Main Message
threshold: pts
15 to >14.0 pts
Virtuoso
Communicates a clear and compelling message appropriate for the intended audience that competently addresses the intended goal
14 to >11.0 pts
Professional
Proficiently communicates an interesting message appropriate for the intended audience and intended goal
11 to >7.0 pts
Apprentice
Main message is present but somewhat unclear and/or unconvincing; main message is not quite appropriate for the intended audience and/or goal
7 to >0.0 pts
Novice
Main message is weak or difficult to identify; main message does not relate to intended audience and/or goal
0 pts
Absent
Main message is non-existent
pts
15 pts
--
Content Knowledge
threshold: pts
15 to >14.0 pts
Virtuoso
Demonstrates mastery and sophisticated grasp of course concepts, including co-production and relevant geosystems, which are clearly described and illustrated with concrete examples
14 to >11.0 pts
Professional
Shows proficient grasp of course concepts which are described, applied and integrated with clear examples
11 to >7.0 pts
Apprentice
Basic grasp of course concepts; may misunderstand or mis-apply aspects of a concept; includes examples but there is some ambiguity and/or leaves some issues undiscussed
7 to >0.0 pts
Novice
Does not use concepts correctly; concepts are stated without additional clarification or discussion; does not include sufficient examples
0 pts
Absent
Missing concepts, nonexistent discussion of concepts or illustrative examples
pts
15 pts
--
Quality of Research
threshold: pts
15 to >14.0 pts
Virtuoso
Paper is exceptionally researched. Sources are thoughtfully included, showing the author has read and deeply engaged with their content. Sources are excellent quality in terms of credibility, range, and pertinence to the topic
14 to >11.0 pts
Professional
Paper is well-researched, and sources are substantively engaged in the body of the paper. Sources are of high quality and relate to the paper's main topic
11 to >7.0 pts
Apprentice
Paper is somewhat well-researched. Sources relate to the main topic but need a deeper engagement. Sources are of good quality but have some issues
7 to >0.0 pts
Novice
Paper research needs significant revision. Sources are superficially engaged. Relationship of the sources to paper topic is unclear, and/or sources are lacking in credibility or range
0 pts
Absent
Does not include sources relating to the topic
pts
15 pts
--
Integration & Synthesis
threshold: pts
15 to >14.0 pts
Virtuoso
All project components (format, sources, intended goals/audience, distribution, text, images, etc.) are skillfully tied together into a coherent final product
14 to >11.0 pts
Professional
Ties together project components, adequately creating a coherent final product
11 to >7.0 pts
Apprentice
Project components relate to each other but 1-2 elements are not well-matched
7 to >0.0 pts
Novice
Does not tie together project compoents into a cohesive whole; relationships between components are not clear; format is not a good fit for the intended audience and/or goal
0 pts
Absent
No effort appears to be made to tie sources together into a coherent whole, or to match format to intended audience/goal
pts
15 pts
--
Visual Presentation
threshold: pts
10 to >9.0 pts
Virtuoso
Visual presentation is exceptionally well executed, highly polished, and engaging; all elements are legible and appropriate for the topic and audience
9 to >7.0 pts
Professional
Layout and design are neat and attractive, with legible and appropriate elements
7 to >5.0 pts
Apprentice
Acceptable layout/design but some overly messy areas and/or showing lack of organization; 1-2 elements are difficult to discern
5 to >0.0 pts
Novice
Distractingly messy; lacks organization; difficult to follow due to poor layout/ design; some elements are illegible and/or inappropriate
0 pts
Absent
No effort appears to be made for layout/design to be neatly composed; largely illegible and/or inappropriate
pts
10 pts
--
Readability & Tone
threshold: pts
10 to >9.0 pts
Virtuoso
Text is easy to read and understand; clear prose; tone and writing are appropriate for the intended audience
9 to >7.0 pts
Professional
Need to re-read 1-2 phrases or sentences, but otherwise easy to read and understand
7 to >5.0 pts
Apprentice
Mostly easy to read and understand; some issues distracting from clarity
5 to >0.0 pts
Novice
Difficult to follow due to numerous mistakes and/or poor organization or formatting
0 pts
Absent
Comprehension is severely compromised due to numerous issues/mistakes
pts
10 pts
--
Required Elements
threshold: pts
10 to >9.0 pts
Virtuoso
Meets and even exceeds the required elements stated in the project instructions for the chosen project format
9 to >7.0 pts
Professional
Includes all required elements as stated in the instructions
7 to >5.0 pts
Apprentice
Missing 1-2 of the required elements as stated in the instructions
5 to >0.0 pts
Novice
Missing several of the required elements as stated in the instructions
0 pts
Absent
Majority/None of the required elements are included
pts
10 pts
--
Title
threshold: pts
5 to >4.0 pts
Virtuoso
Creative, descriptive, and catchy title calibrated to the format, intended audience, and goal
4 to >3.0 pts
Professional
Descriptive and catchy title that adequately draws in the intended audience
3 to >2.0 pts
Apprentice
Descriptive title that relates to case study but does not completely match the format, audience, and/or goal
2 to >0.0 pts
Novice
Title does not relate to the project's case study; does not match the project format, audience, and/or goal
0 pts
Absent
No title included with project
pts
5 pts
--
Citations
threshold: pts
5 to >4.0 pts
Virtuoso
Author shows all information sources so that readers can find the original source. All sources are cited, both in-text and on a reference page, with all relevant information included. Citations are consistent in the author's chosen format (e.g. MLA, APA, Chicago, etc.)
4 to >3.0 pts
Professional
Author shows where they found all of their information. Most sources are properly cited and/or complete; citation style is mostly consistent.
3 to >2.0 pts
Apprentice
Several instances where author does not show where they found all of their information; a significant number of sources are not properly cited and/or are incomplete; citation style is somewhat consistent.
2 to >0.0 pts
Novice
Many instances where author does not show where they found their information; few sources are properly cited; citations are incomplete; citation style is inconsistent and/or copied without editing
0 pts
Absent
Does not cite sources in-text and/or with a reference page
pts
5 pts
--
Total Points: 100 out of 100