Evaluation

Introduction

Scenario

Task

Profiles

Resources

Evaluation

Conclusion

Teacher's Page

EVALUATION

Your WebQuest will be evaluated both for the process that you go through and for the final product (80m in total) .

You will assess the process within your group through peer evaluation (20m) and your teacher will evaluate your final product (60m).

Print the following evaluation rubrics for your own reference as you embark upon the project.

Process Evaluation (Peer Assessment)

Focus of Evaluation

Poor

(1 m)

Average

(2 m)

Good

(3 m)

Excellent

(4 m)

Score

General Attitude

(4 m)

Often is publicly critical of the project or the work of other members of the group. Often has a negative attitude about the task(s).

Occasionally is publicly critical of the project or the work of other members of the group but most of the time has a positive attitude about the task(s).

Rarely is publicly critical of the project or the work of others. Often has a positive attitude about the task(s).

Never is publicly critical of the project or the work of others. Always has a positive attitude about the task(s).

Cooperation

(4 m)

Rarely listens to, shares with, and supports the efforts of others. Often is not a good team player.

Often listens to, shares with, and supports the efforts of others, but sometimes is not a good team member.

Usually listens to, shares, with, and supports the efforts of others. A good team member.

Almost always listens to, shares with, and supports the efforts of others. An excellent team member who keeps people working well together.

Collaboration

(4 m)

Rarely provides useful ideas when participating in the group discussion. May refuse to participate.

Sometimes provides useful ideas when participating in the group discussion.

Usually provides useful ideas when participating in the group discussion. A strong group member who tries hard.

Routinely provides useful ideas when participating in the group discussion. A definite leader who contributes a lot of effort.

Preparedness

(4 m)

Often forgets needed materials or is rarely ready to get to work.

Almost always brings needed materials but sometimes needs to settle down and get to work.

Almost always brings needed materials to class and is ready to work.

Brings needed materials and is always ready to work.

Focus on Task and Time Management

(4 m)

Rarely focuses on the task and does not respect dealines. Group has to adjust deadlines or work responsibilities because of this person's inadequate time management and lack of collaboration.

Focuses on the task and what needs to be done some of the time. Other group members must sometimes prod to keep this person on-task. Tends to procrastinate, but finally gets things done by deadlines.

Focuses on the task and what needs to be done most of the time. Uses time well throughout the project. Other group members can count on this person to procrastinate little.

Consistently stays focused on the task and what needs to be done. Very self-directed. Uses time well throughout the project to ensure things get done on time. Does not procrastinate.

Total

/20

Product Evaluation (Teachers Assessment) – 60m
	Focus of Evaluation	Poor (0 - 2 m)	Below Average (3 – 5 m)	Good (6 - 8 m)	Exemplary (9 - 10 m)	Score
	Content Accuracy (10 m)	The group's information is lacking in content and is not factually correct in most places. Most information presented is irrelevant to the presentation.	The group's information is weak in content and is not factually correct in many places. Some information is irrelevant to the presentation.	The group's information is for the most part factually correct. Most of the information is pertinent to the presentation.	The group's information is factually correct and fully pertinent to the presentation.
	Project Relevance (10 m)	The presentation material chosen has no appropriate academic, cultural or socio-economic relevance to the topic. The presentation fails to reflect the role of the concern group with regards GM foods.	The presentation material chosen has some, but inadequate academic, cultural or socio-economic relevance to the topic. The presentation displays an adequate but flawed attempt at reflecting the role of the concern group.	The presentation material chosen has adequate academic, cultural or socio-economic relevance to the topic. The presentation adequately reflect the role of the group with regards GM foods.	The presentation material chosen has exceptional academic, cultural or socio-economic relevance to the topic. The presentation excellently reflect the role of the group with regards GM foods.
	Organization (10 m)	There is no clear or logical organizational structure in the presentation.	Content is logically organized to present related materials, but the overall organization of material remains flawed.	Content is logically and neatly organized to present adequately related materials.	Content is logically and intelligently organized to present very clearly related materials.
	Depth of Coverage (10 m)	The coverage of the issue of GM foods from the group’s perspective was shallow and un-insightful. A clear lack of research work done in preparation.	There is some coverage of the issue of GM foods from the group’s perspective, but inadequately so. There is insufficient research work done to develop depth of insight.	The coverage of the issue GM foods from the group’s perspective was reasonable and at times insightful. Some good research work done to offer depth in insight.	The coverage of the issue GM foods from the group’s perspective was excellent and insightful. Extensive research work done to offer commendable depth in insight.
	Thinking (10 m)	Project displays a distinct lack of thinking, without engagement with the issue of GM foods. Project fails to reflect the assigned group’s perspective with regards GM food.	Project displays sufficient thinking, with some engagement with the issue of GM foods. Project displays attempt to reflect the assigned group’s perspective with regards GM foods, but is flawed at times.	Project displays proficient thinking, with engagement of the issue of GM foods. Project displays adequate attempt to reflect the assigned group’s perspective with regards GM food.	Project displays exceptional thinking, with excellent engagement of the issue of GM foods. Project displays commendable attempt to reflect the assigned group’s perspective with regards GM food.
	Appearance & Aesthetics (10 m)	Poor use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. which often distract from the presentation content.	Makes adequate use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. but occasionally these detract from the presentation content.	Makes good use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance the presentation content.	Makes excellent use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance the presentation content.
	Total:					/60