Beginning

1

Developing

2

Accomplished

3

Exemplary

4

Score

Quality of Information in Campaign Speech

Contains less than 3 accurate strengths of your search engine; fails to discuss specific content use of engine

Contains at least 3 accurate strengths of your engine; lacks explanation of strengths; discusses engine use in general

Contains at least 4 explained strengths specific to your engine; contains at least 2 examples of when to use this engine

Contains at least 4 well explained strengths, 1 of which is unique to your engine; gives 3 specific examples of when to use this engine

Demonstration of Search Engine

Examples are clearly spontaneous and general in nature

Examples show little evidence of pre-planning; examples don’t illustrate strengths

Contains less than 2 minutes of examples or examples are not related to strengths

Contains at least 2 minutes of well-planned examples that illustrate the strengths described.

Analysis of the Competiton

(Mudslinging)

Weaknesses are discussed in general; or information is inaccurate

Does not discuss weakness for each of the other search engines

Contains 1 accurate, specific weakness for each of the other search engines

Contains 1 accurate, specific weakness for each other search engine; gives examples

Persuasive Quality of Campaign Speech

Does not follow a logical argument; information not specific to your engine; no conclusion or introduction

Minimal introduction; less than 2 minutes of information that relates to teens; minimal conclusion  .

Contains an introduction; 2-3 minutes of relevant information that relates candidate to teen use; conclusion summarizes speech.

Begins with “rallying cry”; contains at least 4 minutes of relevant information that relates candidate to teen use; stirring conclusion

Speaking

Mechanics

Read not spoken; little or no eye contact;poor volume and vocal clarity

Evenly divided between spoken and read; occasional eye contact; unenthusiastic vocals

Mostly spoken with minor reliance on notes; rehearsed;

Audible in whole room

Vibrant vocal quality; eye contact; spoken not read; well-rehearsed

Teamwork

Only 1 person speaks; conflicts unresolved; no evidence of sharing within team; off task often

Only 1 member speaks; work divided unequally; no peer editing;

Minimal communication sometimes off task

At least 2  members speak; work completed independently with peer editing; conflicts resolved; some distractions

All members speak; info shared within team; conflicts resolved without teacher; overall involvement at all times