Rubric


 * ELECTION 2008 WEBQUEST SCORING RUBRIC **

** 4 ** || ** Very Good ** ** 3 ** || ** Fair ** ** 2 ** || ** Needs a Conference ** ** 1-0 ** || ** Score ** || Candidate Positions || Clearly and specifically compares and contrasts views of the candidates on 2 of the issues listed. Issues are analyzed with minimum of description. || Comparison and contrast of at least 2 issues is less clear. Contains analysis but more description than necessary. || Comparison and contrast of 2 issues is minimally evident or only addresses one issue. There is more description than analysis. || Comparison and contrast is not evident and/or fewer than 2 issues are analyzed. Students rely on description rather than analysis. ||  ||
 * ** 20 Point Assignment ** || ** Excellent **
 * ** 30 Point Assignment ** || ** 6 ** || ** 5-4 ** || ** 3-2 ** || ** 1-0 ** ||  ||
 * ** 40 Point Assignment ** || ** 8 ** || ** 7-5 ** || ** 4-2 ** || ** 1-0 ** || ||
 * ** 50 Point Assignment/P ** || ** 10 ** || ** 9-7 ** || ** 6-3 ** || ** 2-0 ** || ||
 * Analysis of
 * Analysis of Electoral College || Fully analyzes Electoral College trends since 1980 and determines how demographics and political shifts effect this election. Students analyze **two** swing states and apply historical analysis to predict which candidate has the best chance of winning each state. || Analysis of Electoral College and demographic and political trends is less clear and/or does not include information since 1980. Historical analysis of two swing states is less specific or only one state analyzed. Prediction is evident. || There is more description than analysis of Electoral College, demographic and political trends, and historical trends in swing states. Does not include information since 1980 or only one state discussed. Prediction is evident but not clear || Answer includes description rather than analysis and one or more of the criteria are missing from this section. ||   ||
 * Analysis of Poll Reliability || Clear analysis of factors potentially impacting poll reliability including general poll factors, issues specific to the polls selected as well as correct computations of margin of error and confidence level impacts. || Analysis of factors is less clear. Analysis does not include both factors impacting all polls and polls specifically selected. Margin of error and confidence levels identified with impact analysis, but computations might not be correct. || Description of factors identified from resource, but little or no connection to selected polls. Margin of error and confidence levels identified with little analysis of impact. || Description of poll attributes provided instead of analysis. Margin of error and confidence levels copied from sources, with no analysis of impact ||  ||
 * Analysis of Opinion Polls || High correlation between conclusions and supporting data. Poll reliability reflected in conclusions. Multiple poll questions used in supporting positions. || EDIT
 * Good** correlation between conclusions and supporting data. Poll reliability reflected in conclusions || EDIT
 * Solid** correlation between conclusions and supporting data. Poll reliability not reflected in conclusions. || Little or no correlation between conclusions and supporting data. ||  ||
 * Effective Use of Digital Media ||  in progress || in progress || in progress || in progress ||   ||
 * Digital Story Production Quality ||  in progress ||  in progress ||  in progress ||  in progress ||  ||
 * Overall Presentation || None, or one minor grammar, spelling, or punctuation error || One to two errors in grammar, spelling and/or punctuation that affect my understanding of your ideas || Three to four errors in grammar, spelling and/or punctuation that make it difficult to understand your ideas. || More than 4 errors in grammar, spelling and/or punctuation, that make it difficult to understand your ideas. ||   ||