Integration+Plan+Rubrics


 * Blog Rubric**
 * **__ Points Possible __** ||  **__ Description __**  ||
 * **10 (A)** || The “A” post is thoughtful, answers the question(s) thoroughly, and demonstrates clear understanding of the content. In addition, the “A” post makes connections above and beyond what is discussed in class. It is also well written grammatically and mechanically. ||
 * **9 (B)** || The “B” post gives a more than adequate answer to the questions(s) and demonstrates understanding, but few original connections are made. It is well written grammatically and mechanically, although there are more errors than in an “A” post. ||
 * **8 (C)** || The “C” post gives an adequate answer to the question(s) and demonstrates understanding; however, the “C” post pays little regard to the conventions of standard written English. ||
 * **7 (D)** || The “D” post does not provide an adequate answer and there are numerous errors in grammar and mechanics. ||
 * **6 (F)** || The “F” post fails to provide a reasonable response to the task and is not acceptably written. ||


 * Half points will be given if a response falls between two categories.**

**WebQuest Rubric**
__Evaluation __
 * || ** A level work ** || ** B level work ** || ** C level work ** || ** D level work ** ||
 * ** Group Response ** || All team members contributed and stayed on task. Each student performed his/her assigned role. Students worked together as one complete unit to complete the mission. || All team members contributed and stayed on task. Each student performed his/her assigned role. || Efforts for student collaboration were visible. Each student gave input, but group work did not yet come together as one unit. || Students illustrated little to no group collaboration. Individual effort was unequal and one student took on the majority of the tasks. ||
 * ** Research Log ** || Each site logged in and all information for that site noted. All questions for each site were answered and at least one example given when needed. When appropriate, personal (and emotional) responses of group members noted and backed up with evidence from the site. || Each site logged in and all information for that site noted. All questions for each site were answered. Group members' personal reactions noted, but not always backed up with evidence from the site. || Most sites logged in and some information for that site noted. Not all questions for each site were answered. Group members' personal reactions not always noted and not always backed up with evidence. || Did not log in many sites visited. Did not answer many of the questions asked. Mainly did not note group members' personal reactions and provided little evidence for what reactions were mentioned. ||
 * ** Research Conference ** || <span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 7.5pt;">The Speaker addressed all required elements of the presentation, and included some additional information in a well organized talk. The Speaker included historical importance and emotional effects. The Speaker was easy to hear and understand. || <span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 7.5pt;">The Speaker addressed the required elements in a well-organized talk. The Speaker discussed the historical importance and emotional effects of the assignment. The Speaker could be heard and understood. || <span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 7.5pt;">The Speaker addressed some of the required elements, but not all of them. The presentation was organized and coherent. The Speaker needed to speak more loudly and/or more clearly. || <span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 7.5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 7.5pt;">The Speaker did not address most of the the required elements of the presentation. The Speaker needed to speak more loudly and more clearly. ||

**Movie Review Assignment**
// To Kill a Mockingbird Movie Review //

Assignment: Write your own review of the film version of //To Kill a Mockingbird//.

Attached you will find an example of a movie review. You are now to write your own based on your observations while watching //To Kill a Mockingbird//.

To establish the criteria, pick two things you want to focus your review on: plot, characters, changes made from the book version to the movie version, how well the actors/actresses played the parts, the use of camera angles (developing the shot), etc.

Your criteria are going to be what you talk about in the body of your review. What you say about the criteria, whether something is done well or poorly, should ultimately result in you recommended we see this movie or not see this movie.

Finally, the evidence you include should be specific. Just like finding specific evidence to create your video.


 * __Rough Draft Due Monday, January 31st__**


 * __Final Draft Due Wednesday, February 2nd__**

// To Kill a Mockingbird // Critical Review Rubric


 * ||  || **Ideas and Content** ||
 * || **/ 5** || Identifies the work and provides a brief summary ||
 * || **/ 5** || States an opinion of the work ||
 * || **/ 5** || Clearly lists the criteria used to judge the work ||
 * || **/ 5** || Supports the critique of the work with well-chosen details and examples ||
 * || **/ 5** || Concludes with a recommendation to the reader regarding the work ||
 * ||  || **Structure and From** ||
 * || **/ 5** || Argument and supporting details are organized and easy to follow ||
 * || **/ 2** || Includes transitional words and phrases to connect ideas and supporting examples ||
 * ||  || **Grammar, Usage, and Mechanics** ||
 * || **/ 5** || Contains no more than three minor errors in grammar and usage ||
 * || **/ 5** || Contains no more than three minor errors in spelling, capitalization, and punctuation ||
 * || **/ 42** || **Total** ||

Comments: