Genetics Assessment Rubric

CATEGORY 4 Meets Standards 3 - Approaching Standards 2 - Below Standards

1 Below
basic Standards
Introduction The presentation includes
a strong opening
statement which names
the topic and purpose of
the presentation and
outlines the main points to
be discussed.
The presentation includes
an opening statement
which names the topic and
purpose of the
presentation and outlines
some the main points to
be discussed.
The presentation includes a
mediocre opening statement
which may lack the name of the
topic and purpose of the
presentation and outlines some
the main points to be discussed.
No opening statement
or very weak opening
statement.
Summary of support
for use of the
technology
Includes 3 or more pieces
of information and
evidence (facts, statistics,
examples, real-life
experiences) that support
use of the technology.
Includes 2 or more pieces
of information and
evidence (facts, statistics,
examples, real-life
experiences) that support
use of the technology.
Includes 1 or more pieces of
information and evidence (facts,
statistics, examples, real-life
experiences) that support the use
of the technology.
Lacks information about
the support for the use
of the technology
Summary of
opposition for use of
technology
Includes 3 or more pieces
of information and
evidence (facts, statistics,
examples, real-life
experiences) for the
opposition of using the
technology.
Includes 2 or more pieces
of information and
evidence (facts, statistics,
examples, real-life
experiences) for the
opposition of using the
technology.
Includes 1 or more pieces of
information and evidence (facts,
statistics, examples, real-life
experiences) for the opposition
of using the technology.
Lacks information about
the opposition for using
the technology.
Evidence and
Examples
All of the evidence and
examples are specific,
relevant and explanations
are given that show how
each piece of evidence
supports or does not
support use of the
technology.
Most of the evidence and
examples are specific,
relevant and explanations
are given that show how
each piece of evidence
supports or does not
support use of the
technology.
At least one of the pieces of
evidence and examples is
relevant and has an explanation
that shows how that piece of
evidence supports or does not
support use of the technology.
Evidence and examples
are NOT relevant
AND/OR are not
explained.
Sequencing Information is provided in
a logical order that makes
it easy and interesting to
follow the presenter's train
of thought.
Information is provided in
a fairly logical order that
makes it reasonably easy
to follow the presenter's
train of thought.
A few of the support details or
arguments are not in an expected
or logical order, distracting the
listener and making the
presentation seem a little
confusing.
Many of the support
details or arguments are
not in an expected or
logical order, distracting
the listener and making
the presentation seem
very confusing.
Audience Demonstrates a clear
understanding of the
potential listener and uses
appropriate vocabulary
and arguments.
Demonstrates a general
understanding of the
potential listener and uses
vocabulary and arguments
appropriate for that
audience.
Demonstrates some
understanding of the potential
listener and uses arguments
appropriate for that audience.
It is not clear who the
presentation was
designed for.
Closing statement/
Implications
The conclusion accurately
summarizes key
information from the
presentation and
effectively states what
implications this
technology may have on
the future of
medicine/society/etc.
The conclusion is
recognizable. The
conclusion summarizes
some key information
from the presentation and
effectively states what
implications this
technology may have on
the future of
medicine/society/etc.
The conclusion is weak and does
not explicitly restate the
information or the implications
of the use of the technology.
There is no conclusion.
Presentation ends
abruptly.
Group participation Each group member is
given equal speaking time
and present valid
arguments, examples, or
counterarguments.
Group members are
mostly equal in the
speaking time and quality
of arguments.
One or more group members are
more involved in speaking and
presenting arguments and
examples.
Little to no group
collaboration is evident
in the final project.