| Criteria | 20% | 15% | 10% | 5% |
| Content | Content is comprehensive, accurate and persuasive. Responses are excellent, timely and address topic. Content is clear. Specific examples are used | Content is accurate and persuasive. Responses are adequate and address topic. Specific examples are used. | Content is not comprehensive and persuasive. Responses are inadequate or don’t address topic. Specific examples don’t support topic. | Content is incomplete. Specific examples are not used. |
| Organization | Structure of the paper is clear and easy to follow. Transitions are logical and maintain the flow of though throughout the paper. Conclusion is logical and flows from the body of the paper. | Structure is mostly clear and easy to follow. Transitions are present. Conclusion is logical. | Structure of the paper is not easy to follow. Transitions need improvement . Conclusion is missing, or if provided, doesn’t flow from the body of the paper. | Organization and structure detract from the message. Writing is disjointed and lacks transition of thought. |
| Writing conventions (Grammar) | Rules of grammar usage and punctuation are followed, spelling is correct. | Rules of grammar, usage and punctuation are followed with minor errors. Spelling is correct. | Paper contains few grammatical, punctuation and spelling errors. | Paper contains numerous grammatical, punctuation and spelling errors. |
| Format | Meets all formal and assignment requirements and evidences attention to detail: spacing , all margins and indentations are correct; essay is neat and correctly assembled with professional look. | Meets format and assignment requirements: margins, spacing and indentations are correct; essay is neat and correctly assembled. | Meets format and assignment requirements; generally correct margins, spacing and indentions; essay is neat but may have some assembly errors. | Fails to follow format and assignment requirements: incorrect margins, spacing and indentation; neatness of essay needs attention. |
| Criteria | 20% | 15% | 10% | 5% |
| Fluency | Author demonstrates normal pace, not too fast, not to slow | Author demonstrates adequate normal pace, not too fast, not to slow. | Author demonstrates some normal pace, not too fast, not to slow | Author demonstrates little normal pace, not too past, not to slow |
| Spelling/Grammar | There are no spelling, punctuation or grammar errors. | There are 1-2 spelling, punctuation or grammar errors. | There are 3-4 spelling, punctuation or grammar errors. | There are more than 4 spelling, punctuation or grammar errors. |
| Presentation | Dialogue is well organized and flows like a natural conversation. Background is clearly related to the conversation. | Dialogue is fairly well organized and mostly flows like a natural conversation. | Dialogue is slightly confusing and somewhat flows like a natural conversation. | Dialogue is hard to follow and doesn’t flow like a natural conversation. |
| Pronunciation | No pronunciation errors are noted. Conversation is recited with appropriate expression. | There are 1-2 errors in pronunciation. Conversation is recited with mostly appropriate expression. | There are 3-4 pronunciation errors. Conversation is recited with somewhat appropriate expression. | There are 5 or more pronunciation errors. Appropriate expression not used. |
| Criteria | Advanced | Developing | Limited |
| Apprehensibility of the project aims |
|
| Aims are not clear Aims are not specific Aims are incomprehensive
|
| Apprehensibility of the project objectives |
| Objectives are comprehensive There are too few/too many/ of them They are not so important Objectives are inappropriate for the aims of the project
|
|
| Challenging the essential question |
|
|
|
| Appropriateness of the driving question | The DQ captures the main focus of the project The DQ will definitely lead students to develop more than one reasonable, complex answer The DQ is understandable
|
| The DQ does not capture the main focus of the project The DQ will lead students to develop only one answer The DQ is incomprehensive
|
| Distribution of duties among the team members | The amount and complexity of work is equal to each member of the group |
| The amount and complexity of work is not equal to each member of the group: some students accomplish all complex and difficult tasks, while others do simple tasks or do not do anything at all
|
| Appropriateness of the ways of getting information |
| |
|
| Appropriateness of the digital resources | Author's name provided with all contact details including author's credentials Original publish date is provided and updates are performed routinely Navigation is seamless, with page links that flow fluently The content is educational, relates to the objectives and is well organised | Author's name provided but no contact details given Publish date is provided, however page is not updated regularly Navigation is slightly confusing; however, a homepage is easily accessible once lost The content is educational, but is not related to the objectives and is poorly organised | Website does not provide an author No publish date is provided; page is not updated regularly Navigation is confusing: pages cannot be found easily; going back is not clear The content has minimal educational value |
| Content outcomes | | | |
| Student voice | Every member of the group is given several opportunities to express “voice and choice” on important matters: the topics to study questions asked resources used the form products take the use of time organization of tasks | | |
| Work ethic |
| Not all students are working on task Some students are distracted Some students are out of seat | |
| Time-management | | | |
650
90 198 
