) ) )

Name: Proposal Rubric

Learning Target: I can organize, interpret, and synthesize information from a variety of sources. 4

All eight note cards completed with detailed information on each.

most significant evidence presented succinctly with original insight.

Evidence that both expert interviews and fieldwork have been conducted. Student not only makes connections between interview and research questions/process, but shows how the interview helped move research forward.

Social significance of expedition is clearly and persuasively explained

3

All eight note cards are completed with all required information.

Three pieces of important evidence (with citation) relevant to each sub-guiding question.

Evidence that both expert interviews have been conducted. Student consistently makes connections between interview and research questions and process.

Social significance of expedition is articulated

2

Six to seven note cards are completed with all required information.

Three or fewer pieces of evidence for each sub-guiding question. Some evidence may not be entirely relevant to question.

Evidence that at least one expert interview has been conducted. Student sometimes makes connections between interview and research questions and process.

Attempt is made to explain social significance of expedition, but it is vague or unclear

1

Fewer than six note cards are completed.

Less than three pieces of evidence for each sub-guiding question. Much of the evidence is not relevant or important to question.

One or no interviews have been completed. Student fails to make connections between interview and research interview and process.

Social significance of project is unexplained

Learning Target: I can communicate about my research in a professional style. 4

Tone and style are consistently formal, academic, and professional

Student refers occasionally to notes and makes consistent eye contact

Tempo, volume, and articulation are clear and student consistently engages with audience

3

Tone and style are, for the most part, formal and academic

Student refers to notes often but also makes frequent eye contact

Tempo, volume, and articulation are mostly clear

2

Tone and style are often colloquial and informal

Student mostly reads notes but looks up occasionally to make eye contact

Student needs to be asked at times to speak up or repeat something

1

Tone and style are consistently inappropriate for formal presentation

Student reads notes and makes little attempt to make eye contact

Student does not clearly communicate with audience

Name: Outline Rubric

Learning Target: I can create a thesis statement that makes a precise, knowledgeable claim that directly responds to my research question

4-Exceptional

• Thesis directly answers the prompt with a compelling claim.

• Claim is provocative and nuanced and can be supported by evidence and analysis.

• Thesis is convincingly argued throughout the essay.

3-Proficient

• Thesis directly answers the prompt with a clear claim

• Claim is debatable and can be supported by evidence and analysis

• Thesis is developed consistently throughout the essay

2-Developing

• Thesis addresses the prompt, but is too vague or doesn't completely answer question

• Claim is striving to make an argument but is overly simplistic

• Thesis Is developed In majority ofessay

1-Basic

• No thesis or thesis doesn't respond directly to the prompt

• No claim made but rather a statement of feet

• Ideas have little connection to thesis

Learning Target: I can effectively organize my ideas (compare/contrast, cause/effect, problem/solution) to logically present my claims, reasons, and evidence.

4

• Sub-thesis statements directly answer sub-guiding questions with compelling claims

• Topic sentences insightfully and succinctly state claim of each body paragraph

• Main sections of the essay and body paragraphs are ordered logically and apt transitions are always used purposefully to guide reader through progression of argument

3

• Sub-thesis statements directly answer sub-guiding questions with clear claims

• Topic sentences clearly state claim of each body paragraph

• Main sections of the essay and body paragraphs are ordered logically and transitions are used consistently to guide reader through progression of argument

2

• Sub-thesis statements answer sub-guiding questions, but claims are sometimes vague, simplistic, or not logical

• Topic sentences frequently state the claim of the body paragraphs but the claims aren't always precise or clear

• Main sections of essay are ordered logically, but body paragraphs are not and transitions are used inconsistently

1

• Sub-thesis statements are missing or don't adequately respond to sub-guiding questions

• Topic sentences are unclear, too broad, or don't match the evidence provided for the body paragraph

• Unclear reasoning for ordering of Ideas and/or few purposeful transition words

Learning Target: I can supply relevant evidence from specific sources to support my claims and answer my research questions.

( Q

4

• Evidence for each claim is drawn from a wide variety of scholarly sources including two expert interviews

• Consistently uses two or more sources in each paragraph

• Substantial, relevant and convincing evidence provided to support the argument and claims

3

• Evidence for most claims is drawn from a wide variety of sources including one expert interview

• Uses two or more sources in most paragraphs

• Specific, relevant, and trustworthy evidence provided to support the argument and claims

2

• Evidence for more than half of claims is drawn from a variety of trustworthy sources

• Uses two sources in more than half of the body paragraphs

• Mostly relevant evidence provided, but not specific or detailed enough

1

• Evidence for less than half of claims is drawn from a variety of trustworthy sources

• Uses fewer than two sources in more than half of body paragraphs

• Evidence is incomplete. frequently unrelated to claims, or often opinionated or too general to be persuasive

Learning Target: I can correctly use MLA format for in-text citations. 4

• Every piece of evidence is cited correctly and accurately according to MLA format

3

• Almost every piece of evidence is cited with few errors in MLA format

2

• Most pieces of evidence are cited with regular minor errors in MLA format

1

• Fewer than half of evidence is cited with frequent errors in MLA format

( o

/ I

Senior Expedition: Research Paper Rubric CRITERIA

Thesis 1 can create a thesis statement that makes a precise, knowledgeable claim that responds to my research question.

Organization

1 can effectively organize my ideas (compare/ contrast, cause/effect, problem/solution) to logically present my claims, reasons, and evidence.

Organization 1 can use transitions to link the major sections of the argument and clarify the relationships between clafm(s) and reasons, between reasons and evidence, and between claim(s) and counterclaims

Evidence 1 can supply relevant evidence from specific sources to support my claims and answer my research questions.

Evidence

4 Exceptional

Thesis directly answers research question A with a persuasive and insightful argument

Each body paragraph directly contributes to answering research question.

Paragraphs are focused on a precise claim that directly supports supports the thesis

The evidence in the body paragraphs clearly and persuasively supports the claims in the topic sentences.

Each piece of evidence is ordered purposefully to allow for a logical flow of ideas within every paragraph.

Apt transition words and phrases are consistently used to smoothly reinforce logical connections between pieces of evidence.

Substantial, relevant and convincing evidence provided to support each claim

Wide variety of types of evidence (facts, statistics, testimony, anecdote) from a wide variety of sources

Evidence is introduced gracefully,

3.5 3 Proficient

Thesis directly answers research question A with a clear claim

Body paragraphs are relevant to the research question but don't always directly support the persuasive argument.

Paragraphs are mostly focused on a claim that supports the thesis

Almost all of the evidence in the body paragraphs supports the claims in the topic sentences.

Most pieces of evidence are ordered purposefully to allow for a logical flow of ideas within more than three quarters of the body paragraphs.

Transition words and phrases are used to reinforce logical connections between pieces of evidence.

Specific, relevant, and trustworthy evidence provided to support claims

Variety of types of evidence with multiple sources used in each body paragraph

Evidence is introduced smoothly and

2.5 2 Developing

Thesis addresses the research question, but is too vague or doesn't completely answer question

Most body paragraphs contribute to answering research question A and supporting thesis

Paragraphs are not consistently focused on specific claims

Most of the evidence in the body paragraphs supports the claims in the topic sentences.

Most pieces of evidence are ordered purposefully to allow for logical flow of ideas within more than half of the body paragraphs.

Transition words and phrases are used but they are often awkward or formulaic and don't consistently highlight logical flow.

Mostly relevant evidence provided, but not specific or detailed enough

Some variation in evidence but drawn from two or fewer sources in many paragraphs

Evidence is introduced in a

1.5 1 Basic

No thesis or thesis doesn't respond directly to the research question

Ideas have little connection to thesis

More than half of body paragraphs don't directly contribute to supporting thesis

Paragraphs aren't correctly formatted and include irrelevant information

Less than half of the evidence in the body paragraphs supports the claims In the topic sentences.

Pieces of evidence are ordered haphazardly without consideration of logical connections.

Few transition words or phrases are used, or they are used incorrectly.

Evidence is not provided or is frequently not relevant or not precise

Over-reliance on one type of evidence or on a few key sources

No context or background is

( ( (

i

1 can Integrate evidence and quotations into my writing, avoiding plagiarism

Analysis/ Critical Thinking and

Reasoning

1 can analyze the strengths and weaknesses of sources and draw insightful conclusions.

Style (Voice, syntax and diction)

1 can use a formal style and objective tone to discuss my research

Conventions/ Mechanics

1 can revise my writing so that it is stylistically and grammatically correct

Bibliography 1 can follow the standard format for bibliographical entries and annotations

building credibility of source

There is clear distinction between quotes, paraphrase, and writer's own words.

Provides convincing explanation of how evidence supports claims

Consistently includes insightful critical thinking that weighs strengths and weaknesses of evidence and draws logical conclusions

Engaging yet objective tone

Purposeful variety of sentence structures

Precise choice of scholarly and vivid words

MLA style used for citation, page formatting, and works cited page when applicable.

No spelling, punctuation or grammatical errors

No run ons, comma splices or sentence fragments

All sources are correctly cited according to MLA guidelines, including alphabetical order, sequence of information, completeness of infonnation, and indenting.

context is provided

There is clear distinction between quotes, paraphrase, and writer's own words.

Provides reasonable explanation of how evidence supports claims

Includes critical thinking that evaluates information and draws mostly logical conclusions

Academic and formal tone without use of personal pronouns or informal vocabulary

Effective variety of sentence structures

Purposeful choice of formal words

Sources are consistently cited in MLA, with few errors.

No more than three spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors.

Occasional run ons, comma splices, or sentence fragments

The majority of the sources are correctly cited according to MLA guidelines but may have a few mistakes in alphabetization and/ or indenting.

formulaic or incomplete manner

Occasionally it is difficult to tell what is direct quote, paraphrase, or writer's own words

Provides simplistic, underdeveloped, or occasionally illogical explanation of how evidence supports claims

Includes little critical thinking, and instead paraphrases or summarizes the texts

Somewhat informal, inconsistent, or overly emotional tone

Some varied sentence structure, but too many simple sentences

Somewhat informal, vague, or elementary word choices

Sources are mostly cited but with frequent errors in MLA

Errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar distract reader.

Some run ons, comma splices, or sentence fragments

Some sources are correctly cited according to MLA guidelines but many contain mistakes in one or more criteria.

provided for evidence

There is some confusion about what is direct quote, paraphrase, or writer's own words

Provides illogical or insufficient explanation of how evidence supports claims.

Includes no critical thinking or inferences about the texts

Tone is inappropriate for audience/purpose

Awkward syntax and/ or phrasing taxes reader comprehension

Repetitive and simplistic sentence structure

Inaccurate, basic, and/or casual word choices

No attempt is made to cite sources.

Errors in spelling, punctuation, and grammar confuse reader.

Frequent run ons, comma splices, or fragments

Few sources correctly follow MLA guidelines.

( ( (

Presentation Rubric: Senior Expedition

Student: Reviewer: Date:

Category

Organization

Evidence and Critical Reasoning

(4)

The argument is nuanced and perceptive and is consistently developed throughout presentation

All the evidence clearly and persuasively supports each claim.

Logical and purposeful progression of ideas throughout presentation with smooth transitions

Substantial, relevant, and convincing evidence provided to support each claim.

Wide variety of facts, statistics, testimony, and anecdotes from a variety of authoritative sources.

Detailed information from two experts and fieldwork are smoothly integrated into argument.

Presenter provides compelling insight into significance of evidence and demonstrates

(3)

The argument is clear and insightful and is developed through most of the presentation

Almost all of the evidence clearly supports the speaker's claims.

Mostly logical and purposeful progression of main ideas and evidence throughout the presentation

Specific, relevant, and trustworthy evidence provided to support claims

Variety of types of evidence with multiple sources used to support each claim.

Information from two experts and fieldwork is used as important and meaningful evidence for claims.

Presenter clearly explains how evidence supports claims and is comfortable fielding questions about each part of presentation.

(2)

The argument is clear but overly simplistic, the evidence doesn't consistently support the thesis

Most (75%) of the evidence matches the speaker's claims.

Main ideas are ordered logically but frequent illogical ordering supporting details

Mostly relevant evidence provided but not specific or detailed enough.

Some variation in types of evidence, but often over-relies on a few key sources or sometimes uses sources that aren't credible.

Two experts and one fieldwork are described but not incorporated

Presenter often explains how evidence supports claims but is only able to answer basic questions.

(1)

The argument isn't clearly stated and the sub-topics have little relevance to the main argument

Less than half of the evidence matches the speaker's claims

Ideas and evidence are ordered haphazardly without consideration of logical connections

Little evidence is provided to support claims or evidence is often irrelevant or not trustworthy.

Frequently relies on too few sources or frequently uses sources that are not credible

Two experts and fieldwork are minimally described but don't contribute meaningfully to research

Presenter is often unable to explain how the evidence supports claims or answer questions well

Communication

command of the material in answering questions

Presenter speaks loudly, clearly, and expressively with purposeful pacing

Presenter uses formal dress, body language, gestures, and eye contact to express a commanding confidence and enthusiasm

Presenter uses visual aides and interactive elements that enhance audience engagement with their research

Product creatively engages a fitting audience clearly achieving a real-world purpose while conveying significant, compelling information from research

Presenter speaks loudly and clearly enough for panel to follow easily

Presenter uses formal dress, body language, gestures, and eye contact to convey confidence and engagement

Presenter uses visual aides and interactive elements purposefully to illustrate important ideas

Product engages an authentic audience with a clear purpose while communicating important information from research

Presenter mostly speaks clearly, but occasionally mumbles or rushes

Body language and gestures are occasionally distracting. Presenter sometimes relies too much on the screen.

Visual aides sometimes contribute purposefully but sometimes are distracting or irrelevant to argument.

There is a mismatch between the product and the audience and/ or the product is only somewhat effective in achieving its purpose

Presenters' pace and volume frequently distract from the ideas of the presentation.

Body language/ gestures communicate lack of engagement with topic. Presenter makes little eye-contact

Visual aides detract from the overall presentation

The product is of poor quality and doesn't serve a meaningful purpose with an authentic audience

Senior Expedition Presentation

Thank you for serving as a panelist for this year's Senior Expedition. The seniors have worked hard to find out about their topic, synthesize information, develop an argument, write a paper, and figure out how to present their research effectively. Your role as a panelist is to serve as a supportive audience, evaluate the quality of their work, and communicate honest, constructive feedback to students. Each panel will follow the same structure:

s-\

1. Student Reflection on Identity as Learner at CCPCS (5 minutes) 2. Presentation of Research (40-50 minutes) 3. Student Reflection on Expedition/Next Steps/Future Plans (5 minutes)

4. Question and Answer Session (10 minutes) 5. Panel Deliberation and Feedback (10 minutes)

Students must earn an average of 2.5 or higher on the three rubric criteria (Organization, Evidence and Reasoning, and Communication) in order to pass their presentation. When evaluating students on the rubric, only consider what you observe during the presentation, not prior experiences or relationships with students. Additionally, students must meet the following minimum requirements in order to pass:

• Students must include a five minute reflection on their learning as a Capital City student • Student must present their research for at least 40 minutes and for no more than 50 minutes • Student must provide evidence of two relevant, authoritative expert interviews (outside of

CCPCS) • Student must provide evidence of one relevant, meaningful fieldwork experience • Student must share evidence of their product and explain its purpose, audience, and impact.

Product options included letter-writing campaign, website/social media campaign, internship application process, leading a 30-60 minute seminar, or a photo-essay about participating in an activism campaign

When grading presentations, the panelists should reach a consensus on a grade (to the closest half point) for each of the three rubric criteria (1,1.5, 2,2.5,3,3.5,4). If a consensus cannot be reached AND it

/^\ impacts whether a student passes or fails the presentation, call in Pat Coyle for consultation. In all other cases, reach a consensus.

If a student doesn't pass on his/her first attempt, he/she will be scheduled for one additional attempt before being scheduled to re-present over the summer.

/S