Your Big History Project assessment will be marked using the marking rubics below. Please refer to them when completing your assessment and when doing self- and peer-assessment:

• Writing
• Presentation
• Collaboration
• Debate

<

>

Description	Below Standard (1)	Approaching Standard (2)	At Standard (3)	Above Standard (4)
Focus The introduction text focuses on a topic and includes a thesis statement that communicates ideas, concepts, and information to the reader.	The introduction text lacks an identifiable thesis and minimally communicates ideas, concepts, and information to the reader.​	The introduction text has an unclear thesis statement that communicates some ideas, concepts, and information to the reader.	The introduction text has a thesis statement that communicates ideas, concepts, and information to the reader.	The introduction text has a clear and appropriate thesis statement that skilfully engages the reader’s interest in addition to communicating ideas, concepts, and information.
Development/Support The body of the paper presents relevant facts, definitions, concrete details, quotations, and examples that are supported by the use of claim testers and that connect to Big History concepts and ideas.	The text contains limited facts and examples related to the topic. The use of claim testers is absent from the paper. The paper lacks connection to Big History concepts and ideas. ​	The text provides some facts, definitions, details, quotations, and examples that attempt to develop and explain the topic. The use of claim testers is inconsistent and not always correct. The connection to Big History concepts is sporadic. ​	The text provides sufficient relevant facts, definitions, concrete details, quotations, and examples to develop and explain the topic. The use of claim testers is evident throughout most of the paper. There are some connections to Big History concepts and ideas.	The text provides many relevant facts, definitions, concrete details, quotations, and examples to develop and explain the topic richly. The use of claim testers is evident and consistent throughout the paper. There are clear connections to Big History concepts and ideas.
Audience The author anticipates the audience’s background knowledge of the topic.	The text lacks an awareness of the audience’s knowledge level and needs.	The text illustrates an inconsistent awareness of the audience’s knowledge level and needs.	The text takes the audience’s knowledge level and concerns about the claim into consideration. The text addresses the needs of the audience.	The text consistently anticipates and addresses the audience’s knowledge level and concerns about the topic, showing deep understanding of the reader. The text skilfully meets the needs of the audience.
Cohesion The writing uses appropriate and varied transitions to link the major sections of the text, creates cohesion, and clarifies the relationships among complex ideas and concepts. The conclusion ties to and supports the information or explanation.	The text contains few, if any, words, phrases, and clauses to link the major sections of the text. The text does not connect the topic to the examples or facts. The text may fail to offer a conclusion.	The text contains limited words, phrases, and clauses to link the major sections of the text. The text attempts to connect the topic and the examples or facts. The conclusion restates points already made and does not support the information.	The text uses words, phrases, and clauses to link the major sections of the text. The text connects the topic to the examples or facts. The conclusion ties to and supports the information.	The text skilfully uses words, phrases, and clauses to link the major sections of the text. The text identifies the relationship between the topic and the examples or facts. The conclusion provides the implications, significance, and future relevance of the topic.
Language and Conventions The text presents a formal, objective tone and uses precise language and topic-specific vocabulary to manage the complexity of the topic. The text also demonstrates Standard English conventions.	The text illustrates a limited or inconsistent tone and awareness of topic-specific vocabulary. The text contains multiple inaccuracies in Standard English conventions of usage and mechanics.	The text illustrates a limited awareness of formal tone and some awareness of topic-specific vocabulary. The text demonstrates some accuracy in Standard English conventions of usage and mechanics.	The text presents a formal, objective tone and uses precise language and topic-specific vocabulary to manage the complexity of the topic. The text demonstrates Standard English conventions of usage and mechanics along with discipline-specific requirements (for example, MLA or APA).	The text presents a formal, objective tone and uses sophisticated relevant language and topic-specific vocabulary to manage the complexity of the topic. The text demonstrates a high level of knowledge of Standard English conventions of usage and mechanics along with discipline-specific requirements (for example, MLA or APA).

Description	Below Standard (1)	Approaching Standard (2)	At Standard (3)	Above Standard (4)
Explanation of Ideas and Information ​	Does not present information, arguments, ideas, or findings clearly, concisely, or logically. Argument lacks robust supporting evidence. It’s difficult to follow the line of reasoning. Uses information that is not in line with the overall purpose. Does not consider opposing or alternative perspectives. ​	Presents information, arguments, ideas, or findings in ways that are not always clear, concise, or logical. Argument is supported by only some robust evidence. The line of reasoning is sometimes difficult to follow. Uses information that is only sometimes in line with the overall purpose. Attempts to consider and address opposing or alternative perspectives but does not do so clearly or completely. ​	Presents information, arguments, ideas, or findings clearly, concisely, or logically. Argument is well supported. ​ The line of reasoning is logical and easy to follow and uses information that is appropriate for the purpose and audience. Clearly and completely addresses alternative or opposing perspectives. ​	Does an exceptional job presenting information, arguments, ideas, or findings clearly, concisely, and logically. Argument is well supported with robust, relevant, and interesting evidence. The line of reasoning is logical, easy to follow, well crafted, and uses information that is appropriate for the purpose and audience. Clearly and completely addresses relevant alternative or opposing perspectives. ​
Organization ​	Does not meet the presentation guidelines. Does not have a proper introduction or conclusion. ​ Does not use time allotted (is too long or too short). ​	Meets most requirements for the presentation guidelines. Has a proper introduction and conclusion, but they are not clear or interesting. ​ Uses the time allotted, but does not divide up that time logically (uses too little or too much time on a topic or idea). ​	Meets all presentation guidelines. Has a proper introduction that is clear and logical. Uses the time allotted well and organized the time appropriately. ​	Meets and exceeds all presentation guidelines; this presentation is particularly interesting, dynamic, and thoughtfully organized. Has an introduction that hooks the audience and a conclusion that incites questions and further interest. ​ Organizes and uses times in what appears to be the best way possible.​
Eyes, Body, & Voice	Does not look at the audience or make eye contact. Lacks poise (appears nervous, fidgety, slouchy). ​ Speaks in a way that is hard to understand. ​	Makes infrequent eye contact with the audience. Shows some poise (limited fidgeting or nervousness). ​ Speaks clearly most of the time, but may be difficult to understand or hear at times. ​	Keeps eye contact with the audience most of the time — only glances at notes or slides. ​ Shows poise and confidence. ​ Speaks clearly and is easy to understand.​	Keeps eye contact with the audience throughout. Shows exceptional poise and confidence. Speaks clearly, and in an engaging way that is interesting to listen to.​
Response to Audience Questions ​	Does not directly address audience questions; goes off topic. ​	Answers audience questions, but not always completely and clearly.​	Answers audience questions clearly and completely. ​ Freely admits not knowing the answer to a question. ​	Answers audience questions clearly and completely; provides additional, relevant information. ​ Admits not knowing the answer to a question, and provides ideas for how one might find the answers.

Below Standard (1)	Approaching Standard (2)	At Standard (3)	Above Standard (4)
This group member does not complete project tasks or does not complete tasks on time. He/she does not help the group solve problems, give useful feedback, or use feedback from others. This group member does not show respect for teammates (interrupts, ignores ideas, is unkind).	This group member is sometimes prepared to work with the group. This group member does project tasks when reminded and sometimes completes tasks on time. He/she sometimes offers to help others, sometimes shares ideas, and is usually polite and kind to teammates.	This group member completes tasks without being reminded and uses feedback from others. He/she helps the group solve problems and stay organized, and listens carefully to team-mates. This person is polite and kind.	This group member meets all the criteria of an At Standard performance. In addition, group member does more than is required and asks for feedback to improve his/her work. He/she steps in to help other group members when they are absent or need help, and he/she encourages teammates to share ideas by recognizing and promoting their strengths.

Description	Below Standard (1)	Approaching Standard (2)	At Standard (3)	Above Standard (4)
Overall Argument	Argument lacks logic and is unclear. Argument lacks supporting evidence.	​​Presents argument somewhat unclearly. Uses at least one supporting piece of evidence.	​​Presents argument somewhat clearly. ​Some supporting evidence is provided.	​Presents argument extremely clearly. Gives supporting evidence for all points made.
Explanation of Ideas and Information	Does not present information, arguments, ideas, or findings clearly, concisely, or logically. Argument lacks robust supporting evidence. It’s difficult to follow the line of reasoning. Uses information that is not in line with the overall purpose. Does not consider opposing or alternative perspectives.	Presents information, arguments, ideas, or findings in ways that are not always clear, concise, or logical. Argument is supported by only some robust evidence. The line of reasoning is sometimes difficult to follow. Uses information that is only sometimes in line with the overall purpose. Attempts to consider and address opposing or alternative perspectives but does not do so clearly or completely.	Presents information, arguments, ideas, or findings clearly, concisely, or logically. Argument is well supported. The line of reasoning is logical and easy to follow and uses information that is appropriate for the purpose and audience. Clearly and completely addresses alternative or opposing perspectives.	Does an exceptional job presenting information, arguments, ideas, or findings clearly, concisely, and logically. Argument is well supported with robust, relevant, and interesting evidence. The line of reasoning is logical, easy to follow, well crafted, and uses information that is appropriate for the purpose and audience. Clearly and completely addresses relevant alternative or opposing perspectives.
Rebuttal and Closing Statement	No rebuttal offered. Makes no arguments against points the other side made. Does not explain why their side has the strongest argument.	Makes one or two points in rebuttal, but the logic is somewhat questionable or not supported by evidence. Makes one or two points against the points the other side made, but the logic is somewhat questionable. Explains why their side had the strongest argument, but the logic is flawed.	Makes some logical points as rebuttals, but doesn’t support all points with evidence. Makes some logical arguments against the points the other side made. Explains why their side has the strongest argument, but could give more reasons.	Makes an abundance of logical points as rebuttals, and all points are supported with evidence. Makes an abundance of logical points against the points of the other side. Is thorough and logical in the explanation for why their side has the strongest argument.
Eyes, Body, and Voice	Does not look at the audience or make eye contact. Lacks poise (appears nervous, fidgety, slouchy). Speaks in a way that is hard to understand.	Makes infrequent eye contact with the audience. Shows some poise (limited fidgeting or nervousness). Speaks clearly most of the time, but may be difficult to understand or hear at times. ​	Keeps eye contact with the audience most of the time—only glances at notes or slides. Shows poise and confidence. Speaks clearly and is easy to understand.	​Keeps eye contact with the audience throughout. Shows exceptional poise and confidence. Speaks clearly and in an engaging way that is interesting to listen to.