Rubric for Quarter 2 Multimedia presentation:
Multimedia:
Presentation uses only one medium
10
Presentation uses at least two forms of media
20
Presentation:
The entire presentation is the visual The presenter speaks, but provides
aid; presenter merely moves through limited information or explnation
slides without speaking.
beyond what appears on the visual
aid.
≤20
≤30
Visual Aids:
Visual aids demonstrate little
awareness of the rules of Standard
Edited American English. There are
multiple distracting spelling and/or
punctuation problems.
≤20
Visual aids demonstrate below
average awareness of the rules of
Standard Edited American English.
There are multiple spelling and/or
punctuation problems, but they do
not severely distract the audience.
≤30
Logos, Pathos, Ethos:
The presenter failed to accurately describe all
three of these concepts.
≤30
Presentation uses at least three forms of media
30
The presenter is able to elaborate
The presenter is poised and
and explain the content of almost all articulate. The presentation has been
the slides of the visual aids.
rehearsed, and the presenter is
engaging.
≤35
≤40
Visual aids demonstrate awareness
of the rules of Standard Edited
American English. There are few
immediately noticeable spelling
and/or punctuation problems.
Visual aids demonstrate a
sophisticated awareness of the rules
of Standard Edited American English.
There are few if any distracting
spelling or punctuation problems.
≤35
The presenter described each of these concepts
reasonably well. There may have been problems
connecting the ideas to the examples, or there
may have been one concept with a seriously
flawed description.
≤45
≤40
Presenter did an excellent job of describing all
three of these concepts. Examples were creative
and illustrative. Presenter has demonstrated an
excellent understanding of the content.
≤60
Claims:
The presenter failed to accurately describe what a
claim was and how it differs from other types of
statement. They may have attempted to describe
comparative claims, but failed to clearly describe
how they are problematic in argumentation.
There may not have been any attempt at
providing counterexamples.
≤30
Fact v. Opinion:
Presenter failed to accurately describe the
difference between fact and opinion.
≤30
Syllogisms:
The presenter failed to accurately describe a
syllogism. The presenter may have neglected to
include a Venn diagram or an example of a
disjunctive syllogism.
≤30
The presenter described claims and comparative
claims but did not adequately demonstrate an
understanding of the concepts. The presenter
may have neglected to provide accurate
counterexamples or failed to adequately
understand how comparative claims are of special
importance in argumentation.
≤45
Presenter did an excellent job of describing all of
these concepts. Examples and counterexamples
were creative and illustrative. Presenter has
demonstrated an excellent understanding of the
content.
The presenter described the difference between
fact and opinion, but the examples used were not
effective in communicating the understanding of
the difference.
Presenter did an excellent job of describing these
concepts. Examples were creative and illustrative.
Presenter has demonstrated an excellent
understanding of the content.
≤45
≤60
The presenter described each syllogisms,
including disjunctive syllogisms, but failed to
accurately convey a true understanding of the
concepts. There may have been flaws in the
examples or the diagram.
≤45
≤60
Presenter did an excellent job of describing
syllogism. Examples were creative and illustrative.
The presenter clearly understands these
concepts.
≤60
Logical Fallacies:
The presenter failed to accurately
describe at least four of these
concepts. They may have attempted
all of them, but the execution of
their description was seriously
flawed and failed to demonstrate the
presenter's understanding of the
concepts.
The presenter accurately described
at least four of the concepts. The
presenter may have struggled with
connecting some of the concepts to
the examples, indicating a flawed
understanding of the fallacies
discussed.
≤40
≤50
Works Cited:
The presenter failed to include a
works-cited or there were multiple
instances of serious errors rising to
the level of plagiarism.
The presenter included a workscited, but there were multiple errors
and omissions. One or more sources
may have been forgotten or were
woefully inadequate.
≤20
≤30
The presenter accurately described
all seven of the fallacies chosen for
the demonstration. There were some
problems connecting those examples
to the concepts, or there may have
been problems adequately
demonstrating the presenter's
understanding in a concrete manner.
The presenter accurately described
all seven of the fallacies chosen for
the demonstration. There were few
if any problems connecting those
examples to the concepts, and
presenter clearly understands how
those concepts work in the analysis
of texts.
≤60
The presenter included a worksThe presenter included a nearly
cited, but there were problems with flawless works-cited page.
formatting. All works were cited but
some entries may have been flawed.
≤35
In addition to the points above, the evaluator has 40 discretionary points to assign for creativity, professionalism, and technical skill.
Comments:
/500
≤70
≤40