SCIE20001 Thinking with data powerpoint presenta�on rubric
Criteria Mastery Competent Developing Needs Improvement No evidence
Background
(Context and
experimental design)
Clear and appropriately detailed
summary of Lamarckian theory.
The designs of the Agar et al. and
McDougall experiments are well-
explained, and the differences
highlighted.
(4 marks)
You may have explained
Lamarckian Theory.
Your summary of the
experimental design
includes the main
aspects of the
experiment.
(3 marks)
Your summary describes
some aspects of the
experiments. You have
described some parts of
the experimental designs,
but more detail was
required.
(2 marks)
Your summary of the
experiments was limited. Your
description of the experimental
design was unclear and/or
lacking detail.
(1 mark)
No summary
(0 marks)
Figures and Results You have clearly explained and justified your choice of the
summary measures presented.
Your graph(s) clearly and
appropriately present the data to
enable relevant comparisons. The
graph(s) are accompanied by
succinct comments describing the
information in the graphs.
(4 marks)
You may have provided
an explanation and some
justification for summary
measures presented.
Graphs appropriately
presented. They are
generally clear and
appropriately labeled.
The accompanying text
provided describes some
trends in the graphs,
(3 marks)
Graph(s) presented, but
may need improvement to
make relevant
comparisons. The text
provides limited description
of the information in the
graphs.
(2 marks)
No graphs or no written results
section
(1 mark)
No graphs and no written results.
(0 marks)
Reasoning (Discussion
and Conclusions)
You have compared and
discussed the results from the
Agar et al. (as presented) and
McDougall studies in the context
of Lamarckian theory. You have
demonstrated sound reasoning
and clearly presented your
conclusions.
(4 marks)
You have compared
some of the results from
the Agar et al. (as
presented) and
McDougall studies, and
may have discussed
these in the context of
Lamarckian theory.
(3 marks)
You may have compared
the results from the Agar et
al. (as presented) and
McDougall studies. Your
discussion may lack a clear
connection to theory. The
reasoning may be unclear.
(2 marks)
You have presented a
discussion, but it could be
improved in detail and/or
clarity and/or reasoning.
(1 mark)
No discussion
(0 marks)
Language and
presentation
Your use of language is clear and
concise, ideas are communicated
well, your slides are well-
presented and free of
unnecessary statistical
graphics/output.
(4 marks)
Your use of language is
generally clear. The
slides are well-presented
but could be improved.
(3 marks)
Your use of language is
limited and/or ideas are not
communicated clearly. Your
slides are not visually
appealing and/or may have
too much text.
(2 marks)
Your language is not clear and
ideas are not communicated
clearly. Your slides are not
visually appealing.
(1 mark)
(0 marks)