10/28/2018
Rubric Detail – 18FL-SCI-108-1
Rubric Detail
A rubric lists grading criteria that instructors use to evaluate student work. Your instructor linked a rubric to this item and made it available to you. Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout.
Name: 2. Revision plus Stakeholders Eco-Inno
Exit
Description: Rubric for Second Paper in Eco-Innovations
Grid View
List View
Pro cient
Competent
Novice
Poor
Did Not Do
Description of environmental
problem informed by research
and evidence (2,3,4)
20 (20%)
17 (17%)
14 (14%)
10 (10%)
0 (0%)
Environmental problem
described in terms of
causes and consequences,
with understanding
informed by research and
argument supported by
evidence (10+ sources).
As above but mechanisms
weakly conveyed,
argument is moderately
supported by evidence
(6+)
As above, causes and
consequences presented
with little to no references
to mechanisms or
research
Problem described in
general or vague terms,
arguments poorly
sourced.
Where stakeholders t into/
interact with system clear/ wellexplained (5,6,7)
10 (10%)
8.5 (8.5%)
7 (7%)
5 (5%)
Each stakeholder is clearly
related to some behavior
of the system, with
evidence to support
description.
Some but not all
stakeholders are clearly
related to some behavior
of the system, with
evidence to support
argument.
Stakeholders related to
system behavior, but
relationships are not
explicit or supported by
evidence
E ects of the system on
stakeholders is vague or
unclear.
Patterns of stakeholder
behavior, interactions with
systems stocks, ows, and
variables clearly described
(4,5,7)
20 (20%)
17 (17%)
14 (14%)
12 (12%)
E ects of the stakeholder
on the system and system
on stakeholder clearly
described and
diagrammed.
E ects of some but not all
stakeholders on the
system and vice versa are
clearly described.
Stakeholder behavior is
related to the system
behavior, but
relationships are not
explicit.
E ects of the
stakeholders on the
system are vague or
unclear.
Clarity / comprehensibility of
writing
10 (10%)
8.5 (8.5%)
7 (7%)
6 (6%)
The writer’s decisions
about focus, organization,
style/tone, and content
made comprehension
easy for the reader
throughout the paper.
The writer has generally
made good decisions
about focus, organization,
style/tone, and content to
communicate clearly and
e ectively. Individual
passages, however, may
be di cult to interpret.
The writer’s decisions
about focus, organization,
style/tone, and/or content
consistently interfere with
clear, e ective
communication
The writer’s decisions
about focus, organization,
style/tone, and/or content
interfere with
communication to the
extent that the purpose of
the writing is not achieved
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
https://bblearn.philau.edu/webapps/rubric/do/course/gradeRubric?mode=grid&isPopup=true&rubricCount=1&prefix=_5160_1&course_id=_15668_1&maxValue=100.0&rubricId=_5437_1&viewOnly=true&displayGrades=false&type=grading&rubricAssoId=_10870_1
1/2
10/28/2018
Rubric Detail – 18FL-SCI-108-1
Pro cient
Competent
Novice
Poor
Did Not Do
10 (10%)
8.5 (8.5%)
7 (7%)
6 (6%)
0 (0%)
Writing ows smoothly
from one idea to another.
The writer has taken pains
to assist the reader in
following the logic of the
ideas expressed
Paragraphs with strong
topic sentences.
Sequencing of ideas
within paragraphs is
mostly clear, transitions
between paragraphs
mostly smooth.
Logic of the paper is
jumpy from topic to topic.
Transitions largely absent.
Paragraphs without
strong topic sentences.
Transitions between
paragraphs and sections
weak or absent. Overall
structure confusing to
reader.
Quality (grammar, spelling,
style, polish)
10 (10%)
8.5 (8.5%)
7 (7%)
6 (6%)
All sentences are well
constructed and have
varied structure and
length. The author makes
no errors in grammar,
mechanics, and/or
spelling.
Most sentences are well
constructed and have
varied structure and
length. The author makes
a few errors in grammar,
mechanics, and/or
spelling, but they do not
interfere with
understanding.
Most sentences are well
constructed, but they
have a similar structure
and/or length. The author
makes several errors in
grammar, mechanics,
and/or spelling that
interfere with
understanding.
Sentences sound
awkward, are distractingly
repetitive, or are di cult
to understand. The author
makes numerous errors
in grammar, mechanics,
and/or spelling that
interfere with
understanding.
Research, citations,
bibliography
10 (10%)
8.5 (8.5%)
7 (7%)
6 (6%)
All parts of format or
bibliography and citation
format are followed
consistently
Errors in bibliography OR
citations.
Errors in bibliography
AND citations.
Consistent formatting
errors in both
bibliography and citations.
Systems diagram structurally
correct and corresponds with
written description (5,6,7)
10 (10%)
8.5 (8.5%)
7 (7%)
6 (6%)
Correct structure and a
thorough presentation of
the problem as presented
in text
Substantially correct and
most elements and
relationships explained
Multiple errors, multiple
relationships or elements
not explained
Insu cient explanation,
more elements and
relationships unexplained
than explained, major
errors in structure
Logic, transitions, organization
Name:2. Revision plus Stakeholders Eco-Inno
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Exit
Description:Rubric for Second Paper in Eco-Innovations
https://bblearn.philau.edu/webapps/rubric/do/course/gradeRubric?mode=grid&isPopup=true&rubricCount=1&prefix=_5160_1&course_id=_15668_1&maxValue=100.0&rubricId=_5437_1&viewOnly=true&displayGrades=false&type=grading&rubricAssoId=_10870_1
2/2
Purchase answer to see full
attachment