Mythology Unit Rubric

Mythology Unit Teacher Name: Ms. Peterson Student Name:     ________________________________________ CATEGORY Unsatisfactory (1) Needs Improvement (2) Meets Expectations (3) Proficient (4) Exemplary (5) Wordle Project The student did not submit the assignment. The student submitted an assignment, but it was very basic. It included only a few words, and the colors did not seem to fit with the message. The project was fair with at least ten words that captured the essence of Greek mythology. However, the colors seemed a bit off, and the words were only did not direct me to a specific myth. The project was of above average quality with at least fifteen words included. The colors and words fit the mood the student was attempting to convey. However, the words could describe two or three myths, and it is therefore not quite specific enough for perfect marks. The student used at least 20 words on the project and completely captured the mood, tone, and essence of the story he or she wished to convey. WebQuest The student did not submit a WebQuest The student submitted a WebQuest, but he or she did not complete all of the tasks outlined. The student submitted a WebQuest, but it lacked creativity and originality. The student merely paraphrased information directly from the website, and it is completely devoid of the author's voice. It also contains numerous grammatical or structural errors. The student submitted the a WebQuest of high quality. The diagrams were done very well. However, the paragraphs lacked cohesion and originality. The student submitted a nearly perfect WebQuest. The diagrams were completed with sophistication. The paragraphs run together smoothly, have a clear voice, and are free from grammatical errors. RAFT The student did not complete a RAFT. The student wrote the role, audience, format, and topic, but he or she failed to produce an independent, original work from the perspective of his or her character. The student submitted a RAFT, but the character seemed highly exaggerated or out of character. The student did not capture the personality of the individual. The RAFT was of high quality and original, but it contained more than three spelling and grammatical errors. The RAFT was of the highest quality that could be expected. The student let the personality of the character shine, and wrote a very creative original piece. The RAFT had fewer than three grammatical and spelling errors. Comparative Paper No paper was submitted. A paper was submitted, but it was less than three pages in length, and it was poorly structured with many errors. A paper was submitted, but it was between three and five words, and it was somewhat flawed in structure, grammar, and spelling. A paper was submitted within the 6-8 page limit. It was about a very engaging, interesting topic, but the student struggled with organization, conventions, or spelling. A high quality paper of the appropriate length was submitted about a very intriguing topic. It was nearly error-free and had strong transitions. Inspiration Venn Diagram No diagram was submitted. A diagram was submitted, but it was very bare and basic. It had only a few similarities and differences that could not be lengthened into a 6-8 page paper. The diagram consisted of an adequate number of similarities and differences, but they were relatively superficial. They did not show any evidence to critical thought. The Venn diagram was solid. It had many thought-provoking comparisons, and it could easily be developed into a 6-8 page paper. The only errors are grammatical or structural. The Venn diagram was of a very high quality, and it included many ideas the student thought of independently. A superior paper could be formed by the ideas included in the diagram. Date Created: December 06, 2010 Date Last Modified: January 25, 2011