Evaluation

=Evaluation=


 * Assessment criteria will follow three major elements including a total of five marks for the presentation as a group, five marks for the individuals presentation, 10 marks for the groups content which includes the peer evaluation.**


 * Presentation as a group criteria as follows: 25 marks**


 * 1) Relevance of information to the topic. (5 marks)
 * 2) The development of ideas within the topic. (5 marks)
 * 3) The level of engagement of the presentation, including effectiveness of use of prezi/presentation software (5 marks)
 * 4) Level of competence in vocabulary, sentence structure and grammar. (5 marks)
 * 5) How well group perform together are as a whole, including clarity, pace and fluency. (5 marks)

0 ||= Unsatisfactory 1-2 ||= Satisfactory 3-4 ||= Excellent 5 ||
 * = Criteria ||= Poor
 * = 1. Relevance of information ||< * No research is presented
 * No links made between texts
 * Very little detail put into presentation || * Inadequate amount of research shown
 * Some links made between texts
 * Detail is minimal within presentation ||< * Adequate amount of research is shown
 * Clear links and connections made between texts
 * Fairly detailed presentation || * Alot of research is shown and well organised
 * Links and connections are clearly made in various texts
 * Very detailed and presentation is well defined. ||
 * = 2. Development of ideas || * Ideas do not develop with the presentation
 * No examples or reference to the texts || * Some advancement of opinions with the topic
 * Little examples or references are given || * Fair amount of elaboration given where ideas are adequately developed.
 * Some examples are given with some references || * Ideas are competently established, augmented and clearly defined
 * Numerous examples are given with detailed references to texts ||
 * = 3. Engagement of presentation || * No creative presentation skills
 * No engagement with the audience || * Some creative uses in presentation
 * Some attempts to connect with audience || * Utilizes presentation skills creatively
 * Makes attempts to connect with audience || * Presentation is greatly creative and engaging
 * Showcases high level of charisma and audiences are involved ||
 * = 4. Competence of presentation || * Sentence structure is incompetent
 * Problems with grammar and oral skills || * Sentences are structured at a satisfactory level
 * Some uses of advanced vocabulary || * Sentences are well defined
 * Vocabulary is well thought and presented || * Sentences are expertly structured
 * Uses sophisticated language throughout ||
 * = 5. Voice clarity, pace and fluency || * Not clear at all
 * Moves at an imbalanced rate || * Fairly clear
 * Sometimes monotone
 * Some rough instances of fluency and pace || * Clearly presented
 * Speech moves at a satisfactory pace
 * Well defined tone and fluent throughout || * Very clear, speaks at a perfect pitch
 * Runs very smooth at the right pace
 * Extremely fluent ||


 * Individual Presentation criteria: 25 marks**


 * 1) Eye contact. (5 marks)
 * 2) Body language. (5 marks)
 * 3) Clarity. (5 marks)
 * 4) Relevance to the topic (5 marks)
 * 5) Development of ideas. (5 marks)

0 ||= Unsatisfactory 1-2 ||= Satisfactory 3-4 ||= Excellent 5 ||
 * = Criteria ||= Poor
 * = 1. Eye Contact || * No eye contact
 * Reads notes only || * Some rushed attempts
 * Mostly reads notes || * Mostly good eye contact
 * Relies on notes in some instances || * Maintain eye contact throughout
 * Does not rely on notes ||
 * = 2. Body Language || * No attempts
 * Stiff throughout || * Some attempts at using body language
 * Mostly relies on one position || * Good use of body language
 * Attempts to show flexibility || * Constantly shows body language throughout
 * Very relaxed and energised ||
 * = 3. Clarity || * Inaudible
 * Unclear || * Some instances of good speech
 * Mostly unclear || * Good volume throughout
 * Mostly clear || * Maintains a clear presentation throughout
 * Perfect pitch of voice ||
 * = 4. Relevance || * Little to no relevance to the topic
 * No research is shown and no discussion || * Provides some information relating to the texts
 * Research is clearly minimal and discussion is slightly relative || * Good amount of information is provided
 * Presents relevant and appropriate research for discussion || * Information provided is highly useful and significant
 * Research is congruent and evokes a corresponding discussion ||
 * = 5. Development of Ideas ||< * Ideas do not develop with the presentation
 * No examples or reference to the texts || * Some advancement of opinions with the topic
 * Little examples or references are given || * Fair amount of elaboration given where ideas are adequately developed.
 * Some examples are given with some references || * Ideas are competently established, augmented and clearly defined
 * Numerous examples are given with detailed references to texts ||


 * Group Content: 50 marks**


 * 1) Co-operative work. (5 marks)
 * 2) Relevance to the topic. (5 marks)
 * 3) Sophistication of language. (5 marks)
 * 4) Accuracy and appropriateness of the information for the intended audience. (5 marks)
 * 5) Inclusion of relevant examples. (5 marks)
 * 6) Structure and fluidity of arguments. (5 marks)
 * 7) The layout of the content is easily accessible to all. (5 marks)
 * 8) Credibility of the sources and that the correct sourcing is implemented. (5 marks)
 * 9) Peer evaluation (10 marks)

0 ||= Unsatisfactory 1-2 ||= Satisfactory 3-4 ||= Excellent 5 ||
 * = Criteria ||= Poor
 * = 1.Co-operative work || * No sign of collaboration between students
 * Presentation is clearly handed to one student
 * No communication between members || * Some signs of collaboration
 * Student's work is not evenly presented amongst group
 * Very little participation || * Collaboration is clear
 * Students share some information and there is mutual respect between group members
 * Work is divided fairly || * Respectable and committed collaboration is evident
 * Students are equally given time to present their ideas as a group
 * Students assist each other throughout, offering ideas. ||
 * = 2.Relevance || * Little to no relevance to the topic
 * No research is shown and no discussion || * Provides some information relating to the texts
 * Research is clearly minimal and discussion is slightly relative || * Good amount of information is provided
 * Presents relevant and appropriate research for discussion || * Information provided is highly useful and significant
 * Research is congruent and evokes a corresponding discussion ||
 * = 3.Sophistication || * Constant errors in language
 * No refinement is evident || * Some errors in language and simplistic structuring
 * Use of basic syntax || * Uses sophisticated language
 * Refinement in sentences and language is clearly evident || * Use of great sophistication and elegance in language
 * Refinement appears to be a repetitive process ||
 * = 4.Accuracy || * Multiple inaccuracies were made with the texts
 * Knowledge requirements are not met || * Some inaccuracies are made in reference to the texts
 * Shows minimal knowledge of the texts || * Mostly accurate in reference to the texts
 * Shows a fair amount of knowledge to the texts || * Entirely accurate references to the texts
 * Shows immense knowledge and study is clearly evident ||
 * = 5.Examples || * Uses no example or references || * Uses minimal amount of examples || * Uses a few examples and references and helps highlight their ideas || * Constantly refers to examples and references and greatly highlights their ideas ||
 * = 6.Argument Structure || * Arguments are nonsensical
 * Does not lead to higher point || * Some valid arguments made
 * Arguments do not complement each other || * Arguments are well structured and link to each other in most cases
 * Connections to all points || * Arguments are well thought out
 * Links and connections are constantly made
 * Research and study is clearly evident ||
 * = 7.Content layout || * Too much irrelevant information is included
 * Content does not flow || * Relevant and irrelevant information is mixed
 * Information has some form of continuity || * Most information works well into the arguments
 * The content has flow || * Sophisticated structure
 * All argument and information are nicely injected through the links
 * A clear sense of continuity ||
 * = 8.Sources & References || * Use of no background sources
 * No references || * Uses some background sources
 * Some sources have no relevance
 * Limited amount of references provided || * Use of a fair amount of background sources
 * Sources are implemented well and mostly credible
 * References most sources correctly || * Uses an abundance of background sources
 * Sources are well instigated and credible to the argument
 * References are properly provided and presented ||

9. Peer Evaluation


 * Student Name: ||||  ||
 * =  ||= Poor ||= Satisfactory ||= Excellent ||
 * = Co-operation ||= 0 ||= 1 ||= 2 ||
 * = Contribution ||= 0 ||= 1 ||= 2 ||
 * = Communication ||= 0 ||= 1 ||= 2 ||
 * = Effort ||= 0 ||= 1 ||= 2 ||
 * = Quality ||= 0 ||= 1 ||= 2 ||
 * ||  || Overall: ||= /10 ||


 * Total = 100 marks**


 * Rubric for Group content**

In your research you will be marked on how well you are able to:


 * Demonstrate an understanding of texts from one movement and how they have been able to influence contemporary thinking.
 * Analyse the relationships between texts and their respective contexts.
 * Ability to organise, develop and express ideas in a cohesive manner using appropriate language for the purpose and form of the texts.


 * Rubric for Individual Presentation**

In your presentation you will be marked on how well you are able to:


 * Express your own understanding of Modernism as a literary movement and its impact on English literature overall.
 * Assess the ways in which various texts represent a specific time period and explain its significance
 * Organise, develop and express ideas using oral skills to appropriate a presentation to an audience, purpose and context.


 * Rubric for Presentation as a group**

In your presentation you will be marked on how well you are able to:


 * Demonstrate a common understanding of Modernism and the manner in which you share ideas in a formal collaboration
 * Organise and develop as a collective to present a cohesive and structured argument
 * Instigate a well informed discussion in the expression of what defines Modernism as a literary movement

Criteria written and edited by Ed Russell and Joseph Schwarzkopf. Rubric info & tables by Kirc Planes.