| Level of Achievement |
General Presentation
(10 points possible) |
Conceptual Understanding
(10 points possible) |
Argument Structure
(10 points possible) |
Use of literature and pertinent resources
(5 points possible) |
| Exemplary |
(10 pts.)
Provides a clear and thorough introduction and background
States a specific, testable research question
Provides clear explanation of proposed research methods
Presents rationale and significance of proposed research in the form of a well-structured, logical argument.
Uses acceptable style and grammar (0 errors)
|
(10 pts.)
Demonstrates a clear understanding of the LTER site and the proposed research.
Uses a broad range of information to build and support arguments.
Demonstrates a good understanding of the implications of the data and/or information.
|
(10 pts.)
Provides strong, clear, convincing statements (i.e. conclusions) of the reasons the proposed research is important and should be funded.
Provides relevant evidence to support conclusions.
Provides reasons for the legitimacy of the evidence (i.e. warrants) that enable conclusions.
|
(5 pts.)
Follows proper format in providing citations.
Uses data and/or information relevant to the proposed research
|
| Adequate |
(8 pts.)
Provides an introduction and background that is only somewhat significant to the experiment.
States a clear, but untestable research question.
Provides an adequate explanation of proposed research methods
Shows some effort to present the rationale and significance of proposed research in the form of a well-structured argument.
Uses adequate style and grammar (1-2 errors)
|
(8 pts.)
Demonstrates a partial understanding of the LTER site and the proposed research.
Uses a information from only 2 or 3 sources to build and support arguments.
Demonstrates a partial understanding of the implications of the data and/or information.
|
(8 pts.)
Provides statements (i.e. conclusions) explaining the reasons the proposed research is important and should be funded, but weak evidence to support conclusions and no warrants.
|
(4 pts.)
Follows proper format in providing citations, but not consistently throughout the proposal.
Uses limited number of sources of data and/or information relevant to the proposed research
|
| Needs Improvement |
(6 pts.)
Provides an introduction and background that is insignificant to the experiment.
States a vague, untestable research question.
Provides an unorganized explanation of proposed research methods
Presents rationale and significance of proposed research in the form of a weak, unstructured argument.
Fails to use acceptable style and grammar (>2 errors)
|
(6 pts.)
Does not demonstrates an understanding of the LTER site and the proposed research.
Uses less than two sources to build and support arguments.
Does not appear to understand the implications of the data and/or information.
|
(6 pts.)
Provides statements (i.e. conclusions) explaining the reasons the proposed research is important and should be funded, but no evidence to support conclusions and no warrants.
|
(3 pts.)
Does not follow proper format in providing citations.
Does not uses data and/or information relevant to the proposed research
|
