Explanation

Interpretation

Application

Perspective

Empathy

Self-knowledge

Sophisticated:   

The student gave a superbly, coherent, justified account of how and why he designed the exhibit on Ancient Egypt to show with graphics and text rich detail on their developments ; especially thorough explanation was fully supported, deep and broad; clearly stated and insightful links to the affects of today.

 Profound: 

The student’s analysis of facts into the development of the Egyptian civilization was rich and insightful; interpretation provided support from more than 7 sources to reinforce their claims; made distinctions of differences in speculations; astute links to today.

 Masterful:

The student’s demonstrated proficient and effective clarity in portraying the Ancient Egyptian developments and illustrated specific linkage to today in their proposal; deliberate flexibility shown in problem solving within several difficult contexts.   

Insightful:

The student’s proposal encompasses several view points within The Egyptian culture and of speculations made by archaeologists; Several perspectives were explored at length and critical views of issues were included with insightful linkage.    

Mature: 

The student was able to see and feel what it was like to speculate clearly of our past.  They were willing to place themselves in various roles to broadly consider others; sensitive to differences in Egyptian thoughts and archaeologists dilemma of speculation. 

Wise: 

The student was very aware of their understanding; knew to ask for clarification; understanding of those around; willing to recognize any prejudices in prior knowledge.

In-depth:

The student provided a well developed account of the developments in Ancient Egypt; made good connections to our current times and supported his arguments with independent thinking.

Revealing:

Interpretations and analysis on Egyptian information was significant in scope and insightfully provided subtle differences in speculation; consulted several sources and richly pulled together various perspectives into a coherent whole and linked to today.    

Skilled: 

The student was adept in demonstrating their knowledge of the Egyptian culture and its affects on today in a variety of demanding contexts within their proposal. 

Thorough:

The student revealed a critical view of the roles in Ancient Egypt while considering other perspectives and their plausibility; perspectives were considered in views of affects on today.  

Sensitive:

The student was able to see and feel what others thought in Egypt and in archaeologist speculation; were open to differences and unusual factors.  

Circumspect:

The student was aware when he did not understand and when others needed clarification as well; knew his strengths of Egyptian knowledge and gaps present.

Developed:

The student gave an account with some in-depth and individualized ideas.  The design demonstrated common Egyptian developments but clarification of the link to today was insufficient.    

Perceptive: 

The student gave a helpful interpretation of speculations made from many sources.  Provided interesting facts but little meaningful interpretation to affects on today. 

Able: 

The student was able to produce a proposal for an exhibit in key areas of Egyptian culture; adaptive to different contexts; some useful linkage shown to today;    

Considered:

Sufficient consideration was given to the various roles in Ancient Egypt; acknowledgements of plausibility of other points of view of archaeologists were considered.      

Aware:

The student was aware that others see and feel differently; somewhat felt what it was like to be in various roles in Egypt and an archaeologist making speculations; Had trouble identifying with the unusual.

Thoughtful: 

The student was generally aware of what was understood individually and as a group; conscious of how his prior knowledge and beliefs shaped his views of the Egyptian culture.

Intuitive: 

The student presented a partial account with good ideas for his Museum design; connections were not made with the current times and independent thinking was not evident.

Interpreted:

Made a plausible analysis of Egyptian information from some sources.  Linkage to today was vague but attempted.  

Apprentice:

The student produced a proposal with limited product; prompting was necessary; proposal reflected only simple context with little bridge to today.  

Aware:

The student was aware of other points of view in the Egyptian culture and of archaeologist, but did not let it affect their perspective;  were not sensitive to assumptions. 

Developing: 

The student felt a little bit of what it was like to be an Egyptian or archaeologist but, for the most part, still saw things from own view.

Unreflective: 

The student was generally unaware of lack of understanding; unaware of the influence of one’s prejudices towards the Egyptian culture. 

Naïve:

The student gave a general design plan on an Egyptian exhibit with little detail or link to today.  Facts were very basic and ideas were not cohesive.  

Literal: 

The student made simple readings of facts on Ancient Egypt; Little or no interpretation on speculation or on affects of today.  Only general connections, i.e. they had writing, we have writing.

Novice:

Only produced a proposal with coaching; applied scripted knowledge alone; no linkage to today evident.   

Uncritical: 

The student was unaware of other points of view; did not explore various roles and ignored various perspectives of other archaeologists. 

Egocentric:

The student was not able to relate or feel like an Egyptian or archaeologist; ignored or felt threatened by anything different or unusual. 

Innocent: 

The student was completely unaware of their own understanding and the role of their prejudgments on the Egyptian culture.

Exceptional

Admirable

Acceptable

Amateur

Group Participation

All students enthusiastically participate

At least 3/4 of students actively participate

At least half the students confer or present ideas

Only one or two persons actively participate

Shared Responsibility

Responsibility for task is shared evenly

Responsibility is shared by most group members

Responsibility is shared by 1/2 the group members

Exclusive reliance on one person

Quality of Interaction

Excellent listening and leadership skills exhibited; students reflect awareness of others' views and opinions in their discussions

Students show adeptness in interacting; lively discussion centers on the task

Some ability to interact; attentive listening; some evidence of discussion or alternatives

Little interaction; very brief conversations; some students were disinterested or distracted

Roles Within Group

Each student assigned a clearly defined role; group members perform roles effectively

Each student assigned a role but roles not clearly defined or consistently adhered to

Students assigned roles but roles were not consistently adhered to

No effort made to assign roles to group members

Exceptional

Admirable

Acceptable

Amateur

Group Participation

Shared Responsibility

Quality of Interaction

Roles Within Group

Exceptional

Admirable

Acceptable

Amateur

Organization

Extremely well organized; logical format that was easy to follow; flowed smoothly from one idea to another and cleverly conveyed; the organization enhanced the effectiveness of the project

Presented in a thoughtful manner; there were signs of organization and most transitions were easy to follow, but at times ideas were unclear

Somewhat organized; ideas were not presented coherently and transitions were not always smooth, which at times distracted the audience

Choppy and confusing; format was difficult to follow; transitions of ideas were abrupt and seriously distracted the audience

Content Accuracy

Completely accurate; all facts were precise and explicit

Mostly accurate; a few inconsistencies or errors in information

Somewhat accurate; more than a few inconsistencies or errors in information

Completely inaccurate; the facts in this project were misleading to the audience

Research

Went above and beyond to research information; solicited material in addition to what was provided; brought in personal ideas and information to enhance project; and utilized more than eight types of resources to make project effective

Did a very good job of researching; utilized materials provided to their full potential; solicited more than six types of research to enhance project; at times took the initiative to find information outside of school

Used the material provided in an acceptable manner, but did not consult any additional resources

Did not utilize resources effectively; did little or no fact gathering on the topic

Creativity

Was extremely clever and presented with originality; a unique approach that truly enhanced the project

Was clever at times; thoughtfully and uniquely presented

Added a few original touches to enhance the project but did not incorporate it throughout

Little creative energy used during this project; was bland, predictable, and lacked "zip"

Presentation Mechanics

Was engaging, provocative, and captured the interest of the audience and maintained this throughout the entire presentation; great variety of visual aids and multimedia; visual aids were colorful and clear

Was well done and interesting to the audience; was presented in a unique manner and was very well organized; some use of visual aids

Was at times interesting and was presented clearly and precisely; was clever at times and was organized in a logical manner; limited variety of visual aids and visual aids were not colorful or clear

Was not organized effectively; was not easy to follow and did not keep the audience interested; no use of visual aids

Exceptional

Admirable

Acceptable

Amateur

Organization

Content Accuracy

Research

Creativity

Presentation Mechanics