WebQuest
Nanoparticles and nanotechnology
Evaluation
All group members will receive the same grade for content. However, students may receive different grades for the other aspects of the project, depending on their roles in the group.
Rubric
| # | Exemplary-3 points | Proficient-2 points | Developing-1point | Unsatisfactory-0 points | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Worksheet | Worksheet was completely and accurately completed, and was submitted properly and on time | Worksheet was completed with some degree of accuracy, submitted properly and on time | Worksheet was sloppily done or incomplete. Worksheet was submitted improperly or late. | Worksheet was not completed or submitted. | 0 |
| Collaboration and Reflection | Evaluation form was carefully and thoughtfully completed and submitted on time. Group collaboration was evident. Evidence suggests that the individual played a vital role in the group dynamic | Evaluation form was completed with some attempt to reflect upon group/self work. There is some evidence to suggest that the group collaborated well. There is some evidence to suggest that the individual actively participated in the activity. | The evaluation form was incomplete, sloppily completed, or submitted late. There is little evidence of group collaboration. There is evidence to suggest that the individual did not actively participate in the activity. | The evaluation form was not completed or not properly submitted. Collaborative effort was minimal. Individual effort was minimal | 0 |
| Content | Cited sources were numerous, varied, reliable. Video included accurate information about the nanoparticle and its characteristics in nanoscale, current and future uses, benefits and risks. A compelling argument for future funding in the area was made. | Several cited sources were reliable. Video included most relevant information about the particle, its characteristics, uses, benefits and risks. An argument was made for future funding of research in this area. | One source was cited. Video included some relevant information about the particle, its characteristics, uses, benefits and risks. At attempt was made to argue for future funding of research in this area. | Sources were improperly or not cited. Video contained irrelevant or incomplete information about the particle. There was no attempt to argue for future funding. | 0 |
| Technical and Aesthetic Components | Sources were properly submitted in NoodleTools. Video was submitted correctly and on time. Audio components were clear and relevant. Visuals were clear and relevant. Video had a nice flow, making it engaging and easy to understand for the viewer. Grammar and spelling were flawless. | Sources were properly submitted in NoodleTools. Video was submitted correctly and on time. Audio and visual components were mostly clear and relevant to the content. Video was engaging and helped the viewer to understand some of the content. One or two grammar and/or spelling mistakes were present. | Sources were submitted properly, but late. Video was submitted incorrectly or was submitted late. Audio and visual components were somewhat clear and relevant to the content. Video was somewhat engaging, but the flow of the content made it difficult for the viewer to comprehend content. Multiple grammar and/or spelling mistakes were present. | Sources were not submitted. Video was submitted incorrectly or late. Audio and visual components were not clear or relevant to the content. Video was not engaging for the viewer. Information presented was difficult to comprehend. Numerous spelling and/or grammar mistakes were present. | 0 |
Total Score: 135 |
|||||
The Public URL for this WebQuest:
http://zunal.com/webquest.php?w=404235
WebQuest Hits: 1,302
Save WebQuest as PDF
