wenever48.gif (2996 bytes)

Funding Rubric

Memo to Students Needs Assessment Greenhouse Basics Building Design Funding
Project Approval Construction Leadership Student Assessment General Resources
f1_6.gif (895 bytes)f1_15.gif (891 bytes)f1_4.gif (892 bytes)f1_14.gif (889 bytes)Rubricsf1_14.gif (889 bytes)f1_4.gif (892 bytes)f1_15.gif (891 bytes)f1_6.gif (895 bytes)
Needs Assessment Greenhouse Basics Building Design Funding Project Approval Leadership


The project score for the Funding component completed by the Physical Science students and the Construction Technology students will be computed in the following manner.




Max. Possible

Research -utilizing both in house and online sources



Oral Presentation and discussion



Written Summary

- 15

Scoring Guide:


20 Has utilized information from at least 10 resources reflecting at least 4 different types of sources (web pages, list serves, e-mail, chat, ftp, interviews, books, magazines, etc.). Resources provide solid information to pursue actual funding.  Search process and funding sources are fully documented.
16 Has utilized information from at least 8 resources reflecting at least 3 different types of sources. Resources provide adequate information to pursue funding. Search process and funding sources are documented but may have minor gaps.
12 Has utilized information from at least 6 resources reflecting at least 3 different types of sources. Information obtained was minimal. Source documentation missing some components.
8 Has utilized information from at least 4 resources reflecting at least 2 different types of sources. Further information (quality and/or quantity) would have been required to prepare an adequate presentation. Source documentation was incomplete and portions of research must be repeated .
4 Has utilized information from at least two different resources, but they may be of the same type. Information gathered is clearly insufficient to prepare presentation. Documentation of sources is missing.
0 No Sources

Oral Presentation

When the oral presentation is made, it will be evaluated by both students and teachers using the Oral Presentation Evaluation Form. The average score from all the teachers will be converted from a percentage into a numerical score (i.e. 80% = 16 out of 20)

Written Summary

Either before, during, or after the oral presentation; participants should receive a written summary of the presentation. This summary could be in a variety of formats; for example, you might choose to prepare and print out copies of webpages, or use the options to print out PowerPoint slides or an outline. It could also take the format of a simple word processing document. The purpose of this document is to serve as a reference for the building design component of the Greenhouse project.

15 Written summary is exemplary. It summarizes the oral presentation effectively and serves as an outstanding reference to be used in preparing the subsequent portions of this project. The format chosen enhances users ability to locate information quickly and efficiently. Presentation is clear, concise and neat.
12 Written summary is adequate to provide necessary information for subsequent project components.
9 Written summary provides the minimal information needed for further project development. Members of subsequent groups may need to request further clarification from the group creating the document in order to proceed with their own work.
6 Written summary is incomplete. There are some positive characteristics, but either due to lack of content or presentation style it is ineffective as a resource for further project development. Users will need to do further research or contact the responsible group to obtain some of the missing pieces.
3 Written summary is inadequate. There is a lack of sufficient content to facilitate further development of project components. Information is unorganized or sloppily presented.
0 No written summary provided.

1890.gif (121 bytes)PRHS Home Page

  1890.gif (121 bytes)LInC Winter 99 Homepage

Created for the Fermilab LInC program sponsored by Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Education Office
and Friends of Fermilab, and funded by United States Department of Energy, Illinois State Board of Education,
North Central Regional Technology in Education Consortium which is operated by North Central Regional
Educational Laboratory (NCREL), and the National Science Foundation. 

Authors: Ina Ahern, Mardean Badger, and Doug Ross
School: Plymouth Regional High School, Plymouth, NH
Created: March 21,1999 - Updated: May 04, 1999