Criteria Rating Descriptor Written by a well-known reputable organization. 4 Many professionals contributed to creating this source. Author is highly professional in this of study. 3 Author is from or backed by a well-trusted organization. Author Author is knowledgeable/reputable, bases the source on his/her own 2 experiences as well as others’. 1 Author is stated but is unreliable. Source is eliminated. 0 Does not meet any of the above. Source is immediately eliminated. 3 Published in professional/well-known/reputable media 2 Published in trustworthy media Origin Posted in a well-known or editable media where anybody can post. 1 Source is almost always eliminated. 0 Does not meet any of the above. Source is immediately eliminated. Non-biased with appropriate reasoning and opinions for both pros and 3 cons. C. Objectivity 2 Mostly biased but basing the opinion on a wide variety of reasons. 1 Completely biased with a narrow scope of points. 0 Confusing/unclear objectivity. Source is immediately eliminated. 3 Highly professional, convincing source. 2 Convincing details with understandable reasoning. Quality Somewhat relevant to the subject. Not reasonable enough to qualify as 1 a convincing source. 0 Irrelevant information presented. Source is eliminated. Appropriate amount of information to clearly state the opinion and facts 2 with detailed reasoning. E. Quantity 1 Too much or too little. 13-15 Excellent source 11-12 Good source 8-10 Acceptable source Total 5-7 Average source on the internet, usually eliminated Source is immediately eliminated Below 5 Although students may include their prior knowledge as a source, prior knowledge alone does not provide sufficient depth or breadth of inquiry for the project. Record all of the sources you read, view, interview or listen to, your Process Journal. This will be very useful later on in the project process.
Criteria Rating Descriptor Author 4 Written by a well-known reputable organization. Many professionals contributed to creating this source. 3 Author is highly professional in this of study. Author is from or backed by a well-trusted organization. 2 Author is knowledgeable/reputable, bases the source on his/her own experiences as well as others’. 1 Author is stated but is unreliable. Source is eliminated. 0 Does not meet any of the above. Source is immediately eliminated. Origin 3 Published in professional/well-known/reputable media 2 Published in trustworthy media 1 Posted in a well-known or editable media where anybody can post. Source is almost always eliminated. 0 Does not meet any of the above. Source is immediately eliminated. C. Objectivity 3 Non-biased with appropriate reasoning and opinions for both pros and cons. 2 Mostly biased but basing the opinion on a wide variety of reasons. 1 Completely biased with a narrow scope of points. 0 Confusing/unclear objectivity. Source is immediately eliminated. Quality 3 Highly professional, convincing source. 2 Convincing details with understandable reasoning. 1 Somewhat relevant to the subject. Not reasonable enough to qualify as a convincing source. 0 Irrelevant information presented. Source is eliminated. E. Quantity 2 Appropriate amount of information to clearly state the opinion and facts with detailed reasoning. 1 Too much or too little. Total 13-15 Excellent source 11-12 Good source 8-10 Acceptable source 5-7 Average source on the internet, usually eliminated Below 5 Source is immediately eliminated Although students may include their prior knowledge as a source, prior knowledge alone does not provide sufficient depth or breadth of inquiry for the project. Record all of the sources you read, view, interview or listen to, your Process Journal. This will be very useful later on in the project process.
2014-2015_personal_project_handbook_for_students.docx