|
Group Grading (including presentation) Start of Week
Three
|
|
Name of Product/ Team Members
|
1 Point |
2 Points |
3 Points |
4 Points |
|
|
HISTORIAN
History / background |
Minimal information, no illustrations
or background |
One example, no illustrations and minimal
background |
Many examples with some illustrations. Some
background |
Multiple examples with illustrations, good
background |
CHEMIST
Chemistry behind the product |
Proprietary names without attribution or
explanation |
Proprietary names with chemical formula.
Little or no explanation. |
Chemical names, some formulas, some diagrams.
Impact not well explained. |
Chemical names, formulas, diagrams and impact upon
the body well defined |
|
TOXICOLOGIST
Risks / benefits of the cosmetic |
Little information beyond the manufacture's claims.
Some discussion of risk or benefit. |
Some risks and/ or benefits explained.
Minimal discussion on acceptance of these concepts. |
Risks and/ or benefits defined. Some sources
for each side quoted. Arguments in favor of either use or
abandonment present. |
Either risks or benefits well explained.
Sources for both sides quoted and examples given. Cogent
argument given either for use or abandon- ment of the product. |
ENVIRONMENTALIST
Natural alternatives, impact on environment. |
Little information available for this topic.
One natural product named. |
Natural alternative not found. Risks not
clearly defined for either user or environment. |
Some natural alternatives found. Risks for
manufacture and use explained. |
Several natural alternatives found and explained.
Risks of both manufacture and use explained. |
|
Resources / research |
Minimal sources listed. Use of MLA or other
forma ignored. |
Sources limited to those recommended sites.
MLS not followed. |
Multiple sources including a few outside of the
recommended sites. MLA generally followed. |
Multiple sources including some beyond recommended
sites. MLA strictly followed. |
|
Aesthetic appeal of presentation |
Slides are either too few in number or too hard to
understand due to excess verbiage or insufficient background
information. Viewer interest is not apparent. |
Slides are hard to read, but information is good.
The viewer may not always be inter- rested or prompted to recall the
information |
Slide order is evident, information is sufficient
to interest the viewer. Some slides are
unnecessarily long or
difficult to read. |
Sidles are brief, well ordered, to the point and
well illustrated. Information is sufficient to prompt ready
recall and interest in the viewer. |
|
NEW PRODUCT recommendation |
Brand name only given. No reference to
chemistry or market analysis. |
Brand name given with some reference to chemistry
or market place. |
Brand name and product defined with some thought to
the chemistry necessary and/or the demographics of the market |
Well thought out brand name with reasoning
and background apparent based on chemistry and demographics of the
market. |
|
Group Cooperation |
Does not fulfill group requirements |
Fulfills minimum group requirements |
Fulfills requirements. Team work obvious. |
Fulfill AND exceeds requirements.
Teamwork is exceptional |
|
Method of Presentation |
Presentation lacks knowledge of obtaining information |
Presentation includes handouts and explanation of 1 method for obtaining
information |
Presentation includes multimedia, handouts
and explains 2 methods of obtaining information
|
Presentation includes multimedia, handouts and
explanation of 3 methods for
obtaining information |
|
Presentation Skills |
Poor organization, lone speaker for the group, no audience
engagement. |
Good organization, Not all team members present. Little audience
engagement. |
Good organization, All team members involved Some
engagement of the audience
|
Highly organized, all team members participate
Engagement of the audience.
|
