Topic: Perspectives on Forest Land-Use Issues
Prescribed Learning Outcomes:
Management Perspectives
It is expected that students will:
Researching Various Perspectives on an Issue
| Criteria | Response | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| It was easy to identify and understand the main idea of the presentation. | Agree/Disagree | |
| All the information provided supported the main idea. | Agree/Disagree | |
| I learned some new information from the presentation. | Agree/Disagree | |
| The visual materials helped to make the presentation interesting. | Agree/Disagree | |
|
Comments
|
||
To what extent does the group:
To what extent does the group:
The teacher used a rating scale to assess and evaluate students' classroom work on land-use issues. Following each evaluation, the teacher held conferences to assist students in improving their presentations.
Review of Forest Legislation
An assessment form was used by the teacher, peers, and the presenters themselves to assess students' reviews of legislation related to forest management and use. It was also used to assess the presenters' interactions with students in the audience who responded to their questions.
| Rating | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Excellent | Gives a strong overall impression that clearly and consistently presents a particular forest land-use issue. Entertaining and informative. Evidence of careful planning in terms of content, organization, and language. Presents and explains a range of perspectives on the issue. Includes interesting detail and examples through speech and visual aids. Shows an awareness of audience's responses and successfully maintains their attention. Voice has effective, clear tone and volume. |
| Very Good | Clearly and consistently presents a particular forest land-use issue. Provides various perspectives on the issue. Interesting, informative, in logical sequence, and easy to understand. Includes interpretations and conclusions supported by appropriate details, examples, and visual aids. Clear awareness of audience in material, language, and presentation. Generally successful in maintaining audience's attention. Voice has clear tone and volume. |
| Good | Presents a particular land-use issue, although not always consistently. Relatively easy to understand and follow. Presents information clearly and in some detail. Mentions various perspectives on the issue. Includes adequate examples, explanations, and interpretations. Has clearly selected material and visual aids with audience in mind, and makes a definite attempt to engage their interest and attention, although this may not be completely successful. Voice has generally clear tone and volume. |
| Satisfactory | Generally presents a particular land-use issue, but may occasionally drift to another perspective without a clear transition. Presents information in some detail, but may occasionally be difficult to understand. Appears to follow a planned sequence, with unclear or awkward transitions at times when explaining various perspectives related to the issue. Uses visual aids. Demonstrates awareness of audience but may not always be successful in engaging their attention. Voice has inconsistent tone and volume. |
| Minimally Satisfactory | A particular land-use issue may be stated, but it is not apparent in the rest of the presentation. Presents information, but may be difficult to understand. No apparent attempt to explain range of perspectives on the issue. Often difficult to follow. Attempts to use visual aids, but they may not be clearly connected to the content or purpose of the presentation. Limited awareness of audience. Voice is often difficult to hear. |
| Unsatisfactory | Provides little or no information. Appears unprepared. May decline to participate. |
| Criteria | Rating | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
4 3 2 1 0 | ||
|
|
4 3 2 1 0 | ||
|
|
4 3 2 1 0 | ||
|
|
4 3 2 1 0 | ||
|
|
4 3 2 1 0 | ||
|
4 3 2 1 0 |
Comments:
|
| |
Key:
4-Criteria evident at a strong level.
3-Criteria evident at a good level.
2-Criteria evident at a satisfactory level.
1-Criteria evident at a developing level.
0-Criteria not evident.
Revised: January 27, 1999