Scribd
Upload
92 views2 pages

Assignment 2 Marking Rubric 2018

This document outlines the marking rubric for Assignment 2 in ECOL203/403. It provides criteria for evaluating student responses to 3 questions related to calculating niche breadth and overlap for two pademelon species. Responses are assessed on correctness, interpretation, detail, grammar/spelling, and use of references. Higher scores require fully correct answers, strong interpretation, no errors, and references from peer-reviewed literature.

Uploaded by

migire kennedy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
92 views2 pages

Assignment 2 Marking Rubric 2018

This document outlines the marking rubric for Assignment 2 in ECOL203/403. It provides criteria for evaluating student responses to 3 questions related to calculating niche breadth and overlap for two pademelon species. Responses are assessed on correctness, interpretation, detail, grammar/spelling, and use of references. Higher scores require fully correct answers, strong interpretation, no errors, and references from peer-reviewed literature.

Uploaded by

migire kennedy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

ECOL203/403 Assignment 2 Marking Rubric, T1 2018

Criteria Not answered Poor Pass Good Very Good Excellent


Question 1a (10%) Question not Answer is completely Answer is wrong, but clear that The values were correctly The correct values The correct values were
What values did you answered, no marks wrong, and it is not calculations were correct, but calculated, but reported were given. given with appropriate
calculate for Levin’s awarded. possible to see how wrong measure was reported. sub-optimally - e.g. context provided.
measure of this was calculated Another error might have been approximates rather than
standardized niche (but an answer was a mix-up in reported values for the exact values.
breadth? given, and an the two species.
attempt made).
Question 1b (20%) Question not Poor attempt - failing Enough to pass, but answer Answer is OK, and Very good work with Excellent work - data
What do these results answered, no marks grade on question. needed more detail, or there interpretation sensible, but no (or only very interpreted fully
mean in terms of the awarded. May have been gross were significant errors in some errors were made in minor) errors in (perhaps with relevant
diet of the two errors in spelling or interpretation of the results, or the way the data were grammar or spelling. graph or table), no errors
pademelon species? grammar. the results themselves interpreted. May have This work represents in grammar or spelling.
incorrect. May have been some been some errors in what would be This work represents
unacceptable errors in spelling spelling or grammar. expected of the top what would be expected
or grammar. Reporting of results 10-20% of the class. of the top 5% of the
indicated some errors. class.
Question 2 (30%) Question not Poor attempt - failing Enough to pass, but answer Answer is OK, and Very good work with Excellent work - data
Do these results fit answered, no marks grade on question. needed more detail, or there interpretation sensible, but no (or only very interpreted fully, no
with what you know of awarded. May have been gross were significant errors in some errors were made in minor) errors in errors in grammar or
the dietary ecology of errors in spelling or interpretation of the results, or the way the data were grammar or spelling. spelling. References
these species? grammar. No the results themselves interpreted. May have At least two peer- used to full effect, and
references, or incorrect. May have been some been some errors in reviewed references clearly reported in a
references were unacceptable errors in spelling spelling or grammar. used and these are reference list that is
poorly chosen (not or grammar. At least one peer- Reporting of results appropriately error-free. This work
from the peer- reviewed reference used, but indicated some errors. At referenced and cited. represents what would
reviewed scientific poorly cited or not properly least two references used This work represents be expected of the top
literature). listed in a reference list. (one peer-reviewed), but what would be 5% of the class.
poorly cited or not properly expected of the top
listed in a reference list. 10-20% of the class.

Page 1 of 2
ECOL203/403 Assignment 2 Marking Rubric, T1 2018

Question 3a (10%) Question not Overlap value is Overlap value is wrong, but The overlap value might The correct overlap The correct overlap
What was your answered, no marks wrong, and it is not clear that calculations were have been reported, but value was given. value was given with
calculated value for awarded. possible to see how correct, but wrong measure suggestive of a calculation appropriate context
percentage overlap this was calculated was reported. error in spreadsheet provided.
between the (but an answer was calculations. Another error
pademelons? given, and an might have been reporting
attempt made). the value only
approximately.
Question 3b (30%) Question not Poor attempt - failing Enough to pass, but answer Answer is OK, and Very good work with Excellent work - data
Is this considered a answered, no marks grade on question. needed more detail, or there interpretation sensible, but no (or only very interpreted fully, no
large overlap? awarded. May have been gross were significant errors in some errors were made in minor) errors in errors in grammar or
errors in spelling or interpretation of the results, or the way the data were grammar or spelling. spelling. References
grammar. No the results themselves interpreted. May have At least two peer- used to full effect, and
references, or incorrect. May have been some been some errors in reviewed references clearly reported in a
references were unacceptable errors in spelling spelling or grammar. used and these are reference list that is
poorly chosen (not or grammar. At least one peer- Reporting of results appropriately error-free. This work
from the peer- reviewed reference used, but indicated some errors. At referenced and cited. represents what would
reviewed scientific poorly cited or not properly least two references used This work represents be expected of the top
literature). listed in a reference list. (one peer-reviewed), but what would be 5% of the class.
poorly cited or not properly expected of the top
listed in a reference list. 10-20% of the class.

Page 2 of 2

You might also like