|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A creative strategy was discussed in detail. There were indicators of thinking through the plan (eg. how to respond to certain plays, possible adaptations).
|
A general strategy was exhibited with some detail.
|
A general strategy was exhibited but lacked detail.
|
No indication of pre-planning.
|
|
|
There was clear discussion and indication of choices made to specifically address conditions within the game. There was evidence of the student adapting their plan based upon a changing field of play.
|
Decisions illustrate a method of supporting the original plan.
|
There was little to no evidence of decision making to support the plan.
|
No discussion of strategic choices.
|
|
|
Insightful self-analysis is present. Judgments were made about the strategy with an eye towards how the strategy could be changed for a future plan.
|
Some self-analysis was performed. Judgments were made about the attempted strategy.
|
Minimal amount of insight and self-analysis of the decisions made.
|
No analysis.
|
|
|
Innovative variations or house rules are explained in clear and concise detail to implement them in a game. Clear predictions are made in regard to the effects on the main game.
|
New variations or house rules are explained in adequate detail. Little to no indication of predicted effect on the main game.
|
Suggested variation is not explained in detail or otherwise lacks any indication as to predicted effect on the main game.
|
No attempts at new rules or variants.
|
