|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The overall appearance of the timeline is pleasing and easy to read.
|
The overall appearance of the timeline is somewhat pleasing and easy to read.
|
The timeline is relatively readable.
|
The timeline is difficult to read.
|
|
|
The timeline contained at least 10-12 events related to the topic being discussed.
|
The timeline contained at least 7-9 events related to the topic being discussed.
|
The timeline contained at least 6 events related to the topic being discussed.
|
The timeline contained fewer than 6 events.
|
|
|
All graphics are effective and balanced with text use.
|
All graphics are effective, but there appear to be too few or not enough descriptive text.
|
Some graphics are effective but their use is not balanced with text use. Or some text is effective, but its use is not balanced with graphics.
|
Graphics and text are not effective.
|
|
|
Subjective experience ratings were present for all events reported on the timeline.
|
Subjective experience ratings were present for almost all events reported on the timeline.
|
Subjective experience ratings were present for most (~75%) of the events reported on the timeline.
|
Subjective experience ratings were often missing for events reported on the timeline.
|
|
|
Paper effectively explains timeline events and patterns.
|
Paper effectively describes events, but doesn't reference patterns.
|
Paper somewhat effectively describes events or patterns.
|
Paper does not effectively describe any events or patterns.
|
|
|
Paper meets or exceeds length requirements of a full page, handwritten or typed and double spaced.
|
Paper almost meets length requirements of a full page, handwritten or typed and double spaced.
|
Paper falls short of length requirements (~75%).
|
Paper does not meet length requirements (~50%).
|
|
|
Presentation is effective.
|
Presentation is almost effective.
|
Presentation is somewhat effective.
|
Presentation was not effective.
|
|