Physics
in the
Work Force

Introduction

The Task

The Process

Resources

Evaluation

Conclusion

Credits

Evaluation

Summary Sheet Teacher Assessment: (click for individualized pdf version)

Category	4 = Exceeds the Standard	3 = Meets the Standard	2 = Partially Meets the Standard	1=Does Not Meet the Standard	Score
Completeness	Includes a wealth of information for all categories called for in Process guidelines such as “Job Related”, “College related”, “Gender equity and diversity related”, etc.	Includes basic information for all categories called for in Process guidelines such as “Job Related”, “College related”, “Gender equity and diversity related”, etc.	Includes sketchy information in one or more categories called for in Process guidelines such as “Job Related”, “College related”, “Gender equity and diversity related”, etc.	Does not include information from one or more categories called for in Process guidelines such as “Job Related”, “College related”, “Gender equity and diversity related”, etc.
Accuracy	All facts in the brochure are accurate.	90-99% of the facts in the brochure are accurate.	80-89% of the facts in the brochure are accurate.	Fewer than 80% of the facts in the brochure are accurate.
Writing and Grammar	There are no grammatical mistakes in the brochure. Capitalization and punctuation are correct throughout the brochure.	There are no grammatical mistakes in the brochure after feedback from an adult. Capitalization and punctuation are correct throughout the brochure after feedback from an adult.	There are 1-2 grammatical mistakes in the brochure even after feedback from an adult. There are 1-2 capitalization and/or punctuation errors in the brochure even after feedback from an adult.	There are several grammatical mistakes in the brochure even after feedback from an adult. There are several capitalization or punctuation errors in the brochure even after feedback from an adult
Spelling and Proofreading	No spelling errors remain after one person other than the typist reads and corrects the brochure.	No more than 1 spelling error remains after one person other than the typist reads and corrects the brochure.	No more than 3 spelling errors remain after one person other than the typist reads and corrects the brochure.	Several spelling errors in the brochure.
References	Contains an extensive summary of works cited using standardized format.	Contains an extensive summary of works cited but inconsistently formatted.	Contains a very short or incomplete list of works cited but inadequately reported.	No works cited section included.
Attractiveness and Organization	The brochure has exceptionally attractive formatting and well-organized information.	The brochure has attractive formatting and well-organized information.	The brochure has well organized information.	The brochure's formatting and organization of material are confusing to the reader.
Graphics	Graphics go well with the text and there is a good mix of text and graphics.	Graphics go well with the text, but there are so many that they distract from the text.	Graphics go well with the text, but there are too few and the brochure seems "text-heavy"	Graphics do not go with the accompanying text but appear to be randomly chosen.

Presentation Peer Assessment: (click for individualized pdf version)

Category	4 = Exceeds the Standard	3 = Meets the Standard	2 = Partially Meets the Standard	1=Does Not Meet the Standard	Score
Goal Statement	N/A	The career position was clearly identified and the goal of the project made clear from the outset.	The career position was poorly identified and/or the goal statement was vague or incomplete.	The career position and/or goal statement was not provided.
Knowledge	All students in the group can accurately answer all questions related to facts in the brochure and to technical processes used to create the brochure.	All students in the group can accurately answer most questions related to facts in the brochure and to technical processes used to create the brochure.	Most students in the group can accurately answer most questions related to facts in the brochure and to technical processes used to create the brochure.	Several students in the group appear to have little knowledge about the facts or technical processes used in the brochure.
Delivery	The delivery was exceptional in every way; generous data provided; visuals were clear and easy to view and understand; speakers could be heard and understood.	The career position was dealt with adequately; data was presented as appropriate; conclusions were drawn from data; visuals generally easy to see and understand; speakers clearly audible.	The presentation was of some worth but speaking, visuals, or other forms of delivery made the presentation hard to comprehend and of limited value; delivery in need of significant improvement.	The presentation was of little to no worth; statements made without supporting data; generalizations used instead of specific information; poor visuals; speakers could not be heard and understood.
Organization	N/A	The presentation was clear, well organized, and easy to follow.	The presentation was somewhat disordered, but clear enough to understand.	The presentation was so disorganized that it was hard to follow.
Cooperation	N/A	The group shared roughly equally in the presentation.	One or two people monopolized the presentation, others barely contributed.	The presentation clearly appeared to be the work of a single person, most of the presenters not contributing.

Group Work Peer Assessment: (click for individualized pdf version)

Category	4 = Exceeds the Standard	3 = Meets the Standard	2 = Partially Meets the Standard	1=Does Not Meet the Standard	Score
Research	Peer did more than his or her fair share of the research.	Peer shared equally and regularly in the research.	Peer contributed to the work, but could have done a better job.	Peer rarely if even contributed or made contributions of little worth.
Preparation	Peer did more than his or her fair share of the preparation.	Peer shared equally in the preparation of the presentation.	Peer contributed to the preparation, but could have done a better job.	Peer rarely if even contributed or made contributions of little worth.
Preparedness	Peer prepared exceptionally well for the presentation.	Peer prepared adequately for the presentation.	Peer poorly prepared for the presentation.	Peer not prepared for the presentation.
Presentation	N/A	Peer shared equally in delivering the presentation.	Peer presented too little or too much to the presentation.	Peer took over presentation or did not participate in a meaningful fashion.
Duties	Peer worked very hard and contributed exceptionally well.	Peer regularly carried out assigned or agreed-upon responsibilities.	Peer carried out assigned or agreed-upon duties most of the time.	Peer rarely if ever carried out assigned or agreed-upon duties.
Timeliness	N/A	Peer completed assigned are agreed-upon tasks on time.	Peer completed tasks mostly on time, but tasks performed late were still of value.	Peer completed tasks, but infrequently on time and too late to be of value.
Cooperation	N/A	Peer cooperated well with the group process, stayed on task, contributed in a meaningful way to the group process.	Cooperated fairly well, but could have been more helpful, actions sometimes distracted group from work.	Didn't help much with the group processes, rather negative, often made group process more difficult than necessary.