the substance and clarity

Rubric and Guidelines for Group Discussions

Guidelines for Group Discussion Your performance in this discussion will be evaluated by the substance and clarity of your participation. See the rubric below for a fuller overview of the evaluation criteria:

Category	Excellent	Acceptable	Poor	Unacceptable
Role	Point-of-view, arguments, and solutions proposed were consistently in character.	Point-of-view, arguments, and solutions proposed were often in character.	Point-of-view, arguments, and solutions proposed were sometimes in character.	Point-of-view, arguments, and solutions proposed were rarely in character.
Position Statement	Position is clearly stated and consistently maintained.	Position is clearly stated and consistently maintained.	Position is stated, but is not maintained consistently throughout work.	Statement of position cannot be determined.
Supporting Information	Evidence from readings clearly supports the position; evidence is abundant.	Evidence from readings clearly supports the position; it is sufficient.	Argument is supported by evidence from readings, but more is needed.	Evidence is unrelatedto argument; it is insufficient.
Use of Facts/Statistics	Every major point was well supported with several relevant examples from readings.	Every major point was adequately supported with examples from readings.	Every major point was supported with examples from readings, but the relevance of some was questionable.	Every point was not supported.
Organization	All arguments were clearly tied to an idea (premise) and organized in a tight, logical fashion.	Most arguments were clearly tied to an idea (premise) and organized in a tight, logical fashion.	All arguments were clearly tied to an idea (premise) but the organization was sometimes not clear or logical.	Arguments were not clearly tied to an idea (premise).
Rebuttal	All counter-arguments were accurate, relevant and strong.	Most counter-arguments were accurate, relevant, and strong.	Most counter-arguments were accurate and relevant, but several were weak.	Counter-arguments were not accurate and/or relevant.
Tone	Tone is consistent and enhances persuasiveness.	Tone enhances persuasiveness, but there are inconsistencies.	Tones does not contribute to persuasiveness.	Tone is inappropriateto purpose.
Organization	Structure of work is clearlydeveloped.	Structure developed reasonably well, but lacks clarity.	Some attempt to structure the argument has been made, but the structure is poorly developed.	There is a total lack of structure.
Information	All information presented in the discussion was clear, accurate and thorough.	Most information presented in the discussion was clear, accurate and thorough.	Most information presented in the discussion was clear and accurate, but was not usually thorough.	Information had several inaccuracies OR was usually not clear.