Skip navigation links (access key: Z)Library and Archives Canada - Bibliothèque et Archives Canada Canada
Home > Browse Selected Topics > SOS! Canadian Disasters Franšais

Archived Content

This archived Web page remains online for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. This page will not be altered or updated. Web pages that are archived on the Internet are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats of this page on the Contact Us page.

Banner: SOS! Canadian Disasters
IntroductionDisaster Media ReportsSearchHelpWaterEarthAirFireIce

Educational Resources

Handout 4.2 - Royal Commission Inquiry into Ice Disasters: Evaluation Rubric

Your Name: ____________________________ Date: ________________________________

Categories

Level 1 (50-59%)

Level 2 (60-69%)

Level 3 (70-79%)

Level 4 (80-100%)

Research and use of primary documents

Used 1 or 2 sources and very limited use of primary documents

Used 3 or more sources but underused primary documents

Used 4 or more sources with considerable understanding, including good use of primary documents

Effectively used 5 or more sources, with most information coming from primary documents

Format and layout

Lacks the look of a Royal Commission Report. Is missing most key elements such as an introduction that sets the context, explanation of causes, human-interest stories, conclusion and recommendations

Resembles a Royal Commission Report. But most key elements such as an introduction that sets the context, explanation of causes, human-interest stories, conclusion and recommendations are not effective

Looks like a Royal Commission Report with most key elements such as an introduction that sets the context, explanation of causes, human-interest stories, conclusion and recommendations. All these elements are clearly and purposefully developed

Looks like a Royal Commission Report with exceptional development and clear, and thoughtful presentation of key elements such as an introduction that sets the context, explanation of causes, human interest stories, conclusion and recommendations

Written communication

Many writing errors that could have been avoided with proper editing. Lacks the formal style of a Royal Commission Report

Some writing errors, but generally clear. Has some of the elements of the formal style of a Royal Commission Report

Few writing errors and clear thoughtful expression. Has most of the elements of the formal style of a Royal Commission Report

Exceptionally clear writing using all the elements of the formal style of a Royal Commission Report. No major grammar errors and very few minor writing errors

Knowledge and understanding

Has some basic factual information: what, when, who, where, why and how. But lacks an understanding of Ice Disasters and how to conduct an inquiry into the issue

Has most of the basic information of what, when, who, where, why and how, but has only a basic understanding of Ice Disasters and how to conduct an inquiry into the issue

Demonstrates considerable knowledge of Ice Disasters and demonstrates a good understanding of how to conduct an inquiry into the issue and make clear recommendations

Exceptional use of factual information and very clear understanding of Ice Disasters and how to use an inquiry to draw sound conclusions and make thoughtful recommendations