Rubric for Evaluating Economics PowerPoints
(Adapted from Rael, and Hallsel. See  http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/rubric.html )

 Superior Rating (5)

Thesis: Easily identifiable, plausible, novel, sophisticated, insightful, crystal clear.

Structure: Evident, understandable, appropriate for thesis. Excellent transitions from point to point. Slides support solid topic bullets.

Use of scientific literature and related material in books: Primary source information used to buttress every point with at least one example. Examples support mini-thesis and fit within slide. Excellent integration of quoted material into bullets.  Demonstrates substantive knowledge of the key literature and material relevant to the question and can explain the salient themes and ideas with great precision. Sees pitfalls in the material and suggests substantive ways in how it can likely be improved.

Analysis: Author clearly relates evidence to "mini-thesis" (topic bullet); analysis is fresh and exciting, posing new ways to think of the material. Not only selects an appropriate analytical theory, model or approach, but fully explains it.  Diagrams and graphs are appropriately drawn and labeled, and descriptions (both audio and notes) of approaches are accurate. Clearly states the real issues and suggests workable solutions in the analysis.

Logic and argumentation: All ideas in the PowerPoint flow logically; the argument is identifiable, reasonable, and sound. Author anticipates and successfully defuses counter-arguments; makes novel connections to outside material (from other parts of the class, or other classes) which illuminate thesis.

Mechanics: Bullet structure, grammar, and diction excellent; correct use of  citation style.

Good Rating (4)

Thesis: Promising, but may be slightly unclear, or lacking in insight or originality.

Structure: Generally clear and appropriate, though may wander occasionally. May have a few unclear transitions, or a few slides without strong topic bullets.

Use of scientific literature and related material in books: Examples used to support most points. Some evidence does not support point, or may appear where inappropriate. Quotes well integrated into bullets. Demonstrates significant knowledge of the material and can explain some of the key themes and ideas with precision. Sees pitfalls in the literature and material but is not at all sure how to go about improving it.

Analysis: Evidence often related to mini-thesis, though links perhaps not very clear. Selects an appropriate analytical theory, model or approach, but may not fully explain it.   Diagrams and graphs, and descriptions (both audio and notes) of approaches, are less than clear but do not contain factual errors. Addresses some dimensions of the real issues and alludes to general solutions.

Logic and argumentation: Argument of PowerPoint is clear, usually flows logically and makes sense. Some evidence that counter-arguments acknowledged, though perhaps not addressed. Occasional insightful connections to outside material made.

Mechanics: Bullet structure, grammar, and diction strong despite occasional lapses; citation style often used correctly.

Borderline Rating (3)

Thesis: May be unclear (contain many vague terms), appear unoriginal, or offer relatively little that is new; provides little around which to structure the PowerPoint.

Structure: Generally unclear, often wanders or jumps around. Few or weak transitions, many slides without topic bullets.

Use of scientific literature and related material in books: Examples used to support some points. Points often lack supporting evidence, or evidence used where inappropriate (often because there may be no clear point). Quotes may be poorly integrated into bullets. Demonstrates some knowledge of  the material and can explain a few themes and ideas, but often makes errors. Can describe some pitfalls in the literature, but is unconcerned about finding solutions.

Analysis: Quotes appear often without analysis relating them to mini-thesis (or there is a weak mini-thesis to support), or analysis offers nothing beyond the quote. Selects an appropriate analytical theory, model or approach, but presentation is not clear and/or contains factual errors. Diagrams and graphs, and descriptions (both audio and notes) of approaches are unclear and also contain factual errors. Understands there are real issues, but is not at all clear in articulating either the issues or the solutions.

Logic and argumentation: Logic may often fail, or argument may often be unclear. May not address counter-arguments or make any outside connections.

Mechanics: Problems in bullet structure, grammar, and diction (usually not major). Errors in citation style.
 

Needs Help Rating (2)

Thesis: Difficult to identify at all, may be bland restatement of obvious point.

Structure: Unclear, often because thesis is weak or non-existent. Transitions confusing and unclear. Few topic bullets.

Use of scientific literature and related material in books: Very few or very weak examples. General failure to support statements, or evidence seems to support no statement. Quotes not integrated into bullets; "plopped in" in improper manner. Demonstrates little knowledge of the material and almost always makes errors in explaining themes and ideas.  Is unconcerned with pitfalls, so there is no need to find solutions.

Analysis: Very little or very weak attempt to relate evidence to argument; may be no identifiable argument, or no evidence to relate it to. Selects a somewhat appropriate analytical theory, model or approach but presentation including the diagrams and graphs, explanations of approaches, contain serious factual errors. Can repeat what others have said are real issues, and sometimes what others have suggested as solutions.

Logic and argumentation: Ideas do not flow at all, usually because there is no argument to support. Simplistic view of topic; no effort to grasp possible alternative views.

Mechanics: Big problems in bullet structure, grammar, and diction. Frequent major errors in citation style.
 

Failing (1)

Shows obviously minimal lack of effort or comprehension of the questions/assignment. Very difficult to understand owing to major problems with mechanics, structure, and analysis. Has no identifiable thesis, or utterly incompetent thesis. Is generally unaware of what is in the literature and related book material, so cannot explain themes and ideas without making errors. Is not aware there are pitfalls. Does not provide an appropriate theory, model or approach. Is unconcerned about the issues or finding solutions.