Results for Evolution Case Study:

Disclaimer:

Before looking at your results and feedback I would just like to explain where all of this came from.

Feedback from peers obviously came from the peer assessment rubrics that were handed out, they might have
conflicting comments as they do come from different people. Individual feedback was gathered from your
group evaluations.

Group marks were calculated where peer assessment was 80% of the mark, with the remaining 20% being my
own assessment using the same rubric.

Individual marks were calculated as a fraction out of 10 of the original group mark, meaning if you were given
8 marks in total by your group, you got 80% of the original mark.
Group Topic: Pigeons Group Mark: 67%
Feedback from peers:
Spoken with confidence and clarity. Good eye contact. Good information on environmental conditions.
Included interesting facts. Good use of photos.

Could have improved on distributing roles better and perhaps better preparation for presentation. Need to
improve on knowing who is reading which slide. Could have used dot points instead of paragraphs.

Feedback from me:

A lot of the information provided was not relevant to the task provided. The aim of the case study was to
look at the evolutionary history of the animal you were given. Its important to be clear when using
scientific terms such as evolution. From what has been shown in your presentation, it appears that your
group is not very clear about the process of evolution. Evolution is something that happens over
generations, not an individual, so by saying that a pigeon will simply change colour or grow more/less
feathers to adapt is showing that you still dont have a good understanding of evolution and natural
selection. When looking at a rubric, it is important to look at the criteria that gives the maximum marks.
There were a lot of things that were addressed, but not as in depth as it was required.
Luc Marks: 67%
Provided information for two slides. Spoke confidently when presenting. Try not to be over-confident and
speak more clearly in the future.
Alvin Marks: 67%
Spoke with confidence and presented an extra slide. Did three slides for the presentation which meant he
contributed the most. Could speak more clearly in the future and make his points easier to understand.
Tony Marks: 67%
Provided information for slides and presented well. Did one slide on the species adaptations, could improve
on making the information more detailed. Try to work on speaking more clearing and less jumbling of
words.
Brandon Marks: 67%
Spoke with confidence. Provided useful information for slides. Did two slides with the interesting facts one
being well formed, however the other slides needed more detail. Needs to be better prepared for the slides
he is preparing. Could speak more clearly in the future.
Jayden Marks: 37%
Provided information for slides but did not present. Could build more confidence for presenting to
audiences.
Results for Evolution Case Study:

Disclaimer:

Before looking at your results and feedback I would just like to explain where all of this came from.

Feedback from peers obviously came from the peer assessment rubrics that were handed out, they might have
conflicting comments as they do come from different people. Individual feedback was gathered from your
group evaluations.

Group marks were calculated where peer assessment was 80% of the mark, with the remaining 20% being my
own assessment using the same rubric.

Individual marks were calculated as a fraction out of 10 of the original group mark, meaning if you were given
8 marks in total by your group, you got 80% of the original mark.

Group Topic: Sea Turtles Group Mark: 87

Feedback from peers:
Spoke with confidence, explaining their facts clearing and providing simple visual aids. They all have loud
voices and spoke clearly. They all made eye contact with the audience. They didnt read off the slides and
spoke at the right pace.

Needs to have more eye contact with the audience. Maybe dont read straight off the cue cards.

Feedback from me:

Very informative regarding ancestral history and the development of adaptations. However, there was a
lack of some finer details. More specifically, your group addressed environmental conditions, but did not
specify why certain adaptations were beneficial or were affected by the environment. Furthermore, there
was a severe lack of scientific terminology used; using scientific names is not the same as using scientific
language. An example would be talking about selective agents when addressing differences between
modern relatives or reasons for certain adaptations.
Laureen Marks: 87%
Contributed greatly on the overall presentation and had plenty of detail. Was well prepared. Not only did
the section she chose but also took the initiative to do the timeline. Her information was relevant and she
spoke fluently.
Christy Marks: 83%
Expanded upon previous statements while presenting my own. Was able to continue presenting her slide
when she was interrupted. This meant that she continued to speak well, even though the rest of the class
was not paying full attention. Did preparation in her own time.
Courtney Marks: 74%
Adapted to each situation or problem allowing her to present a strong comparison. Courtney contrasted
and listed her adaptations in detail. She was able to use the slide as a prompt and elaborated on her dot
points. Needs to improve on having more information and improving on eye contact.
Lisa Marks: 87%
Was well-versed and prepared. Ensured all steps were completed. Picked up tasks that the rest of the group
was reluctant to take. Excellent presentation skills. Her slide was a lot briefer in comparison to the rest of
her group members.
Results for Evolution Case Study:

Disclaimer:

Before looking at your results and feedback I would just like to explain where all of this came from.

Feedback from peers obviously came from the peer assessment rubrics that were handed out, they might have
conflicting comments as they do come from different people. Individual feedback was gathered from your
group evaluations.

Group marks were calculated where peer assessment was 80% of the mark, with the remaining 20% being my
own assessment using the same rubric.

Individual marks were calculated as a fraction out of 10 of the original group mark, meaning if you were given
8 marks in total by your group, you got 80% of the original mark.

Group Topic: Cats Group Mark: 83

Feedback from peers:
They presented with detailed information and a lot of eye contact. They were well prepared. Used scientific
terms for the names, used dot points on most slides. Good pictures that helped with the information. Able
to proceed even though they had missing members. Scientific names helped to have a better understanding
of the specific cat.

They needed to talk louder and the presentation did not flow as well. More eye contact in the future.
Awkward transitions and excessive information on the screen made it difficult to focus on the information
on the screen and the person speaking. Add other tetrapods to the timeline. Write in a different coloured
font thats not red. More on modern relatives and their adaptations using dot points and not reading off
the board. Face the audience more and less mumbling of information.

Feedback from me:

There was a good amount of detail for the evolutionary history of domestic cats. However, as with many
other groups, you needed to use more scientific language, specifically referring to evolution (such as:
natural selection, characteristics, speciation). Similarly, when looking at ancestors, there was a bit of
confusion. If two organisms/animals share the same DNA, that means they are the SAME animal. Therefore,
the animal is not an evolutionary ancestor if they can mate and share the same DNA. Furthermore, your
group definitely could have had a more cohesive presentation, with all of you looking in different directions
during your presentation.
Alex Marks: 56%
Sometimes used scientific information. Good information. Great effort for his speech and pronunciation.
Needed more eye contact. Finished his part of the work despite language difficulty. Contributed ideas but
needs to practise speech for more fluency and to speak louder.
Alicia Marks: 74%
Good information and use of scientific language. Spoke for Valentinas slide and did a great job despite
having a cold.
Olivia Marks: 83%
Good information and use of scientific language. Could have more confidence. Used pictures for references
and spoke confidently. Successfully completed assigned task. Well decorated slides and helped a member
who didnt complete their work finish it. Presented for Megan on the day.
Results for Evolution Case Study:

Disclaimer:

Before looking at your results and feedback I would just like to explain where all of this came from.

Feedback from peers obviously came from the peer assessment rubrics that were handed out, they might have
conflicting comments as they do come from different people. Individual feedback was gathered from your
group evaluations.

Group marks were calculated where peer assessment was 80% of the mark, with the remaining 20% being my
own assessment using the same rubric.

Individual marks were calculated as a fraction out of 10 of the original group mark, meaning if you were given
8 marks in total by your group, you got 80% of the original mark.

Group Topic: Humans Group Mark: 73%

Feedback from peers:
The Venn Diagram was an effective way to show the similarities and differences. Members appeared to
have confidence in presentation.

It might have been better to present the Power Point in dot points rather than blocks of text. Ensure that all
sections of the rubric are covered. Provide greater detail -> describe environmental conditions and how
they affect humans, class ancestors and describe the time periods clearly. Reading off the board a lot.

Feedback from me:

The difference between ancestral adaptations and modern adaptations was very well received in the form
of the Venn diagram and lent itself well to the format of your presentation. However, while there was a lot
of information, there was very little analysis or processing of that information. Your group spoke a lot about
the adaptations that modern humans developed, but there was no explanation of why those adaptations
were beneficial in those environments. Moreover, you missed some easy marks by not having a definitive
timeline of the evolutionary history as well as not looking at the DIFFERENCES between modern relatives
and humans. There was a lot that could have been great if finer detail was provided in your information. A
small improvement regarding your PowerPoint itself is to not use white coloured font as it is difficult to read
on most backgrounds.
Vu Marks: 59%
Spoke and did the Venn Diagram. Could have contributed to more slides. Has to work on talking more
clearly and improving the flow of his speech.
Veasna Marks: 59%
Contributed to 1 slide and speaking. Needs to talk more clearly.
Suthesh Marks: 73%
Contributed to 3 slides, but could do some speaking next time.
Aryan Marks: 73%
Contributed to 2 slides and did speaking. Has to show more eye contact throughout the presentation.
Results for Evolution Case Study:

Disclaimer:

Before looking at your results and feedback I would just like to explain where all of this came from.

Feedback from peers obviously came from the peer assessment rubrics that were handed out, they might have
conflicting comments as they do come from different people. Individual feedback was gathered from your
group evaluations.

Group marks were calculated where peer assessment was 80% of the mark, with the remaining 20% being my
own assessment using the same rubric.

Individual marks were calculated as a fraction out of 10 of the original group mark, meaning if you were given
8 marks in total by your group, you got 80% of the original mark.

Group Topic: Tree Frogs Group Mark: 75

Feedback from peers:
Power point was in dot pints. Detailed explanation of modern relatives with adaptations. Showed a broad
knowledge of the environmental conditions. Projected their voices well. Good information use of scientific
terms. They provided short and understandable information on screen. Divided the information well
between members. Were clear in their presentation.

Pictures over text made it difficult to read. Maybe a little more rehearsal. Make eye contact every so often.

Feedback from me: Very barebones with regards to detailed information. The evolutionary history was
good in terms of timelines and where they came from. However, more effort needed to be put into looking
at what environmental conditions impacted certain adaptations. Your group brought up modern relatives
but did not compare their characteristics with those of a tree frog. When given a rubric, I would advise
looking at the criteria that gives the most marks to see what you need to have in your assessment for it to
be reaching a certain level. Overall I would say that there could have been a lot of areas where your group
went into further detail but just didnt do so.
Maheesha Mark: 75%
Gathered the majority of the information and started modelling the cue cards and explaining the entire
slideshow. Timetabled the task, included detailed information about the environmental conditions and
added photos for better presentation. Contributed good information, but should be prepared before
presenting. Could improve on pronouncing scientific names. Needs to improve on giving eye contact.
Catherine Mark: 71%
Contributed good information and images. Contributed to making the slides and helped write out the cue
cards. Provided information on modern relatives. Could improve on adding more information. Needs to
improve on eye contact. Needs to be loud during presentation.
Mary Mark: 49%
Eye contact and body language was good. Helped with making the slides more presentable. Addressed the
different types of tree frogs. Didnt contribute much to the Power point. Did the introduction and helped
with giving information to other group members. Needs to work on giving more information in her own
slide. Rarely contributed information. Mary shouldve been a bit more prepared.
Fardina Mark: 75%
Helped with the cue cards. Should work on following instructions. Provided information on modern
ancestors, with detailed information and photos: which made the presentation better. Could improve on
pronouncing the names. Needs to make more eye contact with the class