Name_____________________________
Date______________________________
Project Description: 4=Great
3=Good 2=Okay 1=Fair 0=Poor(no itinerary
submitted)
4...This itinerary is well planned, logically organized, highly detailed and descriptive. It is aestically appealing and enhances the reader's (or listener's) comprehension of the travel plans. The use of at least three web sites is clearly evident. It includes at least two excellent visual representations of cultural attractions from each state. The travel plans comply with the budgetary and transportation restrictions and demonstrate excellent use of allocated funds. The project has a polished appearance. The presentation showed clear knowledge of their unit.
3...This itinerary is logically organized and descriptive.
The visuals are neat and contribute to the reader's (listener's) comprehension
of the travel plans. The use of at least two web sites is evident.
It includes two good visual representations of cultural attractions of
each state visited are included. The travel plans comply with the
budgetary and transportation restrictions. The project has a finished
appearance. The presentation showed knowledge
of their unit.
2... This project shows some evidence of planning, but there are clear problems with the organization and insufficient description. There is little evidence of the use of web sites. Poor visuals with little attention to detail. Some cultural attractions are mentioned. The travel plans meet the transportation restrictions, but exceeds the budgetary restrictions. The project has an unfinished appearance. The presentation little knowledge of their unit.
1...This itinerary is poorly organized. There is no evidence of the use of web based geographical tools. The visuals are not present or very carelessly done. The itinerary does not comply with the travel or budgetary restrictions. The project appears to be hastily put together. The presentation was poor with little effort put forth.
0...The student did not submit an itinerary.
Back to
states