One row like this per night — seven rows total by the end of the week.
| Field | Example entry |
|---|---|
| Date | Oct 14 |
| Observation time | 9:00 PM (same every night) |
| Constellation / family | Ursa Major |
| Estimated altitude | ≈ 38° |
| Estimated azimuth | ≈ 15° (just east of due north) |
| Sky conditions / notes | Clear, no moon, easy to spot |
A starting point — adjust weights to fit your class before assigning.
| Category | Weight | Exemplary | Proficient | Developing | Incomplete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation Log | 25 pts | All 7 nights logged at a consistent clock time; honest notes on any skipped or cloudy nights. | 5–6 nights logged consistently; gaps noted. | 3–4 nights logged, or timing inconsistent night to night. | 2 or fewer nights logged. |
| Star Chart | 25 pts | All logged points plotted accurately with correct N/E/S/W orientation and a clear legend. | Most points plotted correctly; minor orientation or labeling issues. | Chart plotted but orientation, scale, or labeling is unclear or inconsistent. | Chart missing or unreadable. |
| Explanation of the Drift | 30 pts | Correctly explains the drift using the sidereal/solar day difference, cites direction and rough size of the shift from their own data. | Explanation is mostly correct but vague on the sidereal/solar mechanism or the size of the drift. | Attributes the drift to the wrong cause (e.g., confuses it with diurnal motion) or gives no mechanism. | No explanation submitted, or explanation doesn't reference the data at all. |
| Process & Presentation | 20 pts | Neat, complete, submitted on time; missed nights are documented rather than faked. | Mostly complete and on time; small presentation issues. | Late or noticeably incomplete presentation. | Not submitted. |
🔭 Project 1.1.3 · Unit 1 of 6 · Single Semester