Earth in Motion: Geological Risks in Andalusia and Beyond
Rationale
Earthquakes, floods, landslides and volcanic activity can affect people, infrastructure and landscapes. Students investigate recent geological risk events in Andalusia and elsewhere in the world, using reliable evidence to explain what happened, its consequences and how people can reduce their impact. Producing two science news stories for a class digital magazine gives the inquiry a real audience and purpose. The project supports the LOMLOE emphasis on scientific literacy, critical use of information, digital competence, cooperation and responsible action.
Curricular Grounding
The project develops Specific Competences 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 through the assessment criteria 2.2, 3.5, 4.1, 5.2 and 6.3. Students locate, compare and reference current scientific sources, cooperate with assigned roles, explain geological processes and consequences using evidence, consider sustainable prevention habits, and interpret landscape features as indicators of natural risk. The selected basic knowledge is addressed in BYG.1.B.8, natural risks in Andalusia, their origin and prevention, BYG.1.B.7, environmental risks and impacts and human influence, and BYG.1.E.6, sustainable habits and environmental problems. The work also engages the listed digital, scientific, linguistic, personal and social descriptors through research, collaboration and communication.
Methodology
Project-Based Learning structures the three lessons around the question: How can scientific reporting help people understand and prepare for geological risks? Teams select a recent event in Andalusia and a contrasting event elsewhere in the world, research both using teacher-guided source evaluation, and create two evidence-based news stories for the class digital magazine. Roles such as source checker, geology explainer, writer and layout editor are shared and rotated where practical. Short teacher explanations, source-analysis modelling, peer feedback and brief editorial check-ins keep the inquiry manageable. Students use digital tools to research, collaborate and publish, while each lesson offers visual, spoken and written access to information and more than one way to contribute.
Final Product
Revista digital
Teams contribute two scientific news stories to a shared class digital magazine: one about a recent geological risk event in Andalusia and one about a recent event elsewhere in the world. Each story identifies the hazard and its geological origin, describes the affected landscape and consequences for people or the environment, distinguishes evidence from unsupported claims, cites sources, and includes a reasoned prevention or sustainability reflection. In lesson 1, teams choose events, assign roles and collect and compare sources. In lesson 2, they explain the processes and consequences, draft both stories and select suitable visuals. In lesson 3, they revise, edit and publish the stories in the magazine, then present them to classmates and, if the teacher considers it appropriate, another class or the school community. The teacher evaluates the research, scientific explanation, cooperation, risk reflection and communication with the rubric below, linked to criteria 2.2, 3.5, 4.1, 5.2 and 6.3.
Attention to Diversity
Apply DUA through concise written instructions, teacher modelling, vocabulary previews, maps, diagrams, captions, spoken explanations and accessible digital texts. Students may show understanding through writing, oral explanation, annotated visuals or a combination, while all contribute to the shared magazine. Use predictable lesson stages, visible timers, chunked tasks, movement breaks, reduced-distraction work options and role cards for the two students with ADHD. Offer the two students with high abilities optional deeper comparison of event data, source provenance or prevention strategies without increasing the core workload. Provide flexible grouping, peer support, scaffolds and choice of event. If an individual support plan requires extraordinary measures, coordinate adaptations with the support team and family while preserving access to the same selected learning and assessment criteria.
Assessment Instruments
Assessment is continuous and criterion-referenced. The single structured assessment instrument is the general rubric below, which operationalises the evidence gathered through teacher observation of research and teamwork, review of drafts and source references, and the final magazine stories and presentations. Students use the same criteria for brief self-reflection and peer feedback, which informs revision but does not replace the teacher's assessment. All five selected criteria are assessed, with the five rubric levels corresponding to the specified grade bands.
Resources and Materials
Classroom projector or display, student devices with internet access, paper or shared digital planning templates, maps of Andalusia and the world, teacher-curated starting sources, and a shared digital workspace. Suggested tools include Canva or Google Slides for magazine layout, Padlet or a shared class document for collecting sources and drafts, and a browser or digital map for locating events. Use age-appropriate scientific, geological and public-safety sources, with image credits and source references included in each story.
Interdisciplinary Connections
Language learning supports concise news writing, headline choices, source attribution and oral presentation. Geography supports locating events and interpreting landscape features and affected areas. Digital competence is applied through collaborative research, safe and responsible online communication, and magazine design. Visual arts contributes to page layout, maps, captions and accessible visual communication. These connections support the project without adding assessment criteria beyond the selected Biology and Geology criteria.
Gamification Resources
- Geological risk quick-fire challenge (juego) - Kahoot: A short team quiz using teacher-prepared questions on hazard clues, landscape features and prevention. Students explain their answers before earning points, so reasoning matters more than speed.
- Spot the reliable source newsroom challenge (recurso_web) - Genially: Teams receive contrasting source cards or teacher-selected online posts and earn editorial badges for checking authorship, evidence, date, corroboration and image context before deciding what can be used in their news stories.
General Rubric
| Criterion | Insuficiente | Suficiente | Bien | Notable | Sobresaliente |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criterion 2.2: Finds, compares and selects current, reliable scientific information, identifies unsupported claims and credits sources. | Uses little relevant information or relies on unsupported claims. Sources are not checked or credited. | Uses at least one relevant source but checks reliability, currency or evidence only superficially. Some source details are missing. | Uses relevant sources and checks most for reliability and currency. Credits sources with minor omissions and recognises obvious unsupported claims. | Compares several suitable, current sources, explains why they are credible, identifies unsupported claims and credits them accurately. | Critically compares multiple high-quality sources, carefully distinguishes evidence from misinformation and provides complete, consistent credits. |
| Criterion 3.5: Cooperates responsibly in the project, fulfils a role and contributes to inclusive teamwork. | Rarely contributes to the team or completes the agreed role, and does not yet support shared work respectfully. | Contributes with frequent reminders and completes part of the role. Participation or listening is inconsistent. | Completes the agreed role and cooperates respectfully, with occasional support to maintain shared progress. | Reliably fulfils the role, shares tasks fairly, listens to others and helps the team resolve difficulties. | Strengthens inclusive teamwork throughout, takes responsibility without dominating and helps the team use every member's contribution. |
| Criterion 4.1: Explains geological processes and event consequences using relevant knowledge, evidence and reasoning. | Gives an unclear or substantially inaccurate account of the event, with little connection between evidence and explanation. | Identifies the hazard but gives a basic explanation with gaps or limited use of evidence. | Explains the main geological process and consequences with mostly accurate information and some supporting evidence. | Presents a clear, accurate explanation linking the process, evidence and consequences for people or the environment. | Builds a precise, well-supported explanation that connects geological processes, evidence and consequences, and communicates any limits in the available information. |
| Criterion 5.2: Analyses and proposes sustainable habits or actions that can reduce environmental impacts and risk consequences. | Offers no relevant sustainable action, or suggests actions without a reasoned connection to the event. | Names a possible action but gives little explanation of how it could help. | Proposes a relevant basic action and gives a reasonable link to reducing impacts or consequences. | Uses information from the investigation to justify practical, sustainable actions and considers their likely effect. | Critically justifies feasible actions using the evidence, considers human influence and explains how the actions could reduce impacts over time. |
| Criterion 6.3: Reflects on natural risks by analysing landscape features and relating them to the event. | Does not identify relevant landscape features or connect them to the natural risk. | Names a landscape feature but gives a limited or unclear explanation of its relevance to the risk. | Identifies relevant landscape features and makes a basic, generally accurate connection to the risk. | Analyses relevant landscape features accurately and explains how they shape exposure or consequences. | Provides a thoughtful, evidence-based reflection that links landscape features to the hazard, exposure and possible prevention. |
Session 1: Newsroom launch: Which geological risks affect us?
Duration: 55 minutes
Objectives
Introduce geological risk and the project question. Select one recent Andalusian event and one global event, locate each on a map, assign inclusive team roles and begin checking sources for reliability and currency. Access through maps, short texts and teacher explanation, with choice of research and team roles.
Assessment criteria
2.2, 3.5, 4.1, 6.3
Opening Activities (~10 min)
10 minutes. Display a physical or digital map of Andalusia and a world map alongside two brief, dated geological-risk headlines. Students independently identify any hazard words or places they recognise, then share one idea with a partner. The teacher introduces geological risk as a natural process that may affect people, infrastructure or ecosystems, and poses the project question: “How can scientific reporting help people understand and prepare for geological risks?” Students record one question they would like the class magazine to answer. Bloom focus: remembering and understanding.
Development Activities (~35 min)
40 minutes. Explain that each team will contribute two evidence-based scientific news stories to the class digital magazine, one about a recent event in Andalusia and one about a recent event elsewhere in the world. 1) Teacher modelling, 5 minutes: use a short report to model checking its publication date, named author or organisation, supporting evidence and whether another reliable source confirms the main claim. Distinguish a report of an event from an unsupported claim. 2) Team setup, 5 minutes: form teams and agree inclusive, rotating roles such as source checker, map locator, geology explainer and recorder. Each student chooses or is offered a role that gives a meaningful way to contribute. 3) Event selection and mapping, 15 minutes: teams use teacher-curated news links, short texts and maps to choose one recent Andalusian geological-risk event and one contrasting global event. They record each event’s name, hazard, location, date and the source where they found it, then mark or pin both locations on a shared or team map. The teacher checks that events relate to geological risks and that the global event offers a useful contrast. 4) Initial source check, 10 minutes: for each event, examine at least two available sources where possible. Complete a source-check table with publication date, source or author, evidence provided, a second source for comparison and a reliability question to investigate. Save links and note image or text credits. Do not present unverified claims as facts. 5) Editorial check-in, 5 minutes: teams report their selected events, map locations and one source they consider useful, giving a reason. By the end of the lesson, each team has selected its two events, allocated roles, located both events and started a source file for the magazine. Bloom levels: understanding, applying, analysing.
Closing Activities (~10 min)
5 minutes. Each student completes an exit ticket: name one selected event, identify one source-checking feature they used and state one question the team still needs to answer before writing. Teams check off whether both event choices, map locations, roles and at least one source record per event are in their shared project folder. Students rate their contribution from 1 to 3 and name one next step for Lesson 2, when they will explain the geological processes and consequences and draft the stories. Bloom focus: evaluating.
Resources
Projector or interactive display, physical or digital maps of Andalusia and the world, teacher-selected short texts and recent news reports about geological-risk events, access to reliable scientific or public-authority sources, student devices with internet access, shared class workspace or folder, source-check table, event-selection checklist, role cards, map pins or annotation tools, exit tickets. Provide a printed map, printed source extracts and paper recording sheets as ready alternatives.
Attention to Diversity (UDL)
Representation: combine maps, headlines, short accessible texts, teacher explanation and spoken modelling. Pre-teach key terms such as hazard, risk, evidence, source and reliability, with a small illustrated glossary. Offer a choice of digital or printed sources and allow text-to-speech or read-aloud support. Action and expression: students can record findings in writing, with keywords, orally to a teammate or using map annotations, while each team keeps a shared written record. Provide a structured source-check table, a visible sequence of task steps and role cards with clear responsibilities. Engagement: offer a choice between teacher-curated event options and supported independent selection, and invite students to choose or rotate roles. For students with ADHD, use short timed stages, concise instructions, a visible timer, movement-compatible map tasks, a reduced-distraction work option and brief teacher check-ins. For the two students with high abilities, offer an extension to compare how two reliable sources frame uncertainty or to find a primary scientific or public-authority source, without making this extra work a barrier to the team’s shared task. Check understanding privately and provide additional thinking or response time where needed.
Digital Competence
Students use guided web searches to find recent reports, compare source features, save useful links in a shared project space and place event locations on a digital map. The teacher explicitly models checking currency, authorship or institutional responsibility, evidence and corroboration. Students record source details and credit material they may reuse, and they collaborate responsibly in the shared workspace without posting personal information. Digital maps and shared files have paper-map and paper-record alternatives.
Session Rubric
| Criterion | Insuficiente | Suficiente | Bien | Notable | Sobresaliente |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source selection and initial reliability check (2.2) | Does not identify usable sources for the selected events, or records claims without noting where they came from. | Records at least one source for each event but gives little information about dates, authorship or evidence. | Records sources for both events and checks at least one relevant feature, such as date or publisher, with some support. | Compares source features for both events, including currency and evidence, and records links clearly. | Compares suitable sources for both events, checks currency, responsibility and supporting evidence, and identifies a claim that still needs corroboration. |
| Event identification, location and basic geological explanation (4.1, 6.3) | Does not identify the selected hazards or locate the events on a map. | Identifies one event or hazard and makes an approximate location, with substantial support. | Identifies both hazards and locates both events on a map, with minor inaccuracies or prompts. | Accurately identifies and locates both events, and gives a relevant initial explanation of how each hazard relates to the landscape. | Accurately identifies and locates both events and connects each hazard to a landscape feature using clear, evidence-conscious scientific reasoning. |
| Cooperation and responsible role contribution (3.5) | Does not take part in the agreed task or prevents others from contributing. | Takes part only after repeated prompting and completes little of the agreed role. | Completes an agreed role and cooperates with the team, with occasional reminders. | Carries out the role reliably, shares information respectfully and helps ensure each team member can contribute. | Carries out the role responsibly, supports equitable participation and helps the team resolve task issues constructively. |
| Preparation of the magazine research file | The team has not recorded event choices, locations, roles or source information in a usable form. | The team records some required information, but several key items are missing or unclear. | The team records both event choices, most role assignments, map locations and at least one source for each event. | The team has a usable record of both events, locations, roles and source-check notes that can guide the next lesson. | The team’s organised research file includes both event choices, clear map locations, equitable role assignments, source details and specific questions to investigate next. |
Session 2: Investigate the evidence and write the stories
Duration: 55 minutes
Objectives
Compare sources, explain the geological process and landscape features, and analyse consequences for people and the environment. Draft both scientific news stories with source credits and a reasoned prevention or sustainability reflection. Use text, diagrams and oral discussion, with scaffolded or extended research options.
Assessment criteria
2.2, 3.5, 4.1, 5.2, 6.3
Opening Activities (~10 min)
0 - 3 min: Display two short reports about the same geological event, one from a reputable scientific or public agency and one with a sensational headline or unsupported claim. Students silently note what each report claims and what evidence it gives. 3 - 7 min: In pairs, students identify one feature of the affected landscape and one possible consequence for people or the environment, drawing on the events selected in Lesson 1. 7 - 10 min: Share findings. The teacher models the distinction between an observation, a sourced claim and an unsupported claim, then states the goal: explain the processes and consequences and produce evidence-based first drafts of both magazine stories.
Development Activities (~35 min)
0 - 10 min: Teams retrieve their Andalusian and international event notes from Lesson 1. Using a source-comparison grid, they check author or organisation, date, evidence, relevance and agreement or disagreement across sources. Each team marks claims as supported, uncertain or unsupported and records usable source details. The source checker leads this check, with teammates contributing and roles retained or rotated where practical. 10 - 20 min: Teams build a paired process-and-landscape diagram, one for each event. They label the geological hazard and its origin, relevant landscape features, and links between the process and observed impacts. Students use teacher-provided information and verified sources, and explain the diagram orally to a partner team. 20 - 35 min: Teams draft both scientific news stories in the shared magazine planning template. Each draft includes a clear headline and location, what happened and when, the hazard and its geological origin, landscape evidence, consequences for people and the environment, source credits, and a reasoned prevention or sustainability reflection. They distinguish reported evidence from uncertainty and avoid presenting unsupported claims as fact. 35 - 40 min: Teams conduct a brief editorial check-in. A peer team gives one comment on scientific clarity and one on evidence or source credit. Teams record one revision priority for Lesson 3. Product progress: both stories now have evidence-checked first drafts, explanatory diagrams or diagram plans, source credits and a prevention or sustainability reflection. Students needing scaffolding use the supplied source set, comparison grid, sentence starters and partially labelled diagram. Students ready for extension investigate an additional reliable source or compare how landscape exposure and human activity affect consequences, then add a carefully sourced sentence to a draft.
Closing Activities (~10 min)
0 - 3 min: Each team gives a one-minute update naming one claim it strengthened with evidence and one uncertainty it still needs to check. 3 - 5 min: Students complete an individual exit check: identify their contribution, rate their confidence in explaining one geological process, and name one specific revision needed before publication. The teacher collects the checks and draft priorities to guide Lesson 3.
Resources
Teacher-selected, recent event source pack for the Andalusian and international events chosen in Lesson 1, including suitable scientific or public-agency information, news reporting and landscape images or maps. Source-comparison grid, claim check labels, process-and-landscape diagram template, two-story magazine planning template, sentence starters, peer-feedback slips and exit checks. Student devices with internet access and the class shared digital workspace or magazine draft area. Projector or interactive display for the opening source comparison. Paper copies and drawing materials as equivalent options.
Attention to Diversity (UDL)
Representation: provide sources in a mix of concise written extracts, maps, annotated images and short teacher explanations. Highlight dates, locations, evidence and source details in the scaffolded pack, and pre-teach hazard vocabulary with a visual glossary. Action and expression: allow students to show process understanding through a labelled diagram, oral explanation or written notes before turning these into the article. Provide a structured article template, source grid, sentence starters, speech-to-text where available and a paper alternative. Engagement: offer a choice of which verified detail to investigate further, make each role and task visible, and use short checkpoints with a timer. For the two students with ADHD, give one instruction at a time, divide the 40-minute work block into timed steps, provide a checklist, seat them where distractions are reduced, and agree on brief movement or reset breaks without removing them from team decisions. For the two students with high abilities, offer an extension to compare an additional authoritative source, examine uncertainty or differences in reported impacts, and justify a more nuanced prevention or sustainability recommendation. Keep these extensions optional and connected to the same team product. Use rotating roles and explicit turn-taking so every student can contribute.
Digital Competence
Students use the class digital workspace to locate or revisit sources, compare source details, store links and notes, and collaboratively draft the two magazine stories. They practise checking authorship, publication date, evidence and corroboration, distinguishing evidence from unsupported claims, and recording source credits to respect intellectual property. They use shared documents responsibly, do not enter personal data, and select or create visuals with permission or clear reuse conditions. The teacher models safe and purposeful searching. Printed sources, paper grids and handwritten drafts remain available if a student needs an analogue route.
Session Rubric
| Criterion | Insuficiente | Suficiente | Bien | Notable | Sobresaliente |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source comparison, evidence and source credits (2.2) | Uses claims without checking sources, gives no usable source credits, or treats unsupported claims as established facts. | Checks at least one source but comparison is limited. Credits are incomplete and evidence is not consistently separated from claims. | Compares sources for basic reliability and relevance, identifies most supported claims, and provides usable credits with minor omissions. | Compares multiple sources using clear criteria, distinguishes evidence from uncertainty, and credits sources accurately. | Critically compares current and reliable sources, clearly flags unsupported or uncertain claims, and gives complete, accurate credits for all evidence used. |
| Geological explanation and landscape analysis (4.1, 6.3) | The drafts do not correctly identify the hazard or explain its geological origin, and landscape features are absent or inaccurate. | Identifies the hazard but gives a vague or partly inaccurate explanation, with limited links to landscape features. | Explains the basic geological origin and identifies relevant landscape features, with a generally clear link between them. | Accurately explains the process and uses landscape evidence to show how it relates to each event. | Gives a precise, coherent explanation for both events, linking geological processes, landscape features and the evidence used. |
| Consequences and prevention or sustainability reflection (5.2, 6.3) | Consequences are missing or unsupported, and no relevant prevention or sustainability reflection is offered. | Names a consequence or a possible action but gives little reasoning or connection to the event. | Describes relevant effects on people or the environment and gives a reasonable, briefly justified reflection. | Explains consequences with evidence and justifies a relevant prevention or sustainability response. | Analyses consequences for people and the environment and gives a well-supported, proportionate reflection connected to the landscape and event. |
| Scientific news drafts and communication (4.1) | One or both stories are missing or difficult to follow, and key scientific information is absent. | Both stories are started but have unclear structure or several missing required elements. | Both drafts communicate the main event and most required information in a readable structure. | Both drafts are clear and well organised, with accurate explanations, appropriate visuals or diagram plans, and all key elements. | Both drafts are compelling and precise scientific reports, integrating text, diagrams and evidence fluently while remaining accessible to readers. |
| Cooperation and contribution to the team product (3.5) | Does not complete an agreed contribution or prevents others from participating. | Completes part of an assigned task with frequent prompting and limited collaboration. | Completes an agreed role and contributes respectfully to the shared drafts. | Works reliably in the agreed role, listens to peers and helps the team meet its checkpoints. | Contributes consistently, supports inclusive participation and helps the team make considered decisions and improve both drafts. |
Session 3: Edit, publish and present the digital magazine
Duration: 55 minutes
Objectives
Revise both stories for scientific accuracy, evidence, clarity, accessibility and source attribution. Publish the team contribution to the class digital magazine and present it to classmates, reflecting on teamwork and the reliability of the information. Students contribute through editing, speaking, captions or visual design.
Assessment criteria
2.2, 3.5, 4.1, 5.2, 6.3
Opening Activities (~10 min)
10 minutes. Display the two team drafts or their latest layouts alongside the source records from Lessons 1 and 2. Ask students to silently identify one scientific claim, its supporting evidence, and its source. In pairs, they use a short editorial checklist: Is the geological hazard named accurately? Is its origin explained? Are consequences supported by evidence? Are sources credited? Can a reader understand the story and its visual elements? Invite a few pairs to share one strength and one item to check. State the lesson goal: improve both stories, publish the team’s contribution to the class digital magazine, and present it responsibly. Bloom: remember, understand, evaluate.
Development Activities (~35 min)
40 minutes. 1. Editorial accuracy check, 8 minutes. Teams reopen both stories, one about a recent event in Andalusia and one elsewhere in the world. Members use assigned or rotated roles, such as source checker, geology explainer, writer, and layout editor. They compare each central claim with the cited sources, distinguish reported evidence from unsupported claims, and mark any statement that needs correction, qualification, or removal. The teacher checks in briefly with each team. 2. Revision and accessibility, 12 minutes. Teams revise both stories so each identifies the hazard and geological origin, describes the affected landscape and consequences for people or the environment, cites sources, and includes a reasoned prevention or sustainability reflection. They check headings, paragraph length, readable contrast, image captions and alternative text, and whether visuals have suitable attribution. Claims that remain uncertain are clearly qualified rather than presented as facts. 3. Publish, 8 minutes. The layout editor uploads or places the two reviewed stories in the shared class digital magazine. The team checks that links work, credits are visible, text and images display correctly, and no personal data or unlicensed material is included. The teacher gives a final publication check before the contribution is made visible to the class. 4. Present and receive feedback, 12 minutes. Each team gives a concise presentation of both stories, sharing speaking, caption-reading, visual explanation, or other agreed contributions. Classmates respond with one evidence-based commendation and one question about reliability, geological explanation, consequences, or prevention. Teams note any final correction for the magazine. Bloom: apply, analyse, create.
Closing Activities (~10 min)
5 minutes. Individually, students complete an exit reflection: name one change that made a story more reliable or accessible, identify one source-checking action they used, and rate their contribution to teamwork. Teams submit the reflection with any final correction noted. The teacher previews that the published class magazine can be shared with another class or the school community if appropriate. Bloom: evaluate.
Resources
Team drafts and source records from Lessons 1 and 2, editorial checklist, classroom devices with internet access, shared class digital magazine or its editing space, projector or display for presentations, headphones or text-to-speech tools where useful, image and source attribution notes, peer-feedback slips, and individual exit reflections.
Attention to Diversity (UDL)
Representation: provide the checklist in concise written form and read it aloud, with key checks supported by icons or a visual model. Keep the source records, drafts, and publication checklist open together so students can compare claims without relying on memory. Action and expression: allow students to contribute through editing, source checking, speaking, reading captions, explaining a visual, or managing layout. Accept spoken, typed, or dictated exit reflections. Use templates for citations, captions, and alternative text. Engagement and executive-function support: divide the 40-minute work period into visible timed steps, display a now/next checklist, and give brief teacher check-ins. For the two students with ADHD, agree a specific role and short task, reduce competing browser tabs, provide a quiet working option when available, and permit a brief movement break between editing and presentation. For the two high-attaining students, offer optional extension tasks such as checking a disputed claim against an additional independent source, explaining uncertainty or limitations in the evidence, or improving the magazine’s accessibility without taking over peers’ roles. Maintain shared decision-making and rotate or distribute contributions fairly.
Digital Competence
Students use the shared digital magazine to edit, format, and publish their two evidence-based news stories. They verify source links and attribution, check image permissions or licensing, add captions and alternative text, use readable contrast and structure, and avoid including personal data. They communicate and collaborate responsibly in the shared workspace. The teacher supervises publication and checks that claims are supported before the stories are visible to the class.
Session Rubric
| Criterion | Insuficiente | Suficiente | Bien | Notable | Sobresaliente |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scientific accuracy, evidence and source reliability in both stories (2.2, 4.1) | Major scientific errors remain, claims are largely unsupported, or sources are missing or unusable. | The stories identify the events, but explanations or claims have limited evidence and source checking is incomplete. | Most key claims are supported and the geological explanations are generally accurate, with minor gaps in checking or qualification. | Both stories explain the hazards accurately, connect claims to appropriate evidence, and distinguish supported information from uncertainty with only small omissions. | Both stories are consistently accurate and carefully evidenced. Reliable sources are critically compared, uncertainty is handled precisely, and unsupported claims are excluded. |
| Completeness, clarity, accessibility and publication quality of the magazine contribution (2.2, 4.1) | The two stories are incomplete or difficult to follow, with absent source credits or serious readability and publication problems. | Both stories are present but several required elements, clear captions, source credits, or accessible design features are missing. | Both stories contain the main required information and are readable, with source credits and basic visual accessibility, though some improvements are needed. | Both stories are clear and well organised, with relevant visuals, captions, visible attribution, and mostly effective accessibility choices. | The two stories are polished, concise, accessible, and easy to navigate. Visuals and captions strengthen understanding, and attribution is complete and clear. |
| Cooperation and responsible contribution to the shared project (3.5) | The student makes little contribution, does not carry out an agreed role, or disrupts the team’s work. | The student completes a limited part of the role with frequent reminders and uneven respect for others’ contributions. | The student completes the agreed role, shares relevant ideas, and works respectfully with the team. | The student takes responsibility, supports fair participation, and responds constructively to feedback and shared decisions. | The student contributes reliably and inclusively, helps the team resolve editorial decisions respectfully, and enables others to participate fully. |
| Reflection on landscape, consequences and prevention or sustainability (5.2, 6.3) | The presentation or stories do not connect the landscape to the hazard or identify meaningful consequences or responses. | A consequence or prevention idea is mentioned, but the connection to the landscape or evidence is unclear. | The team describes relevant landscape features and consequences and gives a broadly reasoned prevention or sustainability reflection. | The team explains how landscape features relate to risk and supports a relevant prevention or sustainability reflection with evidence. | The team makes a clear, well-reasoned connection between landscape, geological risk, human or environmental consequences, and an evidence-based, sustainable response. |
| Presentation, communication and reflection on information reliability (2.2, 3.5) | The contribution is not presented clearly, or the team cannot identify how its information was checked. | The presentation communicates some basic information but has limited clarity, shared participation, or reflection on reliability. | The team presents the main findings understandably, shares contributions, and identifies at least one source-checking action. | The presentation is clear and well paced, uses the magazine visuals effectively, and explains how evidence and source reliability were considered. | The team communicates confidently and accessibly through shared roles, responds thoughtfully to questions, and gives a specific, critical reflection on evidence reliability and teamwork. |