Aspect
|
Developing (1-2)
|
Satisfactory (3)
|
Substantial (4)
|
Excellent (5)
|
|
Mandatory Content (3)
|
Missing two or more of the essential elements: title slide, and attribution slide
|
Title slide and attribution slide included
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
|
Content (5)
|
Includes very few facts, pictures or other content that supports your story
|
Some content that supports your story
|
A great deal of content that supports your story
|
High level of content that supports your story
|
|
Sound (5)
|
Poor use of sound or no sound used
|
Some use of sound, but poor quality, audience has trouble understanding as a result
|
Sound and music is used to convey message, audio is clear
|
Excellent use of sound and music to reinforce message
|
|
Organisation (5)
|
Sequence of ideas / information lacked logic and cohesion
|
Some logical sequence of information
|
A good logical sequence of information
|
Sequence of ideas is logical and intuitive and supports the story
|
|
Originality (5)
|
Rehash of other's ideas, images. Lack of evidence of creativity / new thought
|
Some evidence of original thought and content
|
The product shows evidence of originality and inventiveness
|
Shows complete originality and inventiveness. Majority of content and many of the ideas are fresh and original.
|
|
Graphical Design (5)
|
Exaggerated emphasis upon special effects or very few, if any, special effects, which weakens your story and presents an unprofessional final product
|
Some emphasis upon special effects, which supports your story and produces a satisfactory final product
|
Design elements and content combine effectively to help tell your story well
|
Very good use of graphical design elements combined with appropriate text helps to communicate the full meaning of the story.
|
|
Impact on Audience (5)
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
Your final product caused some meaningful emotion or thought in the audience
|
Your final product caused a great deal of emotion or thought in the audience
|
Comments (6)
Lynne Crowe said
at 10:22 pm on Aug 21, 2007
Jason, if you don't like my ideas I won't be offended if you delete them. I tried some brainstorming about heading etc for the rubric with my students this afternoon.
Jason Hando said
at 3:13 am on Aug 26, 2007
No, I do like your ideas. Today I am adding some more detail to the concept of "essential/quality" content after having a discussion with Chris. Let's keep refining this sucker until we can use it as a final version!
Jason Hando said
at 3:17 am on Aug 26, 2007
Today I also made the statements in each cell of the rubric more consistent by phrasing them in the same way, eg. "Your content does this..."
Jason Hando said
at 3:22 am on Aug 26, 2007
I also took away the "duration" row in the rubric after discussing with Chris that it is a non-negotiable, ie. student's must follow the time range of 1:45-2:30 in order to have their work submitted and graded, therefore it is a mandatory element that cannot be marked. We will show some grace in terms of +/- 10 seconds or so.
Jason Hando said
at 3:37 am on Aug 26, 2007
OK, I think I have done what I can contribute to this rubric. Feel free to jump in should you have some inspirational thoughts. My thinking in the last criteria is kind of like a bonus mark for stirring the markers (as audience) emotionally or intellectually, which I think is either there or it isn't, hence only two upper standards (substantial & excellent).
Julie Lindsay said
at 12:36 pm on Sep 30, 2007
I have rewritten Grahical Design for 5 marks......It did not seem clear to me with the addition of audio as well. Please step in and dispute this.....I am just going with a gut feeling here.
You don't have permission to comment on this page.