Monday, December 1, 2008

Developing criteria for assessing your final project

Assessing new literacy practices is something that has not received much attention in the published literature on new literacies. We will use your own final project--a movie and two companion papers--as practice in developing relevant assessment criteria for a complex project. Below is a list of possible assessment criteria--much of it still very broad and general. Use the comments function to add to this list, to critique my suggestions and refine them more, and so on. The final set of criteria developed here will be used to evaluate your respective final projects.

(a) Digital video relates to your identity in some conceptual way. This is much more than simply stringing together a series of pictures of things that you like.
(b) Movie artifact includes multiple edits (e.g., multiple clips stitched together, appropriate added effects, careful synchronization between moving images and music as relevant/appropriate)
(c) Digital video effectively acts as a stand-alone narrative that is readily interpreted by viewers
(d) Movie artifact meets widely-accepted general technical evaluation criteria for amateur movie-making at the hobbyist level (e.g., “The French Democracy” at is a good benchmark for machinima; Konoha Memory Book available via is a good benchmark for AMV)
(e) The one-page synopsis of your digital video explicitly identifies how this video pertains to some aspect your identity. This text is an academic text and is highly likely to need a bibliography.
(f) The 2-3 page discussion and analysis of the extent to which your digital video meets (or doesn’t meet, or goes well beyond) key indicators for a chosen grade level in the writing and viewing/media literacy dimension of the NJ Language Arts Literacy Core Curriculum Standards (or other set of relevant standards) is included.


Laurence said...

Shouldn't the rubric put a bit more weight on the technical aspect, since we were encouraged to learn something new and challenge ourselves?
Although, the viewer wouldn't know what was a challenge on any written assignment except in the journal.
Just a thought.

Jessica Cavaleri said...

I agree. Should we be looking at how much of our movie is still images vs. video?

Colin and/or Michele said...

Good--now be bold and just state the criteria you want included. If no-one disagrees with you, then it's in! :D

Christy said...

I've tried to figure out something to add, but I re-read the syllabus and the NJ Standards, and I believe that the evaluation model as it is stated, along with the input of Laurence and Jessica, is a fair method for this project. It covers everything that we were asked to do and emphasizes what we should have spent the majority of our time doing.

Lindsay Zweibel said...

With the one page synopsis, how many sources are required as this is an academic paper.

Phylissa said...

Sorry I did not reply yet, but I am going ASAP

Anonymous said...


so the two-three page paper are "not" related to the video just the one page synopsis???

The synopsis relates to the video and 2-3 pager relates to expectations???

Laurence said...

As far as wording for the rubric, would it be something like:
Technological challenges are documented on more than 3 occasions in the journal. Journaling clearly demonstrates the author's thought process as learning of the new technology progresses. Technical challenges include: new learning or new findings on existing technical knowledge.
Just a thought.

Lindsay Zweibel said...

To follow up on Laurences comment, I think the technical aspect is extremely important to the evaluation of this project. We were asked to take risks in producing the video and it should show with the effects and transitions we used. I am sure that others will go above and beyond with their technical elements and this should be focused on. The opportunity for this should be showcased in the project and should be evaluated accordingly.