Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 124 views

    Episode Commentary Rubric

    Uploaded by

    Dalyn Luedtke
    The document provides a rubric for evaluating student commentary on television episodes. It assesses analysis and content, structure and organization, rhetoric and timeliness, audience awareness, voice and delivery, and technology and group work. Key criteria include a clear and detailed analysis, strong supporting information, logical organization, evidence of research, respect for the audience, excellent presentation skills, and equal participation from group members. Lower grades are given for weak, unclear, or absent analysis, poor organization, lack of research, disregard for the audience, weak presentation, and uneven work distribution among groups.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Episode Commentary Rubric

    Uploaded by

    Dalyn Luedtke
    124 views2 pages
    The document provides a rubric for evaluating student commentary on television episodes. It assesses analysis and content, structure and organization, rhetoric and timeliness, audience awareness, voice and delivery, and technology and group work. Key criteria include a clear and detailed analysis, strong supporting information, logical organization, evidence of research, respect for the audience, excellent presentation skills, and equal participation from group members. Lower grades are given for weak, unclear, or absent analysis, poor organization, lack of research, disregard for the audience, weak presentation, and uneven work distribution among groups.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document provides a rubric for evaluating student commentary on television episodes. It assesses analysis and content, structure and organization, rhetoric and timeliness, audience awareness, voice and delivery, and technology and group work. Key criteria include a clear and detailed analysis, strong supporting information, logical organization, evidence of research, respect for the audience, excellent presentation skills, and equal participation from group members. Lower grades are given for weak, unclear, or absent analysis, poor organization, lack of research, disregard for the audience, weak presentation, and uneven work distribution among groups.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    124 views2 pages

    Episode Commentary Rubric

    Uploaded by

    Dalyn Luedtke
    The document provides a rubric for evaluating student commentary on television episodes. It assesses analysis and content, structure and organization, rhetoric and timeliness, audience awareness, voice and delivery, and technology and group work. Key criteria include a clear and detailed analysis, strong supporting information, logical organization, evidence of research, respect for the audience, excellent presentation skills, and equal participation from group members. Lower grades are given for weak, unclear, or absent analysis, poor organization, lack of research, disregard for the audience, weak presentation, and uneven work distribution among groups.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    WRTG 3020Episode Commentary

    Rubric Criteria Analysis and Content, Support for Claims A Clear, detailed, analysis; Follows assignment guidelines; Strong and relevant information that helps to support the analysis; Adds new perspective to program B Clear analysis; Follows assignment guidelines; Some relevant information that helps to support the analysis; Adds some new ideas about program C Analysis is weak or unclear; Lacks agenda; Follows assignment guidelines; Some information helps to support the analysis; Reiterates common perceptions with slightly new emphases Beg./mid./end may be unclear; Uninteresting or ineffective approach to genre; Use of transitions between topics/speakers inconsistent or unclear; Information not organized well for viewer; Topics seem unconnected Unclear where information is coming from; Little evidence of research; timely but not framed to reinforce relevance; Lack of variety in rhetorical strategies Little evidence of audience awareness or ability to address them D No Analysis; Does not follow assignment; Reiterates common/cliche ideas about program; Focuses exclusively on facts/background

    Structure and Organization

    Clear beg./mid./end; Creative, accurate, and engaging approach to genre; Excellent interaction with program, transitions between topics/speakers; Information organized effectively for genre Evidence of research and extensive knowledge of topic; Clear relevance; Effective and varied use of strategies

    Clear beg./mid./end; Strong approach; Sufficient interaction with program, transitions between topics/speakers; Information organized well; Evidence of conscious organization

    Illogical organization with no clear beg./mid./ end; Does not make use of transitions between topics/speakers; No interaction; Long, meandering monologues

    Rhetoric, Ethos, and Timeliness

    Some research; Evident knowledge of topic; Clear relevance; Effective use of strategies

    No attempt to establish ethos and connect argument to broader conversation; No evidence of research; Overreliance on one type of rhetorical strategy No audience awareness and no attempt to address them

    Audience Awareness

    Respects audiences knowledge; Clear evidence of thoughtful analysis reporting based on audience

    Respects audiences knowledge; Evidence of thoughtful analysis/reporting based on audience

    WRTG 3020Episode Commentary


    Voice, Style, and Delivery Excellent overall sense of voice and style; Excellent word choice and use of details; Strong variation between speakers creating flow; Great interaction; Tone, enunciation and projection show clear enthusiasm and confidence Effective formatting for visual appeal and viewing; Rhetorical use of video/audio; Very few or no errors that do not interfere with comprehension; Even distribution of work/ participation Good overall sense of voice and style; Good word choice and use of details; Some variation between speakers creating flow; Good interaction; Tone, enunciation, and projection reflect confidence Moderate sense of voice, but perhaps not distinctive; Weak or redundant word choice and moderate detail; Some variation between speakers creating flow; Some interaction; Tone, enunciation, and projection need significant work Effective formatting for visual appeal and viewing; Several errors that do not interfere with comprehension and some errors that DO hinder comprehension; 1-2 people did most of the work Does not have a sense of voice or style; Poor word choice without attention to detail; Poor variation between sentences with no sense of flow; No interaction; Tone is dull; Enunciation and delivery obscure content Distracting formatting; Many errors that do not interfere with comprehension and several errors that DO hinder comprehension; 1 person carried the group/did not work well together

    Technology and Group Work

    Effective formatting for visual appeal and viewing; Rhetorical use of video/audio; Some repeating errors that do not interfere with comprehension; Even distribution of work/ participation

    You might also like