Grading Rubric: Final Project

  1. Annotated Bibliography
  10 8.5 7.5 6
How well did the group conduct research and document findings about sites of intervention, performance tactics, and the target social issue? Were the sources relevant and credible?

Were the bibliography and citations formatted correctly using APA or MLA format?

How well was the critical summary executed?

Were sources analyzed in relation to project effectively?

 

 Excellent in all areas. Relevant and appropriate sources selected. Bibliography and citations are formatted properly. Research is analyzed effectively in relation to project and other sources Very good demonstration of research ability. Some minor gaps in research and / or minor issues with bibliography formatting. Analysis is good. Average demonstration of research ability. Some sources are not appropriate or a good fit for the project. Sources are findable but there are issues with citation formatting and analysis lacks depth. Poor in all areas.

 

  1. SPACE AND PERFORMANCE
         
How well did the site of intervention support the performance, in terms of appropriate audience, choreography, sound, and use of space? Did the group use tactics to encourage audience engagement? Did costumes and props work to help communicate the intended message? Was there a clear role for each participant? How well was information from research integrated into performance and media? Excellent. Creative use of space and performance materials. All group members engaged. Relationship between performance, space, and issue were clear. Strong engagement with audience and effective use of media and props. Research was effectively integrated. Very good use of space and performance materials. Roles for group members are well defined. The choice of performance space is logical. Engagement with audience is good. Average creativity. Choice and use of performance space is decent, but uninspired.  Roles for group members are well defined but contributions are uneven. Minimal engagement with audience. Poor in all areas.

 

3.Documentation

         
How well did the group summarize their experience and analyze the effects of their intervention, particularly by engaging concepts from the course readings and seminars?

How effectively did the group document the event with audio, video, podcast, and/or text? How effectively was that material organized on OpenLab, presentation slides, social media, etc.?

 Excellent. Students expertly used concepts discussed in class to reflect on their experience and evaluate the impact of their performance. Students consider audience reactions and potential social outcomes. Documentation was complete and appropriate to the performance. Site was well organized and designed. Very good. Students incorporated concepts from the course in their self-reflection. Impact on audience is considered on a basic level. Connections made between performance actions and potential benefits to society.

Very good. Documentation was appropriate and complete. Information on the site was discoverable.

 Average. Minimal use of concepts from the course. Average level of self-reflection. Cursory examination of audience impact. Average. Documentation method was not a great fit for the project or elements were missing. Site design and organization could be improved. Poor in all areas.

 

4.In Class Presentation

         
How well did group reflection on the different stages of development, performance, and documentation? Discuss decisions about place, media making, performance design. Were successes and shortcomings of the performance addressed? Why were certain aspects successful and why did certain aspects fall short of expectations? What might you have done differently if you could do it again? Excellent. Reflections on planning, media making, and performance are carefully considered and honest. The group is able to explain each stage of the process and how obstacles were overcome and improvements made. Group is able to describe clearly and creatively how things could be done differently in the future. Very good. Reflections on performance and planning are thorough, if not deeply insightful. The group is able to describe the overall process well and explain how things improvements made. Group is able to describe how improvements could be made. Average. Not all of the areas of the process and performance are described. An analysis of strengths and weaknesses is present, but it is shallow. Minimal effort in describing improvements. Poor in all areas.