Grade Rubric

Media objects are consistently interesting or thought-provoking. 

Media objects are mostly interesting or thought-provoking.

Media objects have a clear argument or idea and are occasionally interesting or thought-provoking.

Media objects may lack a clear idea or focus.

One or more media objects is off-topic or so unclear as to be unintelligible.

Media objects are consistently daring or interesting on the formal level and utilize the unique affordances of each medium. The form enhances the meaning and is designed to appeal to the intended audience.

Media objects are well-composed and mostly utilize the unique affordances of each medium. For the most part the design appeals to the intended audience.

The form of each media object supports effective communication and attempts to use the unique affordances of each medium. Additionally, each media object indicates an awareness of the audience.

One or more media objects may be unclear, the form disconnected from meaning, or exhibit confusion about the audience.

One or more media objects fails to communicate, is off-topic, formally obscures meaning, or ignores the audience.

Data informs the media object and is presented in a way that responsibly enhances a story or makes a compelling argument.

Data informs the media object and is presented responsibly as part of the story or argument.

Data is well-selected and is not presented in a way that would be misleading.

The influence of the data may not be clear or the data may be confusingly presented.

Data is misleading or missing from the media object.

First versions are polished. Feedback for peers is consistently concrete and constructive. The student's revisions make extensive improvements to their own work and revisions are explained in the portfolio.

First versions are polished. Feedback for peers is mostly concrete and constructive. The student's revisions show substantial effort and generally improve their work and revisions are explained in the portfolio.

First versions are mostly polished. Feedback for peers makes a substantial effort to give concrete and constructive feedback. The student's revisions show substantial effort and revisions are explained in the portfolio.

First versions may be insubstantial or in draft form. Feedback for peers or revision of one's own work may lack substance and revisions are explained in the portfolio.

First versions are never completed. The student may give unhelpful feedback or fail to revise their own work. The student may not explain their revisions in the portfolio.

The paper utilizes class readings and the experience of creating the portfolio to make a thought-provoking argument about data storytelling. The paper is consistently well-written.

The paper includes class readings and the experience of the creating the portfolio to make an argument about data storytelling. The paper is mostly well-written.

The paper may waver in incorporating course readings but attempts to address the “so what” of data storytelling. The paper is mostly well-written.

The paper may  not yet have addressed the bigger picture of the class, or may waver in terms of the writing.

The paper is off topic or neglects to address the wider context of the portfolio.