Sample Rubrics for Assignments

Sample Rubrics for Introduction to Digital Arts and Humanities

Assignments

Missing: no assignment done within the time allotted.

Unsatisfactory: some writing provided, but does not address the prompt or provide any reflection on the prompt, perhaps below the word limit. The author does not, in turn, complete the data portion of the assignment, or does so insufficiently. The data are not provided for download and are perhaps not well structured. Insufficient engagement with the concepts. Does not include sufficient visuals or they are uncaptioned. The assignments are difficult to find on your site.

Satisfactory: sufficient length of writing and the assignment addresses the prompt reflectively. The data are sufficiently created, presented and structured, but perhaps with flaws. The data are provided for download. The discussion of the assignment is good, but does not provide much critical reflection on the results and/or the process. Has captioned visuals, but are perhaps not well linked to the writing or unclear. The assignments are on your site, but are not in an easy to find order.

Excellent: The assignment is reflective, critical and well argued. The data are well described and well structured, and are available for easy download. The text of the assignment engages with the overall themes of the course, provides more than sufficient critical engagement. The visuals are well made, clearly captioned, providing strong evidence for the claims made in the writing. The assignments are on your site, and are listed in order as sub-pages (child pages) to a tab for “assignments”.

DLN Revision

Missing:

• Content and Engagement: No revisions or updates made from the initial submission. The narrative does not reflect any changes or development in understanding of digital literacies.
• Presentation and Documentation: No new additions, links, or citations related to course materials. No evidence of revision activity such as commits or change logs provided.

Unsatisfactory:

• Content and Engagement: Minimal revisions made which do not significantly alter or improve the narrative. The text remains largely unchanged from the original, with few or no new insights or reflections on digital literacies. Below the word count requirement.
• Presentation and Documentation: Few or irrelevant links and citations to course materials. The narrative is difficult to locate or access on the site.

Satisfactory:

• Content and Engagement: Adequate revisions that include some new insights and reflections on digital literacies. The narrative meets the word count and incorporates new learning from the course, though it may lack depth or critical engagement with the materials. Claims are generally clear but may lack full development or support.
• Presentation and Documentation: Relevant links and citations to course materials are included, though they may not be optimally integrated or utilized. Visuals are used and captioned, but may not fully support or enhance the narrative. Documentation of revisions is present but could be clearer or more detailed. The narrative is accessible on the site but may not be easy to navigate to.

Excellent:

• Content and Engagement: Comprehensive and thoughtful revisions that significantly develop the narrative. The text is reflective, critical, and well-argued, showing a deepened understanding of digital literacies. The narrative not only meets but may exceed the word count requirements, incorporating a range of insights and examples from course materials and external sources. Claims are clearly stated, well-supported, and relevant.
• Presentation and Documentation: Effective use of links and citations to course materials, which are well-integrated and enhance the narrative’s arguments. Visuals are high-quality, clearly captioned, and directly relevant, providing strong support for the narrative’s claims. Comprehensive documentation of revisions, including detailed commit logs, change screenshots, and reflective commentary on the revision process. The narrative is prominently and logically organized on the site, easy to find and navigate.

“Unproject”

Missing:

• Project Components: No project focus, data, methods, objectives, values and ethics, resources, or workplan defined.
• Slidedeck and Visuals: No visuals or presentation elements provided. The presentation is not shared.

Unsatisfactory:

• Project Components: The project focus is vague, lacking specific aspects. Data are mentioned but lack details on sourcing, collection, or organization, and ethical issues are ignored. Methods are mentioned but lack detail or relevance to the project’s goals. Objectives are vague and not well aligned with the project scope. Minimal or no engagement with ethical considerations. Resources and tools are mentioned but not detailed or justified.
• Slidedeck and Visuals: Visuals are present but lack captions or relevance. The presentation structure is poor, or the assignment difficult to find or understand. There is no disclaimer about the use of generative AI, or it is vague.

Satisfactory:

• Project Components: Clear project focus with some specific aspects defined, but could be more detailed. Data are sufficiently described including sourcing and organization, with some consideration of ethical issues, though minor flaws may exist. Adequate description of methods that relate to the project’s goals, but integration could be improved. Clear objectives with a basic outline of expected outcomes. Some discussion of values and ethics guiding the project but lacks depth. Adequate detailing of resources and technologies with some justification of choices. Workplan has clear steps but may lack detail in phases or dissemination strategies.
• Slidedeck and Visuals: Visuals are relevant with captions, though integration could be improved. Presentation is structured but could be more engaging. Visuals are not well linked to the writing or may be unclear. There is a disclaimer about the use of generative AI, but it could be clearer how it was used.

Excellent:

• Project Components: Well-defined and detailed project focus with specific aspects thoroughly explored. Comprehensive description of data handling, including detailed sourcing, collection, digitization, and organization with thorough ethical considerations. Detailed and relevant methods and techniques clearly aligned with project objectives, including innovative approaches. Clearly articulated and detailed objectives with strong alignment to the project scope and well-formulated hypotheses. Comprehensive consideration of ethical issues and values, deeply integrated into the project planning. Thoroughly detailed and justified resources and technologies essential for the project, including innovative use of tools and clear roles for participants. Detailed and practical workplan with clear phases and a comprehensive dissemination strategy with innovative participation plans.
• Presentation and Visuals: High-quality, relevant visuals with clear, informative captions enhancing the project narrative. The presentation is well-structured, engaging, and enhances understanding and appreciation of the project content. There is a clear disclaimer about the use of generative AI, and exactly how it was used.

Disclaimer: the DLN revision and unproject rubrics were generated using GPT4, using the prompts and examples of my previous rubrics, and then edited for clarity.