Synthesis of Film Reviews Rubric
Synthesis of Film Reviews Rubric
|
Attributes |
Not Acceptable | Emerging | Developing | Proficient |
| Variety & appropriateness of film reviews selected | Reviews selected did not represent a reasonable variety. Criteria for selection not mentioned. | Criteria for selection were superficial. Choices weak. | Choices logical. Only partially or superficially explained criteria in terms of perspective, purpose, tone or discipline. | Excellent choices. Fully articulated criteria in terms of perspective, purpose, tone or discipline. |
| Identifying key concepts in sources, film reviews and film | Does not discuss key ideas or concepts in film review sources. | Attempts to identify main points or ideas in at least one film review source and film. | Discusses at least one idea (may not be key) in both film review sources and film. | Clearly discusses key ideas in both film reviews and film, including nuances. |
| Identifying and describing interrelationships among key concepts in film reviews and film | Does not identify interrelationships among key concepts in film reviews or film. | Identifies one or more interrelationships among key concepts in at least one film review and film. | Identifies two or more interrelationships among key concepts and combines them into new or fresh statements, but fails to fully develop or explain interrelationships. | Identifies two or more interrelationships among key concepts and combines them into new rich statements, drawing interesting conclusions with supporting evidence. |
| Relating own experiences of the film to the published film reviews | Does not refer to own experience with film at all. | Incorporates some acknowledgment of own experience with film but not in a substantive way. | Makes a good attempt to integrate own experience in a substantive way. | Own experience with the film clearly informs the discussion. |
| Organizing synthesis argument logically into coherent paper | Reader cannot follow. Paper is not coherent or logically organized. | Evidence of overall plan, but lacks either clear transitions or coherence. | Clear overall plan but some problems with either coherence or transitions. | Coherent argument, logically organized with clear smooth transitions. |
| Support of main thesis/ controlling ideas | Fails to support thesis/ideas with details, examples, analysis or generalization. | Limited, inconsistent or very weak support of thesis/ideas. | Adequate support of thesis/ideas with details, examples, analysis or generalization. | Thoughtfully supports thesis/ideas with details, examples, analysis or generalization. |
| Title | Title is simply an obvious restatement of the assignment, inappropriate to topic or missing. | Title is vague, fails to capture the theme of the paper, or doesn’t match the content well. | Title adequately reflects the content, theme, viewpoint of the paper. | The essay has an interesting, original title that supports the style and viewpoint of the writer. |
| Prose and style | Serious problems with clarity, diction, vocabulary, syntax and/or mechanics. | Some problems with clarity, diction, syntax and/or mechanics. | Control of syntax and diction but lacking in precision and variety. | Precision and variety of diction and syntax. |
|
Effective academic voice |
Voice is inappropriate or inconsistent, too formal or informal; often overly vague or preachy. | Voice sounds like a “skool” essay, written to fulfill an assignment, proficient and fluent but not engaged or unique. May sound canned, arrogant or close-minded. | Voice is a good attempt at being fair and open-minded, ethically-aware, questioning, intellectually hard-working, engaged. | Voice is curious, fair and open-minded, ethically-aware, questioning, intellectually hard-working, engaged. |
| Integrating sources | No evidence or misuse of quotation, paraphrase and/or summary to support main argument. | Problems with using quotation, paraphrase and/or summary to support main argument. | Demonstrates competence in using quotation, paraphrase and summary. | Makes sophisticated use of quotation, paraphrase and summary to support main arguments. |
| Citing sources in proper style. | Source list incomplete, errors are major and numerous. | All sources cited but there are numerous and major errors. | All sources cited but there are numerous minor errors. | Source list is complete and only minor errors. |
Jill Goodman-Gould, Gail Gradowski September 2012
Information literacy learning outcomes associated with this assignment: 1.1 f; 1.2. a, b, d; 1.4 b; 3.1 a, c; 3.2 a, b, c,d; 3.3 a; 3.4 b, c, f; 4.1 a, c; 5.3 a (http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency.cfm)