Evaluation
|
Not Acceptable 1 |
Acceptable 2 |
Commendable 3 |
Distinquished 4 |
Score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Written Product
| Inadequate or missing job descriptions. Inadequate or missing information. Incoherent, unorganized. | Good job descriptions. Limited information. Fairly organized though somtimes difficult to follow. | Effective job descriptions. Accurate and nearly complete information. Organized and not hard to follow. | Well developed job descriptions. Accurate and complete information. Organized and easy to follow | |
|
Video Product
| No technical quality. Interviewees of one type and lacking credibility. Very limited information. | Adequate technical quality. Similar types of interviewees which may or may not be credible. Limited information. | Thorough technical quality. Some variety of interviewees that are generally credible. Complete information. | Exceptional technical quality. Wide variety of credible interviewees. Current, complete and extensive information. | |
|
Design
| No evidence of style. Demonstrates little or no awareness of audience. Illogically written. | Predictable "textbook" style. Some awareness of the audience. Logically written. | Conventional style. Style may be appropriate to the topic and audience. Coherently writen. | Distinctive or unique style. Style is appropriate to the topic and audience. Clearly and articulately written. | |
|
Research
| Roles missing. Job descriptions incorrect. Frequent and distracting errors in usage. |
Limited use of identified roles. Job descriptions limited. Some errors in usage. |
Appropriate amount of idenfified roles. Job descriptions adequate. Correct usage. | Extensive and effective identification of roles. Job descriptions complete. Complex usage. |