Rubric

The following is an overview of how I will evaluate your archive project posts. These are not strict categories with point values, but rather a general idea of what I think is important in critical writing and for this specific project.

Context and Summary

A: Author provides thorough historical context, including where, when, and by whom the artifact was created. The contextual analysis also demonstrates appropriate research. Summaries are concise, emphasizing only the most important details. Content is engaging, and readers leave prepared to encounter subsequent analysis.
B: Author provides sufficient historical context, including where, when, and by whom the artifact was created. The contextual analysis demonstrates some research. Summaries are concise, emphasizing only the most important details. Content is engaging, and readers leave prepared to encounter subsequent analysis, although some questions may linger.
C: Author provides historical context, including where, when, and by whom the artifact was created. The contextual analysis demonstrates some research. Summaries are mostly concise, but could use further editing so as to emphasize only the most important details. Content is engaging, and readers leave prepared to encounter subsequent analysis, although many questions may linger.
D: Author provides insufficient historical context; information regarding where, when, and by whom the artifact was created is absent. The contextual analysis demonstrates little to no research. Summaries are short or too verbose, and could use further editing so as to emphasize only the most important details. Content is boring, and readers are confused before encountering subsequent analysis.
F: Author provides little to no historical context, and the contextual analysis demonstrates little to no research. Summaries are too short or too verbose, and lack clear purpose. Content is boring, and readers are confused before encountering subsequent analysis.

Analysis of Course Concept

A: Author provides several good reasons for why the chosen artifact belongs in the course’s digital archive. Reasons are well articulated, incorporating both evidence from the artifact and appropriate analysis. Analysis is also effectively organized.
B: Author provides several good reasons for why the chosen artifact belongs in the course’s digital archive. Reasons are mostly well articulated, although there may be certain problems in the logic. Author incorporates both evidence from the artifact and appropriate analysis. Analysis is also effectively organized.
C: Author provides some reasons for why the chosen artifact belongs in the course’s digital archive. Reasons are clear, although there may be certain problems in the logic. Author incorporates¬†evidence and analysis, but their purpose is unclear. Analysis is well organized for the most part.
D: Author provides few reasons for why the chosen artifact belongs in the course’s digital archive. Reasons are unclear and demonstrate many problems in logic. Author incorporates little evidence and analysis, and what is there merits a better organization.
F: Author provides few to no reasons for why the chosen artifact belongs in the course’s digital archive. Reasons are unclear and demonstrate many problems in logic. Author incorporates little to no evidence and analysis. Analysis shows little effort toward effective organization.

Analysis of Unit Concept

A: Author provides several good reasons for how the chosen artifact relates to the unit concept. Reasons are well articulated, incorporating both evidence from the artifact and appropriate analysis. Author effectively incorporates course readings or discussions. Analysis is also effectively organized.
B: Author provides several good reasons for how the chosen artifact relates to the unit concept. Reasons are mostly well articulated, although there may be problems in logic. Author incorporates both evidence from the artifact and appropriate analysis. Analysis is also effectively organized. Author effectively incorporates course readings or discussions.
C: Author provides some reasons for how the chosen artifact relates to the unit concept. Reasons are clear, although there may be problems in logic. Author incorporates evidence and analysis, but their purpose is unclear. Author incorporates course readings or discussions. Analysis is well organized for the most part.
D: Author provides few reasons for how the chosen artifact relates to the unit concept. Reasons are unclear and demonstrate many problems in logic. Author fails to incorporate course readings or discussions. Author incorporates little evidence and analysis, and what is there merits a better organization.
F: Author provides few to no reasons for how the chosen artifact relates to the unit concept. Reasons are unclear and demonstrate many problems in logic. Author fails to incorporate course readings or discussions. Author incorporates little to no evidence and analysis. Analysis shows little effort toward effective organization.

Substantial Contribution
A: The artifact is an interesting addition to the archive. It requires substantial engagement to analyze it effectively.
B: The artifact is an interesting addition to the archive. It requires substantial engagement to analyze it effectively, although less than an A contribution.
C: The artifact is an interesting–but maybe obvious–addition to the archive. It requires substantial engagement to analyze it effectively, although less than an A or B contribution.
D: The artifact is not an interesting–or maybe too obvious–addition to the archive. It requires little engagement to analyze it effectively.
F: The artifact is not an interesting addition to the archive. It requires little to no engagement to analyze it effectively.

Style and Organization
A: Post is clearly written and effectively organized. It is free of grammatical and mechanical errors, and the style is polished.
B: Post is clearly written and effectively organized. It is free of grammatical and mechanical errors, and the style is polished, although some minor flaws persist.
C: Post is clearly written and effectively organized. It is mostly free of grammatical and mechanical errors. Overall style is effective, but could merit more attention.
D: Post is vaguely written and ineffectively organized. It has many grammatical and mechanical errors. Overall style merits improvement.
F: Post is vaguely written and ineffectively organized. It shows no signs of proofreading.