fcp video rubric april 2010

8/9/2019 FCP Video Rubric April 2010

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fcp-video-rubric-april-2010 1/6

Flat Classroom™ Video Assessment Rubri

Student Name Project:

Video Number

Design and Technical QualityCriteria (5-6) (3-4) (1-2) 0

Effective Sufficient Limited

Points

Person AssessingVideo:

4Use of multimedia toolsto express ideas

The work does notmeet the standarddescribed in other levels

4Sound qualityand balance

betweenmusic/video and

voice-over (if any)

Clear; no or littledistortion of sound;easy to understand,adequate pace.Appropriate balanceis achieved betweenmusic/sound andvoice at all times

Mostly clear; may

have somedistortion of soundor pace may be toofast or too slowtherefore interferingwith understandingof narration.Music/sound or voice may be usedrather than both andgenerally a goodbalance is achieved

Difficult or impossible to hear or understand; useof audio may belimited andineffective


4SpecialEffects andTransitions

Special effects andtransitions are usedcreatively andspecifically toenhance the finalmessage

Special effects andtransitions enhancethe final message toa limited extent

Special effects andtransitions do notenhance or interferewith the finalmessage


4Clip EditingProcess

All or most videoclips and imageshave beeneffectively edited to

improve the impactof the artifact

Some video clipsand images havebeen edited whichhas improved the

impact of the artifactto a limited degree

Video clips andimages have beenpoorly edited and donot enhance theimpact of the artifact

The work does notmeet the standarddescribed in other

levels

4Length of video

minutes long;maintains interestand is anappropriate lengthfor the message

(no marks in thissection)


Under 1 minute or over 5 minutes



Synthesis of Design and Construction of Ideas

Criteria (5-6) (3-4) (1-2) 0

Excellent fit Adequate fit

Total points

4Fit withsubmission

theme

Limited fit. Videomay fit better with adifferent theme thanwhat it wassubmitted under


4Constructionof content

Systematicsynthesis of information is

clearly based ontopic research

Some synthesis of information based

on research onthe topic

Synthesis of information issuperficial and notclearly related to

research on thetopic

The work does notmeet the standard

described in other levels

4Organizationand presentation

of content

Content ispresented in a waythat is creative or tells a story thatmakes a point or teaches a lesson;well-craftedintroduction and aneffectively

structuredprogression of topics or story

Content ispresented in a waythat tries to becreative or tell astory; reasonablywell structuredprogression of

topics or storyincluding anintroduction

Presentation is poor and interferes withunderstanding of content and ispoorly organized;there may be an

introduction andsome attempt tostructure topics

The work does not

meet the standarddescribed in other levels

4Editing of content

Content is by andlarge free of spelling/grammatical errors andtechnical glitches

Content maycontain minor spelling/grammatical errorsand/or anoccasional minor technical glitch

Content containsmany spelling/grammatical errorsand/or a number of technical glitches


4Evidence of collaboration

v eo; ou sourcevideo is included,

source is creditedand the use of itmay or may not beseamless


v eo s nc u e ,source is NOT

obviously creditedand the use of itmay or may not beseamless

The work does not

meet the standarddescribed in other levels

4Credit topeople andsources of information

Full and correctcredit given to allpeople and sources;Creative Commonsdesignationspecified

Credit given topeople and sources;Creative Commonsmay or may not beshared; minor errorsmay occur

Credit given topeople and sourcesis incomplete or haslots of obviouserrors; CreativeCommons probablynot evident




Revised: April 2010

Out of 100

We acknowledge the tireless dedication to excellence as shown by volunteers Steve Madsenand Mark van ‘t Hooft in this process.

SCORE



6

6

6

6

6

30 0

possible points

Points for this video



6

6

6

6

6

6

36 0

Possible points

Points for this video



66 00%

pointspossible

points for this video

fcp video rubric april 2010

Documents