# Grading & Rubrics --- ## Point distribution | Component | Milestone | Points | |:--|:--|--:| | **Attendance & participation** | Weekly consultation | 10 | | **Project 1 — Deconstruction** | Research | 10 | | | First draft | 10 | | | Final render | 10 | | | *subtotal* | *30* | | **Project 2 — Technique Tutorial** | Thumbnails | 10 | | | Written (video) tutorial | 10 | | | Final render | 10 | | | *subtotal* | *30* | | **Project 3 — Original Work** | Thumbnails | 10 | | | First draft | 10 | | | Final render | 10 | | | *subtotal* | *30* | | | **Total** | **100** | | **Extra credit** | Career Audit & Portfolio Review | 5 | | | **Grand total possible** | **105** | **Grade scale:** A ≥ 90 · B ≥ 80 · C ≥ 70 · D ≥ 60 · F < 60 --- ## Due date calendar | Due | Week | Date | Points | |:--|:--|:--|--:| | P1 Research | 2 | Tue, Sep 1 | 10 | | Career Audit & Portfolio Review *(EC)* | 3 | Tue, Sep 8 | 5 | | P1 First Draft | 4 | Tue, Sep 15 | 10 | | P1 Final Render | 6 | Tue, Sep 29 | 10 | | P2 Thumbnails | 7 | Tue, Oct 6 | 10 | | P2 Tutorial | 10 | Tue, Oct 27 | 10 | | P2 Final Render | 11 | Tue, Nov 3 | 10 | | P3 Thumbnails | 12 | Tue, Nov 10 | 10 | | P3 First Draft | 14 | Tue, Nov 24 | 10 | | P3 Final Render | 16 | Tue, Dec 8 | 10 | All milestones are due in Canvas **by the start of class, 9:00 AM.** --- ## Attendance & participation rubric (10 points) | Points | Standard | |:--|:--| | 10 | Attended every meeting. Arrived every week with completed work to present. Engaged substantively in critique of both their own and their peer's work. Consistently acted on prior direction. | | 8–9 | One absence with advance notice and submitted progress. Otherwise consistently prepared and engaged. | | 6–7 | Two absences, or a pattern of arriving with little to show. Participation in peer critique limited. | | 4–5 | Three absences, or repeated failure to act on direction. | | 0–3 | Four or more absences, or chronic unpreparedness. | Arriving without work to present is the functional equivalent of an absence — the consultation cannot do its job. --- ## Universal milestone rubric Applied to every 10-point milestone, weighted according to the milestone's stage. ### Completeness — 3 points Everything the assignment asked for is present and delivered in an openable, viewable, playable form. | 3 | Every deliverable present, correctly formatted, ready to review | | 2 | Minor omissions or format problems | | 1 | Significant components missing | | 0 | Largely absent, or files cannot be opened | ### Execution quality — 3 points Craft, measured against professional standards in the student's discipline and against their own demonstrated ceiling. | 3 | Meets or approaches a professional bar; clean and controlled | | 2 | Competent with visible rough areas | | 1 | Substantial technical or aesthetic problems unaddressed | | 0 | Below the standard expected at this level | ### Response to direction — 2 points Evidence that the previous consultation's notes were acted on. | 2 | Prior notes clearly addressed; where a note was rejected, the reasoning is articulated | | 1 | Some notes addressed, others ignored without comment | | 0 | No evidence of response | ### Documentation & professionalism — 2 points Written material, file management, naming, and delivery. | 2 | Clear writing, organized files, correct naming, proper attribution, clean presentation | | 1 | Adequate but careless in places | | 0 | Disorganized, unattributed, or unreadable | --- ## Stage weighting The same rubric, but different emphasis by milestone type: **Research / Thumbnails milestones** weight *completeness* and *documentation* most heavily. At this stage the instructor is assessing thinking, planning, breadth of exploration, and honesty about gaps — not polish. **First draft / Tutorial milestones** weight *completeness* and *response to direction* most heavily. The question is whether the whole thing exists and whether last week's critique landed. **Final render milestones** weight *execution quality* and *documentation* most heavily. Here the standard is professional finish and portfolio readiness. --- ## What raises a grade - The whole piece present at a rough standard, early, rather than one section polished - Notes from the previous week visibly addressed - Honest assessment of your own weaknesses in written reflections - Scope adjusted proactively when it became clear the original plan was too large - Documentation and breakdown material captured during production rather than reconstructed after - Work published somewhere a recruiter could find it - Substantive engagement in your classmate's critique ## What lowers a grade - Arriving at consultation with nothing to show - The same note appearing in critique three weeks running - Files that will not open, links that are not shared, builds that will not launch - Missing or vague attribution on Project 1 or on tutorial sources - Undisclosed use of generative AI - Backloading — nothing exists until the week before the deadline - Written reflections that describe what you did without evaluating it --- ## Revision policy Every milestone except final renders may be revised once after critique, within one week, for regrade. This is deliberate: the course is built on iteration, and a milestone grade should reflect what you can do after receiving direction rather than before. Final renders are not revisable — they are the point at which the work is assessed as delivered. --- ## Grade conversion reference | Letter | Points | | |:--|:--|:--| | A | 90–105 | Professional-standard work; portfolio-ready by semester's end | | B | 80–89 | Solid work with visible growth; some milestones under-delivered | | C | 70–79 | Requirements met at a basic level; limited growth | | D | 60–69 | Significant milestones missing or substantially under-delivered | | F | Below 60 | Course requirements not met |