Callout
10–9: Excellent8–7: Good6–5: Satisfactory4–1: Needs Improvement
Excellent (10–9): Highly original, compelling, and well-developed concept with a strong artistic vision.
Good (8–7): Creative and clear with some originality and thoughtful development.
Satisfactory (6–5): Concept shows effort but is limited in originality, depth, or focus.
Needs Improvement (4–1): Underdeveloped or derivative concept; lacks clarity or creativity.
Score: ________
Excellent (10–9): Flawless, polished execution with professional tool use and craftsmanship.
Good (8–7): Competently executed with minor flaws; tools used effectively.
Satisfactory (6–5): Basic technical proficiency; issues are noticeable but not project-breaking.
Needs Improvement (4–1): Major technical flaws; weak or inconsistent tool use.
Excellent (10–9): Planning materials are thorough, clear, aligned with the final work, and professionally presented.
Good (8–7): Mostly complete documentation that supports execution.
Satisfactory (6–5): Inconsistent or partial documentation; limited impact on project development.
Needs Improvement (4–1): Planning is missing, unclear, or insufficient for production support.
Excellent (10–9): Seamless integration of genre(s) and medium that enhances creative intent.
Good (8–7): Coherent use of medium and genre; contributes well to overall vision.
Satisfactory (6–5): Basic application of medium/genre; limited synergy between them.
Needs Improvement (4–1): Poor integration; medium and genre feel disconnected or unjustified.
Excellent (10–9): Highly intuitive, responsive, and user-centered experience.
Good (8–7): Generally usable; minor friction points may exist.
Satisfactory (6–5): Usability issues that impact flow or comprehension.
Needs Improvement (4–1): Difficult to navigate or interact with; usability impairs engagement.
Excellent (10–9): Fully accessible (alt text, captions, color contrast, keyboard navigation, etc.).
Good (8–7): Mostly accessible with minor gaps or inconsistencies.
Satisfactory (6–5): Some accessibility features present but not fully applied.
Needs Improvement (4–1): Lacks sufficient attention to accessibility and inclusion.
Excellent (10–9): Strong ethical reasoning integrated into all aspects of design and representation.
Good (8–7): Ethical considerations addressed with reasonable consistency.
Satisfactory (6–5): Ethical thinking is present but limited in depth or application.
Needs Improvement (4–1): Ethics not addressed, or problematic content left unexamined.
Excellent (10–9): Transparent, thoughtful, and creative use of AI tools with full documentation.
Good (8–7): Appropriate and documented AI use with some reflection.
Satisfactory (6–5): Limited documentation of AI use; unclear ethical framing.
Needs Improvement (4–1): AI use is undocumented or inappropriate; lacks reflection.
Excellent (10–9): Engaging, clear, and professional; enhances understanding and delivery.
Good (8–7): Clear and structured; minor delivery issues.
Satisfactory (6–5): Presentation is functional but lacks polish or engagement.
Needs Improvement (4–1): Unclear, disorganized, or poorly delivered.
Excellent (10–9): Insightful, critical reflection on learning and future direction.
Good (8–7): Thoughtful reflection with good self-awareness.
Satisfactory (6–5): Basic reflection with minimal depth.
Needs Improvement (4–1): Little to no reflection evident.
TOTAL SCORE (out of 100): ________ / 100
Reflect on the feedback you received or provided. How might it inform revisions? Include any questions or uncertainties you’d like discussed with peers or the instructor.