WRTG 3020—Episode Commentary

Rubric Criteria Analysis and Content, Support for Claims A Clear, detailed, analysis; Follows assignment guidelines; Strong and relevant information that helps to support the analysis; Adds new perspective to program B Clear analysis; Follows assignment guidelines; Some relevant information that helps to support the analysis; Adds some new ideas about program C Analysis is weak or unclear; Lacks agenda; Follows assignment guidelines; Some information helps to support the analysis; Reiterates common perceptions with slightly new emphases Beg./mid./end may be unclear; Uninteresting or ineffective approach to genre; Use of transitions between topics/speakers inconsistent or unclear; Information not organized well for viewer; Topics seem unconnected Unclear where information is coming from; Little evidence of research; timely but not framed to reinforce relevance; Lack of variety in rhetorical strategies Little evidence of audience awareness or ability to address them D No Analysis; Does not follow assignment; Reiterates common/cliche ideas about program; Focuses exclusively on facts/background

Structure and Organization

Clear beg./mid./end; Creative, accurate, and engaging approach to genre; Excellent interaction with program, transitions between topics/speakers; Information organized effectively for genre Evidence of research and extensive knowledge of topic; Clear relevance; Effective and varied use of strategies

Clear beg./mid./end; Strong approach; Sufficient interaction with program, transitions between topics/speakers; Information organized well; Evidence of conscious organization

Illogical organization with no clear beg./mid./ end; Does not make use of transitions between topics/speakers; No interaction; Long, meandering monologues

Rhetoric, Ethos, and Timeliness

Some research; Evident knowledge of topic; Clear relevance; Effective use of strategies

No attempt to establish ethos and connect argument to broader conversation; No evidence of research; Overreliance on one type of rhetorical strategy No audience awareness and no attempt to address them

Audience Awareness

Respects audience’s knowledge; Clear evidence of thoughtful analysis reporting based on audience

Respects audience’s knowledge; Evidence of thoughtful analysis/reporting based on audience

WRTG 3020—Episode Commentary
Voice, Style, and Delivery Excellent overall sense of voice and style; Excellent word choice and use of details; Strong variation between speakers creating “flow”; Great interaction; Tone, enunciation and projection show clear enthusiasm and confidence Effective formatting for visual appeal and viewing; Rhetorical use of video/audio; Very few or no errors that do not interfere with comprehension; Even distribution of work/ participation Good overall sense of voice and style; Good word choice and use of details; Some variation between speakers creating ‘flow’; Good interaction; Tone, enunciation, and projection reflect confidence Moderate sense of voice, but perhaps not distinctive; Weak or redundant word choice and moderate detail; Some variation between speakers creating ‘flow’; Some interaction; Tone, enunciation, and projection need significant work Effective formatting for visual appeal and viewing; Several errors that do not interfere with comprehension and some errors that DO hinder comprehension; 1-2 people did most of the work Does not have a sense of voice or style; Poor word choice without attention to detail; Poor variation between sentences with no sense of ‘flow’; No interaction; Tone is dull; Enunciation and delivery obscure content Distracting formatting; Many errors that do not interfere with comprehension and several errors that DO hinder comprehension; 1 person carried the group/did not work well together

Technology and Group Work

Effective formatting for visual appeal and viewing; Rhetorical use of video/audio; Some repeating errors that do not interfere with comprehension; Even distribution of work/ participation