Pitch/Mock-Up Grading

 

information criteria

The presentation:

  • Identifies the site to be revised
  • Includes all required content
  • Fully outlines a clear, feasible, substantial plan for site revision
  • Is logically structured
  • Insightfully describes the current site’s rhetorical situation and explains how the site ineffectively engages its rhetorical situation
  • Analyzes how the proposed site revision effectively engages the rhetorical situation—particularly how it better serves the purposes and audiences defined by the group—improves the user experience, operates more efficiently, and looks more aesthetically pleasing
  • Provides persuasive evidence for analysis of current and revised sites

 

delivery criteria

The presenters:

  • Speak clearly and confidently; presentation demonstrates careful preparation and practice
  • Follow well-organized group logistics
  • Equally share speaking duties
  • Sufficiently answer audience questions
  • Provide engaging, informative visuals connected to ideas presented

 

contract criterion

  • Each presenter fulfills group contract requirements

 

grade sheet

I will use the following grade sheet to assess performance on the criteria we outlined. Note that I’ve combined some criteria to streamline the grade sheet.

Content Criteria Strong Good Adequate Poor Missing
Revision plan

 

 

 

 

 
Supported analysis of current site

 

 

 

 

 
Supported analysis of planned revisions

 

 

 

 

 
Structure

 

 

 

 

 
Completeness

 

 

 

 

 
Delivery Criteria Strong Good Adequate Poor Missing
Visuals

 

 

 

 

 
Speech, preparation

 

 

 

 

 
Group Logistics

 

 

 

 

 
Q&A

 

 

 

 

 
Contract Criterion Strong Good Adequate Poor Missing
Contract fulfilled

 

 

 

 

 

 

Point Ranges

  • 18-20 points: A range (3.5-4.0)
  • 13-17 points: B range (2.5-3.4)
  • 8-12 points: C range (1.5-2.4)
  • 3-7 D points: D range (.7-1.4)
  • 0-2 points: F range (0-.6)