|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Video did not rock/shake and the focus was excellent throughout.
|
Video did not rock/shake and the focus was excellent for the majority of the video.
|
Video had a little rocking/shaking, but the focus was excellent throughout .
|
Problems with rocking/shaking AND focus.
|
|
|
Many different "takes", camera angles, sound effects, and/or careful of use of zoom provided variety in the video.
|
Several (2-3) different "takes", camera angles, sound effects, and/or careful of use of zoom provided variety in the video.
|
One or two different "takes", camera angles, sound effects, and/or careful of use of zoom provided variety in the video.
|
Little attempt was made to provide variety in the video.
|
|
|
Video was over 1 minute and 30 seconds long.
|
Video was between 1 minute and 1 minute and 30 seconds long.
|
Video was under 1 minute long
|
Video was less than 30 seconds
|
|
|
All titles are accurate, legible and draw the viewer's attention.
|
Most titles are accurate, legible and draw the viewer's attention.
|
Some titles are accurate, legible and draw the viewer's attention.
|
Few (less than 75%) titles are accurate, legible and draw the viewer's attention.
|
|
|
All talent showed excellent knowledge of content, needing no cues and showing no hesitation in talking or answering questions.
|
All talent showed excellent knowledge of content, but 1-2 students once needed help or note cards to talk or answer questions.
|
Most talent showed excellent knowledge of content, but 1-2 often needed help or note cards to talk or answer questions.
|
Most talent needed help or note cards to talk and to answer questions.
|
|
|
Host was prepared and talent provided excellent. om-depth answers supported by facts were provided by all interviewed
|
Questions asked by the host and appropriate, but brief answers were provided by all interviewed
|
Questions asked by the host were awkward and vague answers were provided by several of the people interviewed
|
Answers were unclear and served no purpose in the interview
|
