Critical Adaptation Project Grading

An 88- to 100-Point Project (3.5-4.0, A Range)

• Creative component engages in complex, rich dialogue with source and selected adaptations; writer’s adaptation offers an innovative perspective on its textual influences.
• Adaptation presents compelling plot, characterization, themes, motifs, imagery, description, and/or other details.
• Critical introduction offers defendable, substantive, fully explored and persuasively supported discussion of project’s relationship to source, other adaptations, and adaptation theory.
• All elements of site express ideas clearly and command the reader’s attention.
• Organization advances the author’s creative goals; the relationship among pages is clear, and all navigation elements function.
• Includes all required elements: critical introduction, adaptation, and annotated sources, links and credits.
• Integrates text and audio-visual elements thoughtfully, with all images, links, and clips clearly complementing the creative work and critical introduction.
• Offers clear citation of all ideas and words not the author’s own.
• Has superlative page design: easily viewable text and images, skillful use of color, no clutter.
• Has a sophisticated style (remarkable variety of sentence pattern, smooth transitions between ideas, superior control of diction).
• Has few, if any, minor errors in grammar, usage or mechanics.

A 63- to 87-Point Project (2.5-3.4, B Range)

• Creative component effectively engages in dialogue with source and selected adaptations; at points, writer’s work may rely too heavily on other adaptations; however, it offers many fresh perspectives on its textual precursors.
• While the adaptation may include a few formulaic components, as a whole it features engaging plot, characterization, themes, motifs, imagery, description, and/or other details.
• Critical introduction persuasively discusses project’s relationship to source, other adaptations, and adaptation theory, but may not fully explore or support ideas; references to theory may seem tacked on rather than closely connected to the author’s claims.
• All elements of site express idea clearly.
• Site organization has clear relationship to author’s creative goals; however, a few navigation elements may not function or may be absent, or a particular page may not completely advance the project’s stated purpose.
• Includes all required elements: “About this Site,” analysis, and annotated sources, links and credits.
• Integrates text and audio-visual elements effectively overall, although relationship between these components may be unclear on occasion.
• Properly cites source material, but may have errors in citation format.
• Has strong page design: clear text and images, effective use of color, minimal clutter.
• Has an effective style (some variety of sentence patterns, transitions between ideas, accurate diction).
• Has few errors in grammar, usage or mechanics.

A 38- to 62-Point Project (1.5-2.4, C Range)

• Creative component engages in dialogue with source and selected adaptations; overall, writer’s work may rely too heavily on other adaptations rather than offering new perspectives on its textual precursors.
• Adaptation presents formulaic or simplistic plot, characterization, themes, motifs, imagery, description, and/or other details.
• Critical introduction includes unevenly developed discussion of project’s relationship to source and other adaptations and demonstrates little engagement with adaptation theory, offering a few citations of theoretical texts, but not tying the references to the analysis in a clear manner.
• Communicates ideas clearly for the most part, but may have some lapses in clarity.
• Has an organizational pattern discernibly based on author’s creative goals, but navigation may be confusing, and some pages may not fit site’s overall purpose.
• Contains the creative adaptation and critical introduction, but annotated links and credits section may not include annotations or required minimum number of links.
• Integrates text and audio-visual elements throughout the site, but without consistently demonstrating a connection between these elements.
• Cites the majority of source material, but occasionally material may be clearly cited but not referenced in parentheses.
• Has adequate page design: satisfactory text and images, adequate use of color, some page clutter.
• Has an adequate style (limited variation in sentence patterns, transitions between most ideas, diction accurate for the most part).
• Has some errors in grammar, usage or mechanics, but demonstrates basic control of these areas.

An 18- to 37-Point Project (.7-1.4, D Range)

• Creative component demonstrates no meaningful dialogue with the source and other adaptations; writer draws on plot events or echoes prose of other adaptations, but offers no interpretation or reworking of its textual influences.
• Adaptation presents stereotypical or confusing plot, characters, imagery, and/or other details.
• Critical introduction identifies the source and other adaptations without sufficiently connecting the project to those texts; discussion indicates misunderstanding of adaptation theory, including references that have no discernible relationship to the writer’s project.
• May not communicate ideas clearly.
• Is ineffectively organized, with no logical relationship among pages and unclear navigation.
• Contains creative adaptation, but is missing one required section of site.
• Uses text and audiovisual elements, but with little connection between the two.
• Offers unclear citations of work not the author’s own.
• Has weak page design: some confusing text and images, poor use of color (glaring), page clutter.
• Has stylistic weaknesses (no variety of sentence patterns, few transitions, imprecise diction).
• Has occasional major errors in grammar, usage or mechanics or frequent minor errors that interfere in the reader's understanding of the analysis.

A 0- to 17-Point Project (0-.6, F Range)

• Project may be deliberately off-topic, with both the creative adaptation and critical introduction demonstrating no engagement with or understanding of the source, other adaptations, or adaptation theory.
• Does not communicate ideas clearly.
• Lacks coherent organization, site is difficult or impossible to navigate.
• Creative adaptation is brief, and other site elements may be absent or entirely inadequate.
• Has no connection between text and audiovisual elements.
• Represents another writer’s work as the author’s own.
• Has incoherent page design: unclear text and images, no sense to color choice, clutter makes page incomprehensible.
• Has an incoherent style (difficulties with sentence structure, pattern of diction errors).
• Has pervasive pattern of errors in grammar, usage and mechanics that renders the analysis unreadable.

Last Update: 6/6/06