Your goal is to develop a robust multimedia assessment rubric and use it to evaluate the quality of existing educational resources. This exercise will help you bridge the gap between abstract theory and practical design.

The task:

  1. Develop Your Rubric: Create an original assessment rubric to evaluate educational resources. Your rubric must include criteria aligned with the core pillars of this course:
    • Theories of Multimedia Learning
    • Models of Active Learning
    • Accessibility & Universal Design for Learning
      (You’re encouraged to provide a paragraph explaining the rationale of your rubric and communicate the connection to theory)
  2. Locate Resources: Find three distinct educational resources (videos, interactive websites, simulations, or digital modules) that vary in quality: one poor, one okay, and one excellent.
  3. Evaluate: Apply your rubric to each of the three resources. Provide a brief justification for each score, citing specific evidence from the resource and explicitly connecting your evaluation to relevant course concepts.

Assessment Rubric

0 – 2 (Needs Additional Work)3 (Marginally Meets Expectations)4 (Fully Meets Expectations)5 (Exceeds Expectations)
Theoretical FoundationCriteria are based on personal preference. Fails to reference course theories.Mentions course theories but criteria are surface-level or do not accurately reflect the depth of the concepts.Rubric is explicitly built upon the course theories. Criteria reflect a solid understanding of these principles.Criteria are sophisticated and demonstrate a high-level understanding of why specific design choices impact the educational experience.
Tool Actionability & DesignRubric is vague, uses binary (Yes/No) labels, or is unformatted.

It would be difficult for another person to use it reliably.		Criteria are broad or subjective. Descriptive language is repetitive across the scoring levels, making it hard to differentiate scores.The rubric is a functional, professional tool. It uses a clear scale with observable indicators. The layout is organized and easy for a third party to read and apply.Rubric uses precise, objective language eliminates ambiguity. It is a tool that would yield consistent results across different evaluators.
Critical Application & AnalysisEvaluation of resources is missing or anecdotal. Does not appear to actually use the developed rubric to generate scores.Fails to select a true spectrum of quality.

Justifications are brief and lack specific evidence from the media.		Selects three distinct resources that represent different quality levels.

Provides a logical justification for each score, citing specific features in the media as evidence.		Strategically selects three resources that serve as ideal case studies for the rubric.

Uses the rubric to “deconstruct” the media, linking specific evidence (timestamps/screenshots) to the theoretical foundations.

Generative AI Guideline

Image by Alexandra_Koch from Pixabay

This assignment allows for structured and defined support from AI tools at the planning and post-draft stages. You may use AI to deepen your understand of theory and, after drafting, for tasks such as clarifying your approach or engaging in meaningful revision, while preserving the integrity of the core writing process.

If you have any questions about permitted AI use, please contact me before you use the AI tools.

StagePermitted AI UseNot Permitted
Before drafting the rubric Understanding of theory, clarifying concepts, and exploring different perspectivesGenerating thesis statements, arguments, outlining, paraphrasing, or full paragraphs
After drafting the rubricReceiving feedback on structure, coherence, and alignment with the rubricRewriting content via AI suggestions
Selection and analysis of multimedia
None		Any AI system for idea generation, outlining, paraphrasing, or analysis

Here are sample prompts you can use with an LLM of your choice (e.g., Gemini, ChatGPT) to get the most out of AI while adhering to permitted AI use.

Before drafting the rubric

I am a student in an undergraduate-level Educational Technology course. I want to understand [INSERT THEORY NAME HERE] deeply enough to write a critical reflection. Please use professional but accessible language. 

Your Role: Act as an expert academic mentor in Educational Technology.

Please provide the following:
 - Core Essence: A clear, concise explanation of the theory's main argument.
 - Clarifying Nuances: What are 2–3 specific concepts within this theory that are often misunderstood? Explain them simply but accurately.
 - Diverse Perspectives: How might different educators or researchers view this differently? Provide one "pro" (supportive) perspective and one "critical" (skeptical) perspective.
 - Practical Tension: What is one way this theory is difficult to apply in a real-world classroom or digital environment?

Tips for Theory-Based AI Engagemen

  • Challenge the Theory: Ask for common critiques or “skeptical” perspectives of the concept
  • Request Analogies: If a concept feels too dense, ask for a non-educational analogy (e.g., “What would this theory look like in soccer?”) or to “explain like I am five years old”. This makes the theory simpler, intuitive and/or easier to connect to.
  • Dive Deeper: Explore the nuances by identifying “unintended consequences” or “hidden assumptions” within the theory; how might the concept evolve in the future or where might it break down.

After drafting the rubric

I am a student in an undergraduate-level Educational Technology course. I am developing an educational multimedia assessment rubric that can be used to evaluate educational resources (videos, interactive websites, simulations, or digital modules).

My goal is to translate course theory into a practical, evaluative tool. I aim to design a robust multimedia assessment rubric grounded in course concepts and be able to use it to critically evaluate the quality of existing educational resources. Through this process, I am working to bridge abstract learning theory and concrete design decisions.

Your Role: Act as my academic writing and design coach. Support me in strengthening the theoretical grounding, clarity, and critical rigor of my rubric and analyze compared to the Multimedia Assessment Rubric. Your feedback should help me refine my thinking, not replace it.

Your Tasks. Please review my work and provide targeted, actionable feedback on the following:
 - Rubric Design & Theory Translation: Assess whether my rubric meaningfully operationalizes the course’s core pillars: Theories of Multimedia Learning, Models of Active Learning, and Accessibility and Universal Design for Learning
 - Clarity & Usability: Identify areas where rubric criteria may be vague, subjective, or difficult for another evaluator to apply consistently.
 - Critical Evaluation: Evaluate whether I apply the rubric rigorously when assessing educational resources, using evidence rather than impressions.
 - Theory–Practice Alignment: Highlight opportunities to strengthen the connection between specific design features in the resources and the underlying theoretical principles that justify their evaluation.

Important Constraint: Please do not rewrite the text for me. Instead, give me specific, actionable suggestions or ask me clarifying questions that will help me improve the draft myself.

Multimedia Assessment Rubric
1. Theoretical Foundation
0–2 (Needs Additional Work): Criteria are based on personal preference and fail to reference or meaningfully engage with course theories.
3 (Marginally Meets Expectations): Mentions course theories, but criteria are surface-level or do not accurately reflect the depth of the concepts.
4 (Fully Meets Expectations): Rubric is explicitly built upon course theories. Criteria reflect a solid understanding of the theoretical principles.
5 (Exceeds Expectations): Criteria are sophisticated and demonstrate a high-level understanding of why specific design choices impact the educational experience.
2. Tool Actionability & Design
0–2 (Needs Additional Work): Rubric is vague, unformatted, or relies on binary (Yes/No) judgments. It would be difficult for another person to use it reliably.
3 (Marginally Meets Expectations): Criteria are broad or subjective, with repetitive language across score levels that makes distinctions unclear.
4 (Fully Meets Expectations): Rubric is a functional, professional tool. It uses a clear scale with observable indicators, and the layout is organized and easy for a third party to read and apply.
5 (Exceeds Expectations): Rubric uses precise, objective language that minimizes ambiguity and would likely yield consistent results across different evaluators.

Current Draft
[PASTE YOUR DRAFT RUBRIC HERE]

Tips for Using AI for Feedback

  • Be Specific: If you are worried about a specific section, ask the AI to focus specifically on that part of the rubric.
  • The “Why” Matters: If the AI suggests a change, ask it why that change would improve the score. This helps you learn the underlying principles of design and communication.
  • Iterate: Don’t just take the first set of feedback. If the AI says your goals are “vague,” ask it: “Can you give me an example of what a ‘highly specific’ goal looks like in the context of EdTech?”
  • Maintain Your Voice: Remember that the AI doesn’t know your personal “voice” or your specific project as well as you do. If its suggestions feel too robotic, disregard them.