The Game Journal Rubric
The game journal is more than just a log of your gaming activities, recording what you played and when. It is a space to be reflective, and to explore tentative thoughts about the significance and interpretative possibilities of specific videogames. I have written that the posts should “strive to be thoughtful and nuanced, offering questions and insights rather than descriptions or summaries.” Here I present the rubric I will use when reading your game journal entries, which provides a more detailed outline of what would constitute an excellent journal entry.
Every student must post at least twelve entries to the collective game journal by the end of the semester. Each post will be rated on a scale of 0-4, primarily on the basis of the kind of critical thinking and engagement you display in the post.
| Rating | Characteristics |
| 4 | Exceptional. The journal entry is focused and coherently integrates examples with explanations or analysis. The entry demonstrates awareness of its own limitations or implications, and it considers multiple perspectives when appropriate. The entry reflects in-depth engagement with the topic. |
| 3 | Satisfactory. The journal entry is reasonably focused, and explanations or analysis are mostly based on examples or other evidence. Fewer connections are made between ideas, and though new insights are offered, they are not fully developed. The entry reflects moderate engagement with the topic. |
| 2 | Underdeveloped. The journal entry is mostly description or summary, without consideration of alternative perspectives, and few connections are made between ideas. The entry reflects passing engagement with the topic. |
| 1 | Limited. The journal entry is unfocused, or simply rehashes previous comments, and displays no evidence of student engagement with the topic. |
| 0 | No Credit. The journal entry is missing or consists of one or two disconnected sentences. |
Sub Pages Found
