CSIS 1 — Assignment Rubrics (Summer 2026)
All Real-World Task assignments use a 4-level rubric: Excellent (100%) / Good (80%) / Needs Work (60%) / Missing (0%)
Every assignment includes a Reflection component worth 25% of the grade. This is the metacognitive piece — it's not optional filler.
Week 1: Tech Self-Audit + Risk Assessment
List your devices/platforms, define 3 new terms, describe a digital citizenship example.
Completeness (25%)
| Level |
Criteria |
| Excellent |
All three sections present: device/platform inventory, 3 term definitions, and digital citizenship example (100–150 words). Nothing missing. |
| Good |
All three sections attempted, but one is thin — e.g., only lists 2 devices, or citizenship example is under 100 words. |
| Needs Work |
One entire section missing, or two sections are too brief to be useful. |
| Missing |
Not submitted. |
Accuracy (25%)
| Level |
Criteria |
| Excellent |
Term definitions are correct and in the student's own words (not copy-pasted). Digital citizenship example shows real understanding of what responsible online behavior looks like. |
| Good |
Definitions are mostly correct but one may be vague or slightly off. Citizenship example is reasonable but generic. |
| Needs Work |
One or more definitions are wrong or clearly copied from a glossary without understanding. Citizenship example is too vague to show comprehension. |
| Missing |
Not submitted. |
Presentation (25%)
| Level |
Criteria |
| Excellent |
Document uses clear headings for each section. Easy to read. Proper spelling/grammar (doesn't need to be perfect — just clear). Submitted as .docx or PDF. |
| Good |
Organized but headings are missing or inconsistent. Minor formatting issues. |
| Needs Work |
Wall of text with no structure. Hard to tell where one section ends and another begins. |
| Missing |
Not submitted. |
Reflection (25%)
"What was the hardest part of this assignment? What would you do differently?"
| Level |
Criteria |
| Excellent |
Genuine, specific reflection (3–5 sentences). Names a specific challenge ("I didn't know what 'digital citizenship' meant and had to look it up three times") and a concrete takeaway. |
| Good |
Reflection is present and honest but stays general ("the definitions were hard"). |
| Needs Work |
One sentence or clearly phoned in ("nothing was hard"). |
| Missing |
No reflection included. |
Week 2: Professional Document Build
Create a formatted document (resume or business letter) + a personal budget spreadsheet with formulas and a chart.
Completeness (25%)
| Level |
Criteria |
| Excellent |
Both parts submitted: (1) a resume OR business letter with all required elements, and (2) a budget spreadsheet with at least 5 line items, working formulas (SUM at minimum), and a chart. |
| Good |
Both parts present, but one is missing a required element — e.g., spreadsheet has no chart, or resume is missing a section like Skills. |
| Needs Work |
Only one of the two parts submitted, or both are incomplete (e.g., spreadsheet with no formulas, document with no formatting). |
| Missing |
Not submitted. |
Accuracy (25%)
| Level |
Criteria |
| Excellent |
Document formatting is professional — appropriate font, consistent headings, aligned content. Spreadsheet formulas actually work and produce correct results. Chart accurately represents the data. Budget categories make sense. |
| Good |
Document looks reasonable but has minor formatting inconsistencies. Formulas work but may be overly simple (e.g., only one SUM). Chart is present but doesn't clearly match the data. |
| Needs Work |
Document formatting is messy or unprofessional. Formulas are broken or missing. Chart is unrelated to the data or unreadable. |
| Missing |
Not submitted. |
Presentation (25%)
| Level |
Criteria |
| Excellent |
Resume/letter looks like something you'd actually send to an employer — clean, polished, no typos in key areas. Spreadsheet is organized with labeled columns and a clear chart title. Both files are properly named (include your name). |
| Good |
Mostly professional but a few rough spots — misaligned text, unlabeled chart axes, generic file name like "Document1.docx". |
| Needs Work |
Looks like a rough draft. Multiple formatting problems, hard to read, or unprofessional appearance. |
| Missing |
Not submitted. |
Reflection (25%)
"What was the hardest part? What would you do differently?"
| Level |
Criteria |
| Excellent |
Specific reflection on the process — names which part was harder (document vs. spreadsheet), what specific skill they struggled with (e.g., "getting the chart to show the right data range"), and what they'd change. |
| Good |
Honest reflection but stays at a surface level ("the spreadsheet was harder than the document"). |
| Needs Work |
One sentence or generic ("it was fine"). |
| Missing |
No reflection included. |
Week 3: Presentation Project
Create a short presentation (8–12 slides) on a topic of your choice.
Completeness (25%)
| Level |
Criteria |
| Excellent |
8–12 slides covering: title slide, introduction, at least 4 content slides with information, a conclusion or summary slide. Includes at least 2 images/graphics and speaker notes on at least 3 slides. |
| Good |
Meets the slide count but missing one element — e.g., no speaker notes, or only 1 image, or no clear conclusion. |
| Needs Work |
Under 8 slides, or slides are mostly blank/placeholder text. Missing multiple required elements. |
| Missing |
Not submitted. |
Accuracy (25%)
| Level |
Criteria |
| Excellent |
Content is factually correct and shows the student actually researched or knows the topic. Information is organized logically — each slide builds on the last. Speaker notes show what the student would actually say during a presentation (not just repeating slide text). |
| Good |
Content is mostly accurate. Organization makes sense but could flow better. Speaker notes are present but thin. |
| Needs Work |
Contains factual errors, or slides are disorganized (jumping between unrelated points). No speaker notes, or notes are copy-pasted from slides. |
| Missing |
Not submitted. |
Presentation (25%)
| Level |
Criteria |
| Excellent |
Slides are visually clean — consistent color scheme, readable fonts (not 8pt text walls), good use of whitespace. Images are relevant and not blurry/stretched. Text is concise (bullet points, not paragraphs). Looks like a real presentation, not a Word doc crammed into slides. |
| Good |
Generally readable but has some design issues — inconsistent fonts, one or two text-heavy slides, or a cluttered layout. |
| Needs Work |
Hard to read. Walls of text on slides, clashing colors, stretched/irrelevant images, or default template with no customization. |
| Missing |
Not submitted. |
Reflection (25%)
"What was the hardest part? What would you do differently?"
| Level |
Criteria |
| Excellent |
Reflects on specific presentation design choices — why they picked that topic, what they struggled with visually or structurally, what they'd improve if they presented it for real. |
| Good |
Honest but general ("picking a topic was hard" without explaining why). |
| Needs Work |
One sentence or generic. |
| Missing |
No reflection included. |
Week 4: Website Credibility Evaluation
Evaluate 3 websites for credibility — explain your reasoning.
Completeness (25%)
| Level |
Criteria |
| Excellent |
Three distinct websites evaluated. For each: the URL, a description of what the site claims, a credibility verdict (trustworthy, questionable, unreliable), and a clear explanation of why. At least one site should be questionable or unreliable — evaluating three obviously trustworthy sites (Wikipedia, BBC, NASA) doesn't demonstrate critical thinking. |
| Good |
Three sites evaluated but one analysis is thin (verdict without explanation), or all three sites are clearly trustworthy with no challenge. |
| Needs Work |
Fewer than 3 sites, or evaluations are just "this site looks good" / "this site looks bad" without reasoning. |
| Missing |
Not submitted. |
Accuracy (25%)
| Level |
Criteria |
| Excellent |
Credibility reasoning uses specific criteria from the course material — author credentials, domain type, date, sourcing, bias indicators, cross-referencing with other sources. Verdicts are well-supported. Student can articulate why a site is or isn't trustworthy beyond gut feeling. |
| Good |
Uses some credibility criteria but relies heavily on one factor (e.g., only looks at domain type) or reasoning is correct but shallow. |
| Needs Work |
Reasoning is based on appearance only ("the site looks professional") or contradicts the evidence. |
| Missing |
Not submitted. |
Presentation (25%)
| Level |
Criteria |
| Excellent |
Well-organized — each website clearly separated with its own heading or section. URLs are included and clickable. Writing is clear and easy to follow. |
| Good |
Organized but could be cleaner — maybe URLs are missing or sections run together. |
| Needs Work |
Disorganized. Hard to tell which analysis goes with which website. |
| Missing |
Not submitted. |
Reflection (25%)
"What was the hardest part? What would you do differently?"
| Level |
Criteria |
| Excellent |
Reflects on how this exercise changed their thinking — maybe they realized they usually trust sites without checking, or they found it harder than expected to tell trustworthy from untrustworthy. Specific and honest. |
| Good |
Some reflection but stays surface-level ("I learned to check sources"). |
| Needs Work |
One sentence or generic. |
| Missing |
No reflection included. |
Week 5: Security Audit + Scam Analysis
Evaluate your own digital security and create an action plan. Analyze 5 real scam examples.
Completeness (25%)
| Level |
Criteria |
| Excellent |
Two complete parts: (1) Personal security audit — reviews password habits, 2FA status, privacy settings on at least 2 accounts, and software update status. Includes a concrete action plan with at least 3 specific steps. (2) Scam analysis — identifies 5 real scam examples (phishing emails, fake texts, social media scams, etc.) with a brief description and red flags for each. |
| Good |
Both parts present but one is light — e.g., action plan has only 1–2 steps, or only 3–4 scam examples analyzed. |
| Needs Work |
One entire part missing, or both parts are too brief to be meaningful. |
| Missing |
Not submitted. |
Accuracy (25%)
| Level |
Criteria |
| Excellent |
Security assessment is honest and specific (not "my passwords are fine" when they're the same one everywhere). Action plan steps are realistic and actionable ("enable 2FA on my email account this week" not "be more secure"). Scam red flags are correctly identified — student can explain why something is a scam, not just label it as one. |
| Good |
Assessment is reasonable but vague in places. Action plan is present but some steps are too general. Scam analysis correctly identifies scams but explanations of red flags are thin. |
| Needs Work |
Assessment doesn't show real self-evaluation. Action plan is wishful thinking. Scam examples are mislabeled or red flags are incorrect. |
| Missing |
Not submitted. |
Presentation (25%)
| Level |
Criteria |
| Excellent |
Clear separation between the two parts. Security audit uses a structured format (checklist or table works well). Scam examples are numbered or sectioned. Screenshots welcome but not required — if included, sensitive info is blurred. |
| Good |
Organized enough to follow but could benefit from better structure. |
| Needs Work |
Both parts blended together. Hard to distinguish security audit from scam analysis. |
| Missing |
Not submitted. |
Reflection (25%)
"What was the hardest part? What would you do differently?"
| Level |
Criteria |
| Excellent |
Reflects on what surprised them about their own security habits ("I didn't realize I reuse the same password on 12 sites") or what they learned from analyzing scams ("the phishing email looked way more legit than I expected"). Specific and honest about what they'll actually change. |
| Good |
Reflection present but general ("I learned security is important"). |
| Needs Work |
One sentence or generic. |
| Missing |
No reflection included. |
Week 6: AI Fact-Check Report
Use an AI tool to research a topic, then fact-check its output. Write up what it got right and wrong.
Completeness (25%)
| Level |
Criteria |
| Excellent |
All parts present: (1) The topic and the AI tool used. (2) The AI's response (screenshot or copy-paste). (3) Fact-check results — at least 3 specific claims checked against real sources, with sources cited. (4) A verdict: what the AI got right, what it got wrong or made up, and what was misleading even if technically true. |
| Good |
All parts attempted but fact-checking is light — only 1–2 claims verified, or sources aren't cited. |
| Needs Work |
Missing the AI's original response, or "fact-check" is just "it seemed right" without actually verifying anything. |
| Missing |
Not submitted. |
Accuracy (25%)
| Level |
Criteria |
| Excellent |
Fact-checking is thorough and honest. Student found real sources (not just other AI tools) to verify claims. Correctly identifies errors, fabrications, or misleading statements. Doesn't just confirm — actually looks for what might be wrong. If the AI was accurate, student explains how they verified that. |
| Good |
Fact-checking is correct but only surface-level — checked obvious claims, didn't dig into nuanced or harder-to-verify statements. |
| Needs Work |
"Fact-check" is just agreeing with the AI without real verification, or student misidentifies correct info as wrong (or vice versa). |
| Missing |
Not submitted. |
Presentation (25%)
| Level |
Criteria |
| Excellent |
Clear structure: the AI's claims are listed, each with a fact-check verdict and source. Easy to follow the comparison between what AI said vs. what's actually true. Sources are specific (links or publication names, not just "I Googled it"). |
| Good |
Organized but sources are vague, or the comparison between AI output and fact-check isn't clearly laid out. |
| Needs Work |
Disorganized, no clear structure, or no sources cited. |
| Missing |
Not submitted. |
Reflection (25%)
"What was the hardest part? What would you do differently?"
| Level |
Criteria |
| Excellent |
Reflects on how this changed their relationship with AI tools — are they more skeptical now? Less? What surprised them? What would they do differently next time they use ChatGPT/Gemini/etc. for anything? Connects to real future behavior, not abstract principles. |
| Good |
Some reflection but generic ("AI isn't always right"). |
| Needs Work |
One sentence or clearly not thought through. |
| Missing |
No reflection included. |
Grading Notes for All Assignments
- Reflection is 25% of every assignment. This is intentional. Students who think about their own learning process perform better on assessments. Take it seriously.
- "Excellent" doesn't mean perfect. It means complete, thoughtful, and showing genuine effort. A student with a few typos but a great reflection gets Excellent.
- "Missing" means zero, not "I'll accept it late." Late policy is separate from the rubric.
- Specific > generic, always. The difference between Good and Excellent is almost always specificity. "I learned a lot" is Good. "I didn't know what phishing was and now I check sender addresses on every email" is Excellent.