Assessment Criteria

The assessment measures critical judgment regarding relationships and technology, not the student's social life. Five criteria across four assessment levels. Distinguishing simulation from reality and seeing both sides carry the most weight.

CriterionExcellentGoodDevelopingInsufficient
1. The human anchor (own community, without a machine)Personal, tangible, used as evidence in Step 3Present and utilizedSuperficialMissing or written after the fact
2. Design vs. experienceClear distinction between what the platform is designed to do and what the user experiencesMostly distinguishedInconsistentDesign and experience lumped together
3. Simulation vs. connectionPoints out precisely where a simulated connection was presented as a real relationshipIdentifies at least one instanceMentions without applyingMistakes simulated connection for a real relationship
4. Honest Oracle (both sides)Shows both the loss AND the real support of digital relationships; rejects ≥2 pointsBoth sides presentOnly one sideOne-sided echo
5. Judgment and actionReasoned judgment + one real, tangible step in own relationshipsJudgment and action presentGenerically phrasedNo judgment or no action
(Fill-in template table)

Overall Grade (Guideline)

  • Excellent: 4–5 criteria excellent, nothing below "Good".
  • Good: mostly "Good" or better, both sides examined.
  • Pass: methodological locks present but shallow.
  • Fail: one-sided judgment, simulation confused with connection, or no action.

Key rule: a one-sided conclusion (only "the internet destroys communities" or only "the internet connects us all") cannot receive higher than "Developing". Analysis sees both sides.

Back to the project pack