Rubric: Fan Activity: An Autoethnographic Exercise
| Criteria | 4 – Exceptional | 3 – Good | 2 – Acceptable | 1 – Unacceptable |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive Fan Participation | Participates in a clearly meaningful fan activity involving real engagement with fans, creators, events, or fan spaces. The activity provides rich material for analysis. | Participates in a relevant fan activity, though the engagement may be somewhat limited or uneven. | Participation is present but thin, mostly passive, or only minimally connected to fandom. | Activity is missing, unclear, not substantive, or not clearly related to fandom. |
| Documentation of Activity | Provides clear, appropriate documentation of participation, such as screenshots, photos, submitted letters/emails, badge images, or other evidence. Documentation supports the analysis effectively. | Provides adequate documentation, though it may be limited, incomplete, or only loosely connected to the written analysis. | Provides minimal documentation, or documentation is difficult to interpret. | Documentation is missing or does not demonstrate participation. |
| Description and Use of Concrete Detail | Clearly describes the setting, interaction, atmosphere, key moments, and specific details. Description is vivid and selective, providing evidence for later analysis. | Describes the activity clearly, though some details may be general or underdeveloped. | Description is vague, overly brief, or mostly summary without enough concrete detail. | Description is missing, confusing, or too general to support analysis. |
| Reflexivity and Positionality | Thoughtfully addresses the student’s position in relation to the fandom, including expectations, insider/outsider status, identity, experience level, and how their presence shaped the experience. | Addresses positionality, though the reflection may be somewhat general or not fully integrated into the analysis. | Mentions positionality only briefly or superficially. | Does not meaningfully address positionality or reflexivity. |
| Autoethnographic Analysis and Interpretation | Moves beyond personal reaction to interpret what the experience reveals about fandom. Analyzes norms, belonging, exclusion, gatekeeping, hierarchy, commerce, performance, identity, expertise, or other relevant dynamics. | Offers some interpretation of fandom, though analysis may remain uneven or partly descriptive. | Analysis is limited, mostly focused on personal opinion, or does not clearly explain what the experience reveals about fandom. | Little or no analysis; reads mainly as a diary entry, reaction post, or event report. |
| Connection to Course Concepts | Makes clear, accurate, and useful connections to course concepts such as participatory culture, fan communities, commercialization, identity, or fan labor. | Refers to course concepts, though connections may be brief, broad, or not fully developed. | Mentions course concepts only in passing or without clear explanation. | Does not connect the experience to course concepts. |
| Writing and Organization | Well organized, polished, and within the expected 500–750 word range. Writing is clear, coherent, and mostly free of distracting errors. | Generally clear and organized, with minor issues in structure, style, length, or mechanics. | Organization or writing issues sometimes interfere with clarity; may be noticeably too short or too long. | Difficult to follow, poorly organized, or contains frequent errors that interfere with meaning. |
Overall Expectations
A strong submission does more than report that a fan activity happened. It uses the student’s own participation as evidence for thinking critically about fandom. Strong reflections balance concrete description, self-reflection, and broader analysis. Students should explain not only what they did and what they observed, but also what their experience reveals about fan communities, norms, identities, hierarchies, and practices.