Requirement
|
Stellar
|
Adequate
|
Less than Adequate
|
Link from Table of Contents
|
The link from the Table of Contents page takes you to a Wiki Page with the same category name
|
The link works but the page names may not match (and are therefore confusing).
|
The link is broken
|
Category page overview
|
The category page provides a well-written overview of the types of tools that fit in the category. Categories that include multiple types of tools should have longer overviews.
|
The content is thorough, but the writing has errors or is difficult to follow.
|
The overview contains little useful information.
|
List of technologies on category page |
The list of technologies on the category page contains all of the example technologies given for the category in the Index plus some more additional technologies. |
The list of technologies on the category page lists all of the technologies given for the category in the Index. |
The list of technologies on the category page contains fewer technogies than provided in the Index. |
Number of completed articles |
The group completed at least as many articles as there were group members and all of the incomplete articles have stub pages. |
The group completed as many articles as there were members in the group.
|
The group did not complete as many articles as there were members in the group. |
Quality of Articles |
All of the articles contain the following elements:
- Description of the technology including a link to the technology.
- A link back to the overview page.
- Step-by-step guide, including screen shots, to using the technology to accomplish a basic task. Links to guides created elsewhere on the internet are acceptable.
- Multiple examples of how the technology could be used in the classroom.
- References including external links.
Additionally, the article should not contain grammatical errors or broken links.
|
All of the articles contain the following elements:
- Description of the technology including a link to the technology
- A link back to the overview page.
- Some advice on setting up an account or installing the technology.
- An example of how the technology could be used in the classroom.
Additionally, the article should not contain grammatical errors or broken links. |
Some of the articles are missing required elements and/or there are grammatical errors and broken links. |
Cross-references |
The articles are thoroughly cross-referenced within the category as well as to other categories, where appropriate. |
The article is thoroughly cross-referenced within the category, but only has a few cross-references to other categories. |
The article is poorly cross-referenced both within the category and across other categories. |
Evidence of collaboration |
The group used the comments on the page to plan their work and the page history shows that the group followed their plans. Also, all of the groups pages show edits from multiple group members and the work on each article seems equally distributed among group members. |
The group used the comments on the page to plan their work and the page history shows that the group followed their plans. The groups pages show edits from multiple group members, but each article was primarily the wrtitten by a single author. |
The wiki shows little evidence of collaboration. |
Comments (11)
Eric Pratt said
at 12:38 pm on Feb 12, 2009
I think this rubric is good. I especially like the requirement "evidence of collaboration." It is obvious on group projects when presentations were put together separately or whether the group collaborated to make connections and smooth transitions. With our pages, there must be consistency with each of our articles and the overall look to the page.
It is also important that we are respectful of each other's time and talents. That is something that is rarely graded in a classroom and I am glad it is on this rubric. We can all learn to be more respectful and professional, which means we can be graded on it as well!
mr. ross said
at 5:48 pm on Feb 13, 2009
I like the part about cross referencing. I think that by doing that it makes the article more useful because of the ability to get a better picture of the bigger connections that these tools have.
Jenifer Hoggan said
at 11:39 pm on Feb 13, 2009
From what I understand about the assignment it is a very all-encompassing rubric that hits every point needed.
McKenzie Borup said
at 2:13 pm on Feb 14, 2009
I like the rubric. I think, like Jenifer, that it hits all the points taht we need to cver. This way we will know what we have done and what we need to still complete.
Hammari said
at 4:31 pm on Feb 16, 2009
I have been really impressed with all of rubrics for this class, especially this one. It is very clear cut on what is needed and expected of us. I like that it explains what the project needs and in a separate portion what we need to do.
Christen Allen said
at 1:46 pm on Feb 17, 2009
I agree with the above comments: this is a very comprehensive rubric and very easy to understand. I clarified a typo, but besides that, this looks great!
Meghan Christensen said
at 9:31 pm on Feb 17, 2009
It looks fine to me. It is good about being clear on what the difference between stellar and adequate work is, as well as between adequate and less-than-adequate.
Olivia Seger said
at 7:44 pm on Feb 23, 2009
It seems pretty good to me, although the whole group will be punished if one person doesn't do his or her part. I am not sure I like that.
mindyhinckley@msn.com said
at 9:41 pm on Feb 23, 2009
The rubric helped me complete the assignment, I appreciate having a 'formula' for good marks.
Kimberly McCollum said
at 11:15 pm on Feb 23, 2009
@Olivia - The whole group will be punished? I'm curious where you found punishment in the rubric.
Nicole Manwaring said
at 3:53 pm on Mar 23, 2009
I agree with the comments thus far. This rubric is comprehensive and thorough.
You don't have permission to comment on this page.