DeAnza College/CIS2/Winter 2010/Group 3

CIS 2 Computers and the Internet in Society WINTER 2010 Final Projects

Project communication, draft document sharing, revision, final submission preparation and publication.

page: http://wikieducator.org/DeAnza_College/CIS2/Winter_2010/Group_3/project

Group Members:

HEEHYUN CHAE

ANDREW CHAU

LEON KO

JENNY VO

EMILY WIRTZ

Time Line

Regrettably, we have not been updating this page and our group has been thoroughly confused. However, recently, we have began an unwavering amount of work outside of wiki, and plan to incorporate it soon, so our time line is as follows:

Outline 3/10/2010 night

Each person will submit assigned area 3/11/2010 Revise by end of night

Second revision by 3/12/2010 by editor afternoon Third revision by peers 3/12/2010 night

Rest will be room to work with.

Outline:

Summary of what Wikieducator is

Advantages

Goals

Strategy

History

Why it is good for schools

=Feedback=

Student feedback
-- SCORE: 25/30

Mechanics=4, clear/concise visually easy to view

Organization=5, easy flow

Originality=4, provided results that were relevant

Requirements=4, met

Content=4, content is interesting

Collaboration=4, it appears all the group worked together

-- SCORE: 24/30

Mechanic 4: It met the requirement.

Organization 4: well organized.

Originality 4: interesting title and they did differently from other groups.

Requirements 4: all met

Content 4: well organized and easy to understand.

Collaboration 4: seems all the members has participated in this project.

-- SCORE: 26/30


 * Content=4, it was organized.
 * Organization=4, constructed with easy flow.
 * Mechanics=5, presentation had all the required mechanics.
 * Originality=4, the statistics, pro/cons were clear.
 * Requirements=4, exceeded all requirement, references, etc.
 * Collaboration=5, all in a group worked very well.

-- SCORE: 28/30

Scale is 1-4 (4 is best) -- 23/24

Mechanics – 4 – I didn’t see any spelling or grammar errors. Sources were cited

Organization – 4 – The page was laid out very well with good headings and bullet points

Originality – 4

Requirements – 3 – All the requirements were met

Content – 4 – Excellent information, well organized

Collaboration – 4 – Same as group 2, Leon contributed the most to the actual page (number of times edited), we also don’t know what happened outside of updating the site.

-- SCORE: 28.5/30
 * Mechanics - Presentation had all the required mechanics - 5
 * Organization - Well organized and made sense - 5
 * Originality -interesting topic - 5
 * Requirements - Requirements met - 5
 * Content - Seems like missing some points - 4
 * Collaboration - Seems like need more work together - 4.5

-- SCORE: 28/30


 * Mechanics - Presentation had all the required mechanics - 5
 * Organization - The project was organized and made sense - 5
 * Originality - This was a very original idea and was well done - 5
 * Requirements - Requirements met - 5
 * Content - Content was good with references and facts - 4
 * Collaboration - Ease of collaboration throughout the group - 4

-- SCORE: 25/30

Mechanics=4, clear/concise visually easy to view

Organization=5, easy flow

Originality=4, provided results that were relevant

Requirements=4, met

Content=4, content is interesting

Collaboration=4, it appears all the group worked together

-- SCORE: 28/30

Mechanics 4,

organization 5,

originality 5,

requirements 5,

content 4,

collaboration 5