DeAnza College/CIS2/Winter 2010/Group 3
Students @ Work - a student collaborative writing project. Help us by providing feedback on the Discussion page. |
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