Dec 1st, 2008
Feedback and Evaluation
The final project I have in mind for this class is to create a class wiki for AP Literature. One of my main goals for the wiki is to create a place where we can build some community since the group of students I have meets in four fragmented small groups only once per week and only rarely do we meet as a larger group. I hadn’t initially thought about using the wiki for formal graded assignments; however, I think I could shape it in that direction if needed.
As the wiki is a place to build collaborative learning, I think peer feedback is probably more important than any feedback I can provide. The wiki comment box at the bottom of each page is a great place to comment on each other’s writings. I also think a class scavenger hunt of sorts might be a different, maybe even fun, peer review activity once there is more content on the wiki. Students could write questions for their own contributions, which I could assemble into a larger hunt. I would also like to give feedback, especially with the posting and writing students do early on (reinforce good things!), perhaps via individual conferences during study halls or even setting up an online conference. I really liked the SWS Online format we learned about in the presentation on Nov. 25. I don’t necessarily have the tools to do that, but I can take the general idea and make it work somewhat.
I created a rubric for the wiki based on the criteria we brainstormed in class. I see this as a rubric to look at the “end” product of the wiki. I could use it to do some summative assessments, I suppose, along the way. I would also adjust the “Content” criteria to specifically match the content we put up on the blog. For example, we may create a set of pages reviewing books they have read in high school classes that would be good for the Open essay question on the AP exam. For that, content would include a brief plot overview, setting info, main characters and their relationships, symbols, and themes.
Wiki Rubric
|
|
Exemplary |
Standard |
Not Yet |
|
Design/Layout |
Page design is appealing and original. |
Page design is clear and not distracting. |
Page design is sloppy or distracting. Minimal planning. |
|
Organization |
Information is clearly and logically organized. Flow is easy to follow. |
Information is organized. Flow is adequate. |
Information is not clearly organized. Flow is choppy. |
|
Conventions |
Writing is error-free. |
Writing has a few errors. |
Numerous errors present in the writing. |
|
Content |
Quality, clear, accurate information is presented. Info is well-researched. |
Good information is presented, though not as in-depth or well-researched. |
Information is shallow, unclear or inaccurate. Not well-researched. |
|
Hypertextuality |
Many meaningful links within the wiki as well as to other media (images, video, etc.). May be embedded media. |
Some relevant links within the wiki and/or other media (images, video, etc.). May be embedded media. |
Few links within the wiki and/or other media (images, video, etc.). May be embedded media. Links may be irrelevant. |
|
Engagement/Interactivity |
Wiki design and/or content are highly engaging of others and encourage quality participation and comments. |
Wiki design and/or content are engaging of others and generally encourage participation and comments. |
Wiki design and/or content do not engage others nor do they encourage participation and comments. |
|
Source Recognition |
Proper credit is given to outside sources. |
Most outside sources are given proper credit. |
Little or no credit is given to outside sources. |
