Wikispaces+Grading+Rubric

Group Grading Rubric: Here are the standards through which your GROUP will be evaluated by me each week. GROUP grades on the wiki project will be based out of a total of 20 points. You will see that your group should work TOGETHER to answer these questions each week. While your group might want to split up the questions between group members, it is not enough to just answer your question and be done. Your group will be assessed on how collaboratively you worked together to build knowledge, including how often members of your group edited each others' work, added to the work of other group members, etc. The GROUP standards are listed below:


 * __**Criteria**__ || __**Sophisticated (5 - 4.5 points)**__ || __**Competent (4.25 - 3.75 points)**__ || __**Partly Competent (3.5 - 3.0 points)**__ || __**Unacceptable (2.5- 0 points)**__ ||
 * Reading Comprehension and Synthesis || Group does a thorough and accurate job on all assigned topic questions. Questions are answered with depth and accuracy. || Group does a thorough and accurate job on most of the assigned topic questions. Most of the questions are answered with depth and accuracy. 1 or more questions could use more depth of thought and or accurate answers. || Completes assigned topic posts on-time, but half or more of the questions are not thorough, deep and/or accurate enough in their coverage. || More than half of the questions are not completed on time, or more than half are incomplete or completely inadequate. ||
 * Group Collaboration || The group as a whole used multiple responses to questions to ensure accurate answers. Ample instances of edits, corrections, and additions to other group members' work. || The group as a whole did a generally good job providing multiple responses to questions. Some examples of group efforts to edit, correct, and/or make additions to group members' work. || Few examples of group collaboration. Most of the group members did not provide edits, corrections, and/or additions to others' work. || No examples of group collaboration on the assignment, or examples of collaboration were completely inadequate. ||
 * Relevant Examples || The group as a whole frequently shares logical, relevant connections between the reading content and applications of the content. Applications include both examples from the readings as well as real-world practice. || The group as a whole generally shares logical, relevant connections between the reading content and applications of the content. In a few cases connections were missing or vague, and/or more or better examples (from the readings or from real-world practice) could have been provided. || Few examples of connections between readings and applied examples either in the readings or in real-world practice; examples that were provided were vague, lacked specificity, or lacked applicability and/or accuracy. || No examples of relevant connections or applications were given by the group, or applications were completely inadequate. ||
 * Presentation || Outstanding discussion techniques including evidence of both structure and flexibility, vertical and horizontal communication in the presentation. Ample opportunities for dialogue and collaboration. Full participation from group members. || Good discussion techniques including some evidence of both structure and flexibility, vertical and horizontal communication in the presentation. Opportunities for dialogue and collaboration were present, although more class interaction would have improved the effort. Most or all group members participated actively. || Evidence of good discussion techniques, including structure and flexibility, vertical and horizontal communication in the presentation were lacking. There was little opportunity for class dialogue and collaboration. Active participation by some group members in the presentation was lacking. || No examples of good discussion techniques - no opportunity for dialogue and discussion among class members. Active participation by all members of the group was not evident. ||