Rubric Assessment

Horizon Project 2008

There are three different rubrics featured on this page.

The first one, 'Rubric 1 - Multimedia Artifact' covers criterion A and B and is to be used by all classrooms for assessing the video. It will also be used by the judges for the multimedia awards.
The second rubric, 'Rubric 2 - Engagement, Reflection and Evaluation' (criterion C and D) is optional for teachers to use at the conclusion of the project.
The first and second rubrics have been designed to compliment each other, hence the progression from criterion A to D.

The third rubric, 'Rubric 3 - Wiki Construction' is also optional and provides a tool for assessing student contribution and engagement with the wiki editing process.

Rubric 1 - Multimedia Artifact


Student work will be assessed against two criteria related to the objectives of the Horizon Project.
This is an individual mark assessed by the Judges for a 'best multimedia artifact'.
Individual teachers will also use this rubric for class assessment as they need it.

Objectives

  1. To create a digital story that communicates with a general audience and is based on the chosen trend. Ideally it will have a futuristic theme.
  2. To actively share original content about the trends being analysed.

Criteria
Description
Marks
A
Design and Technical Quality
4
B
Synthesis and Construction of Ideas
6

TOTAL
10

Task Description

Students will work individually to create one video in the assigned topic or metatrend.

Descriptors

Criterion A: Design and Technical Quality

Level
Descriptor (for maximum marks)
0
The work does not meet the standard described in level 1-2.
1-2
The design and technical quality of the artifact is adequate. Limited use is made of multimedia tools to express ideas. The narration is mostly clear with some distortion of sound. An appropriate balance is generally achieved between music/sound and voice. Some images, video clips and other multimedia have been edited to improve the impact of the artifact. Special effects and transitions enhance the final message to a limited extent. The video conveys it's message in over 5 minutes.
3-4
The design and technical quality of the artifact is very good or excellent. Multimedia tools are used effectively to express ideas. The narration is clear with no distortion of sound. An appropriate balance between music/sound and voice is achieved at all times. All images, video clips and other multimedia have been effectively edited to improve the impact of the artifact. Special effects and transitions are used appropriately to enhance the final message. The video is able to convey it's message in 5 minutes or less.

Criterion B: Synthesis and Construction of Ideas

Level
Descriptor (for maximum marks)
0
The work does not meet the standard described in level 1-2.
1-2
Content is constructed from a superficial synthesis of information on the wiki. There is an introduction and some attempt to structure topics. The artifact partially addresses the topic or an aspect of it. There is little evidence of collaboration. Credit to people and sources of information are either missing or incomplete.
3-4
Content is constructed from a synthesis of information on the wiki page. There is an introduction and a reasonably well structured progression of topics or story. The artifact largely addresses the topic or an aspect of it. Collaboration may be evident from the inclusion of content from more than one country/class. Some credit is given to people and sources of information.
5-6
Content is constructed from a systematic synthesis of information on the wiki page. There is a well-crafted introduction and an effectively structured progression of topics or story. The artifact successfully addresses the topic or an aspect of it. Collaboration is evident from the inclusion of content from more than one country/class. Full and correct credit is given to all people and sources of information.


Rubric 2 - Engagement, Reflection and Evaluation


Student work will be assessed against three criteria related to the objectives of the Horizon Project.
This is an individual assessment done by teachers to be used for 'collaboration and engagement' awards and for class assessment as needed.

Objectives

  1. To collaborate and interact with classrooms around the world on the theme of 'emerging technologies' as they are presented in the Horizon Report.
  2. To involve students in higher-order learning and using higher-order thinking skills that include organisation, peer review and reflection activities as well as synthesis of ideas, analysis and evaluation of trends, creation of web pages and multimedia products.

Criteria
Description
Marks
C
Online Interaction and Engagement with the Project
3
D
Reflection and Evaluation
4

TOTAL
7

Descriptors

Criterion C: Online Interaction and Engagement with the Project

Level
Descriptor (for maximum marks)
0
The work does not meet the standard described in level 1-2.
1-2
Communication with team members and teachers was infrequent. There is little evidence of being a considerate partner and of providing feedback or contributing ideas to the project. The wiki page editing and multimedia artifact were partially completed by the deadline. Some organisational skills were demonstrated. Limited participation in the final student summit and interaction with the judges occurred.
3
Communication with team members and teachers was frequent. There is evidence of being a considerate partner, providing feedback and effectively communicating ideas to the project. The wiki page editing and multimedia artifact were completed by the deadline. High-level organisation skills were demonstrated and full participation in the final student summit and interaction with the judges occurred.

Criterion D: Reflection and Evaluation

The reflection, in written or oral form, could:
  • Discuss the main social and ethical issues related to the topic and weigh up the main ideas
  • Propose ways to improve the student's performance and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the project

Level
Descriptor (for maximum marks)
0
The work does not meet the standard described in level 1-2 or the essay exceeds the suggested word limit.
1-2
Some attempt has been made to discuss and evaluate the main social and ethical issues related to the topic. There is evidence of some analysis of the project from a personal viewpoint. The reflection includes proposals for personal improvement and a few suggestions for enhancing work for this type of project. There is some attempt to cite references, and use tagging and hyperlnks.
3-4
Discussion and evaluation of the main social and ethical issues related to the topic is comprehensive. A high level of analysis of the project from a personal viewpoint is evident. The reflection includes proposals for personal improvement and well considered suggestions for enhancing work for this type of project. All references are cited and tagging and hyperlinks are used appropriately.

Rubric 3 - Wiki Construction


Student work will be assessed against three criteria related to the objectives of the Horizon Project.
This is a group mark assessed by the teachers for a 'best wiki' award.
Individual teachers will also use this rubric for class assessment as they need it.

Objectives

  1. To understand, analyze and evaluate the trends highlighted in the Horizon Report 2008 based on key ideas and areas of impact.
  2. To create a project wiki page that details this investigation and synthesis of the material.
  3. To use Web 2.0 tools to facilitate collaboration as well as creation.
Criteria
Description
Marks
A
Finding and Understanding (Research)
3
B
Analysing and Evaluating (Content)
12
C
Communicating and using Web 2.0 Tools (Organisation and Presentation)
5

TOTAL
20

Descriptors

Criterion A: Finding and Understanding (Research)

Level
Descriptor
0
The work does not meet the standard described in level 1.
1
Some information has been accessed and is shown in a list of resources that may or may not be cited correctly.
2
A variety of information from appropriate sources has been accessed and organised. There is a list of resources that is mostly cited correctly, some of which are referred to on the wiki page.
3
A variety of information from appropriate sources has been accessed and relevant material has been carefully selected. There is a list of correctly cited resources all or most of which are referred to on the wiki page. The bookmarking tool (del.icio.us) and tagging have been used effectively.

Criterion B: Analyzing and Evaluating (Content)

Level
Descriptor (for maximum marks)
0-2
Language used
The language used communicates clearly and precisely. Terminology is used accurately, with skill and understanding, and use of non-explained jargon is avoided.
0-2
Introduction
The group is introduced and the context of the project is clearly described. The introduction explains the significance of the topic and gives an overview of the content of the wiki page.
0-2
Information Technology (IT) Concepts
The IT background (concepts, together with developments and trends) relevant to the topic has been described and explained with the support of appropriate examples.
0-2
Current News and Issues
Current news and issues relevant to the chosen topic have been listed, discussed and analyzed.
0-2
Areas of Impact
The areas of impact for the topic have been clearly described on the wiki page. The issues related to the chosen trend and the areas of impact are identified, discussed and evaluated.
0-2
What the Future Will Look Like
There is discussion and suggestions, with supporting explanations, with regard to 'what the future will look like' in relation to the chosen areas of impact.

Criterion C: Communicating and Using Web 2.0 Tools (Organization and Presentation)

Level
Descriptor (for maximum marks)
0
The work does not meet the standard described in level 1-2.
1-2
The information on the wiki page is poorly organized and has limited visual appeal. Graphics are sometimes relevant to the topic. There is limited use of Web 2.0 tools, hyperlinks and other hypermedia. The presentation of information is not always balanced and may show some bias and insensitivity in the use of images and icons.
3-4
The information on the wiki page is organized so that it is relatively easy to understand and has some visual appeal. Graphics are generally relevant to the topic and support the written text. Web 2.0 tools, hyperlinks and other hypermedia are used effectively. The presentation of information is mostly objective and free of bias, and some sensitivity has been shown in the use of images and icons.
5
The information on the wiki page is effectively organised so that it is easily understood and is visually appealing. Graphics are relevant, explained and support the written text. A range of Web 2.0 tools are used effectively. Hyperlinks and other hypermedia aid understanding and add interest to the topic. The presentation of information is objective, balanced and free of bias (e.g. age, culture, gender, race), and images and icons are used sensitively.