IGCSE English Lit.‎ > ‎Rubrics‎ > ‎

Wiki

Wiki Rubric
The purposes of the wiki are:
  • to show evidence of research and learning of the topic chosen
  • develop and improve the ability to synthesise information and learning
  • to create a useful database for your multigenre product
  • to work to your individual  strengths in a collaborative context
  • to create a revision tool for the whole class


Grading will be the following:
Wiki Rubric54321
IdeasThe main ideas are clear and relate to the topic. The ideas show good understanding of, and reflection/personal insight on/into, the topic. The main ideas are supported by relevant, good, interesting details/evidence from the novel.The main ideas are clear and relate to the topic. There is no personal reflection or insight into the information. The main ideas are supported by some relevant details/evidence from the novel.There are clear ideas - but they are mostly those of the critics.  The information is presented in a broad sense with little supporting details or evidence from the novel.There are main ideas evident but no supporting details or evidence from the novel.Information is a series of random thoughts making it hard to pick out main ideas.  
OrganisationContent is relevantly grouped. Table of contents, headings and underlining used as appropriate. Hyperlinks to relevant material, files, media and images referred to in written text and connected to topic. Content organised in relevant groupings.
There is other media used as well as written text.  It is not always connected to the topic or referred to in the written text.
There is other media used as well as written text.  It is not always connected to the topic or referred to in the written text.
Content is all bundled together with no relevant groupings.
The information is presented in text and/or hyperlinks only.
Uses headings or other clues to group related material.
The information is presented in text and/or hyperlinks only.  It is all in one paragraph and contains no headings or clues for related material.
VoiceClear awareness of purpose and audience (revision tool for class). Despite being written by different members, there is overall cohesion and consistency to the voice. The page clearly “belongs” to the group.Consistently written for specified audience and purpose. There are signs of a group personality emerging but it is not consistent.No distinctive group personality emerges. There is some awareness of the audience and purpose but it is not consistent.

There is some awareness of purpose or audience.There is no sense of the group engaging with the information or wanting to share it with their audience. There is no sense of purpose.
Word ChoiceInformation is synthesised using the group members’ own words. There is no jargon. All text is clearly explained and intentionally written so that an “outsider” can read and understand the text.There are signs of synthesis in writing but some source material not synthesised. Occasionally words or phrases are not clear in their purpose or intent.There is some vagueness or wordiness in the written text.  Text has been lifted from sources with little modification.The written text is directly lifted from sources with no modification or explanation.The words are meaningless and do not work together to create a message or put ideas across to the reader.
ConventionsSpelling and grammatical errors are rare (get stronger members to proof-read and edit other members’ work). Images include captions and sources are acknowledged accurately.There are few errors in grammar and spelling.  Images do not have captions and sources are somewhat acknowledged.Few errors in grammar and spelling.  Images are included without captions. No acknowledgement of sources.Basic conventions are followed but it is not suitable to be published to the wider web audience.Serious, frequent errors in grammar and/or spelling.  Lack of attention to, nor even interest in, editing evident.
Collaboration
(assessed in dialogue with group)
Each member contributes meaningful content to the page(s). The group has effectively used the strengths/ interests of its members.Each member contributes meaningful content to the page(s) but it has been the work of individuals rather than a group collaboration.Adds useful information to the wiki but lets other members of the group carry more than their fair share of the workload.Relies too heavily on the rest of the group.  Holds the team back rather than being an equal member.Makes very little contribution to the wiki.  Not a productive member of the team.
PresentationAt first glance, the page looks attractive and will invite the reader. Obvious structure to page(s), formatted and enhanced (stand out quotes) using non-fiction techniques. Graphics, if used, are not distracting but add to the message.  Everything works together on the page but it does haven’t that extra zing that draws the reader in.There is a structure to the page(s) but the added resources distract from the message rather than enhancing or contributing to it.Very basic non-fiction presentation features used: headings, underlinings, bold and/or italicised text.No non-fiction features have been used.  Lots of written text but no attention paid to how it is presented.
Comments