TIPCS rubric to selfassess quality of wiki pages in the ICTE course, by Alvaro Galvis, 2009
INDICATORS Title. A short sentence that delivers the intention of the message and captures attention Ideas. The heart of the message, the content of the piece, the main theme, with details that enrich and develop that theme. Presentation. The way wiki information is presented; the form used to deliver and highlight the content. Collaboration. Individual participation in a collective work created based on verbal group interaction. Sentence quality. The rhythm and flow of the language, the sound of word patterns, the way in which the writing is grammatically correct.
In few words it lets the reader know what the wiki page is about and what the intention behind it is. “Our ideas about using concept maps in higher education” The main point is very focused and easy to understand. A reader would learn something from small group interaction about a given ICTE and its educational use. There is a conclusion or a suggestion. The look and feel of the wiki page is professional. Time was taken to organize content, to add colors, tables, pictures, video, URLs or other elements that give the weight to messages. The history of the wiki page shows that each group member contributed to the final work, posting ideas, editing content, improving presentation or writing. These sentences almost sing. It is very easy to read this wiki page aloud with lots of inflection. Some sentences are long and stretchy, some short and snappy. Grammar and usage are correct and consistent.
1‐0 NOT YET
It tells the reader what is the wiki It does not tell the reader what page about but not what to get from the wiki page is about, or leaves the default title. “Our weekly wiki, it. “Concept maps” October 12” There are interesting ideas but not a clear message. The reader may get what the small group talked about but not what participants leaned concerning the tool in consideration and its educational use. The wiki page is understandable but doesn’t stand out. It is adequate but kind of boring. It doesn’t include images or videos or URLs to illustrate what is said about ICTE explored. The history of the wiki page shows that nearly half of the small group contributed to the final work. Someone else might have trouble figuring out what the conversation was about and what emerged from it. Ideas seem jumbled, scrambled. There is not a conclusion; it is just a list of stuff. The form used to present ideas doesn’t help understanding the message. Content is poorly organized or visualized.
The history of the wiki tool shows that almost one person did the entire job.
It is pretty easy to read aloud this wiki page but sentences are all about the same length; may be some could be combined, may be others could be shortened. Some bothersome grammar mistakes still need cleaning up.
This wiki page is hard to read aloud; it is necessary to stop, go back, and recheck the meaning. Editing is not yet under control; spelling and/or punctuation needs to be revised.
Total points out of 25
This rubric builds on “Scoring rubric for blogging / discussion / participation in Mr. Rezac’s class”, available the 27th of August,2009, at http://www.scribd.com/doc/5581113/Blog‐Scoring‐Rubric