You are hereGrades / Reply to comment
Reply to comment
Grades
Assignments and Grading Criteria:
| Assignment | Percent of Final Grade |
| Team weekly deliverable | 40% |
| Peer Evaluations | 10% |
| Whole Class Discussion participation | 10% |
| Colloquium Journal Report | 15% |
| Final Paper | 25% |
| Total Points | 100% |
| Gradebook | Assignment Title | Grade | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| R511 Spring 2005 | DELVERABLE WK 2 | 8.5 | Please see the feedback sheet in your group space. |
| R511 Spring 2005 | INDIVIDUAL DELIVERABLE WK 3 | 10/10 | Great! You fulfilled all of the requirements of the assignment nicely! |
| R511 Spring 2005 | DELIVERABLE WK 3 | 10/10 | Your team covered all of the questions well within the 2 paragraph limit. Please see general feedback via the announcement about this assigment. |
| R511 Spring 2005 | DELIVERABLE WK 4 | 10+ | WOW! This was EXCELLENT! Nice graphic that coordinates with group you are working with. Good overall document design. Great introduction which sets up the piece nicely. Nice explanation of the IDI model and why you are choosing it for your group (ie. you explained the benefits in context of your needs). Good conclusion and references all in good shape. One small piece of advice for next time... It might look a little bit better to leave a bit more space between your bolded headers. I think that`s it - well done! |
| R511 Spring 2005 | DELIVERABLE WK 5 | 10 | Looked good, everything in good shape (references, document design etc). The most important thing though is that your memo outlined the difference between IST and PT via what kinds of "interventions" might be determined or used. This was the main point of the assignment. |
| R511 Spring 2005 | DELIVERABLE WK 6 | 9.0 | Good overall. Needed to keep focus on ONE instructional theory instead of trying to tie together three theoretical perspectives. |
| R511 Spring 2005 | DELIVERABLE WK 7 | 9.0 | You received the 9.0 because you did a good job of describing the various methodologies associated with behaviorism (although some things could have been elaborated upon, for example, what constitutes and "enrichment activity", what is meant by "consisten" instruction". I took a point off because although you described the basic tasks for your organization (pass motor vehicle test, CPR etc), you did not tie the specific task to a specific methodology and then persuade or provide evidence for why this would be a good idea. At one point you simply wrote "It works!`, but there was no evidence really to support this and since one of the tasks of the deliverable was to "convince your mangager" to use behavioristic methodologies, I`m not quite sure that this component shone through... Also, you provided a powerpoint presentation via html when all that was needed was the powerpoint. Perhaps it was an effort to make the project even better, but it backfired a bit because it seemed unnecessary to do so, and required extra steps on my part to open the files. Finally, when you reference a powerpoint from an online course, you need to provide the URL for the course. I think that`s it, I`m getting nit-picky because we`re past the middle of the semester, but I didn`t take off really for the last two things... just sort of an "FYI". |
| R511 Spring 2005 | DELIVERABLE WK 8 | 10 | Thanks to Chuck for resending the document with the rest of the nine events... all looked good. Can tell that you have a good understanding of a contructivist perspective from this document. |
| R511 Spring 2005 | DELIVERABLE WK 9 | 10 | Very nice! Your target audience, descriptive theory and instructional theory sections were all VERY clear and made good sense. Historically, military instruction/training was very behavioristic in nature, in fact military training was one of the main reasons the field of instructional design was born. You make a good case however, for using constructivist theory in military instructional settings and perhaps the training in that area is moving toward a more constructivist approach - Chuck would probably know more about the current situation for that particular audience than I do at this point...anyway, nice, tight, meaningful paper. |
| R511 Spring 2005 | DELIVERABLE WK 11 | 10+ | Sucessfully fulfilled the assignment requirements. Integrated the readings into your task which was appropriate for your given audience. References looked good. Best components - overall design (look) of the powerpoint and level of detail/elaborative nature of the presentation! |
| R511 Spring 2005 | DELIVERABLE WK 12 | 10 | Very nice! Good document design and flow. References were in good shape. Fulfilled the requirements of the assignment well in that you explained both the positives and negatives. Good recommendation/conclusion section. Well done! |
| R511 Spring 2005 | WEEK 13 DELIVERABLE | 9.0 | Nice introduction which included right away the "underlying values" of IST. You included both hard technology and conceptual development within your various categories. The one thing that appeared to be missing was the link or connection between the hard technolog/conceptual developments and the values of effeciency, effectiveness etc. The linkage/connections were not made explicit under each of your categories. The conclusions section suggested that they were "evident", but it seemed as if the reader would have had to "read between the lines" to make the necessary connections. Other than that, nice overall summary! |
| R511 Spring 2005 | Week 14 Deliverable | 9.0 | Hi Jennifer, mostly I just want to thank you for being such a great participant and role model for the class (which has been a bit interesting this semester to say the least). I had to take off one point however for this assignment since the requirement is to both give your take on things AND to comment on what the other folks are saying. You only had one posting (this time - you have been very prolific in the past which will show up in your partipation grade, so not to worry in this case). |
| R511 Spring 2005 | COLLOQUIA JOURNAL | 15/15 | Jennifer, you have captured the essence of what the colloquia series is all about in your summary. Your individual entries were the easiest to read (out of the whole group) due to the way they were set up and document design techniques used. Thanks for being such a positive influence (both in quality of work and personality) this semester! |
| R511 Spring 2005 | Participation | 10 | High number of good quality postings. |
| R511 Spring 2005 | Peer Evaluation | 10/10 | Good reports all the way around. |
| R511 Spring 2005 | Final Paper | 25 |
- Printer-friendly version
- 1353 reads
Tags
