viernes, 23 de mayo de 2014

#ABPmooc_INTEF 13: Evaluación 5.1.



Plantilla para evaluación del trabajo proyectado("rúbrica")




Mi documento de evaluación para la realización del proyecto está en mi wiki de trabajo con alumnos así que aquí os dejo el enlace.

La reproduzco aquí y os la explico brevemente. Cada entrada tiene un valor de 10 puntos que se subdividen en cuatro grados de excelencia. La suma va a la escala y da el resultado.

Webquest: What about London?.

Secundaria y Bachillerato

Manuel Francisco Carro




Evalutation.

This is how your productions will be assessed. Use this rubric to help you improve.

||

Not Fair
1
25%
Fair
2
50%
Good
3
75%
Excellent 
4

    100%
PosterVisual impactUnorganised layout, unattractiveNo goodOrganised layout, attractiveOrganised, Attractive layout, decoratedOrganised, Attractive, DecoratedFascinating.10
Poster /PresentationTask compliance3 missing elements2 missing elements1 missing elementAll elements present:Title, map, photos, text 1, text 210
Poster / Presentation Text 1Missing elements2 missing elements1 missing element No omissions (see Task or Process for the elements that should be included)10
Poster / PresentationText 2Brief (less than 4 sentences), clear, too many mistakes for 2 sentences. It explains (at least one reason). but doesn’t suggest /urge to visit convincingly.Longer (less than 6 sentences), clear, fewer mistakes for nº sentences. It explains (at least two reasons). but doesn’t suggest /urge to visit convincinglyMedium length (less than 10 sentences), clear, few mistakes for the length. It explains (at least two reasons).and does suggest convincingly.Long (more than 10 sentences), clear, almost no mistakes for length. It explains (at least three reasons).and does suggest convincingly10
PresentationExtension and audio3 slidesNo voice for comments/music4 slides No voice for comments/music4 slidesVoice or music5 o5 6 slidesMusic or voice10
PresentationSpeed controlToo fast to be read and enjoyed.Too slowFast speed making reading and enjoyment better than previous one but even so, uncomfortableMedium speed.Comfortable but would help if slowerSuitable speed.It can be read, enjoyed comfortably.10
PresentationColours-fonts-size/quality of photos/transitionsColour selections made it difficult to see.Small size of photoToo absorbing transitions and effects (more relevant than information)Colour selections made it difficult to see.Medium size of photoCorrect transitions and effects (less relevant than information)Colour selections made it easy to see.Medium size of photoCorrect transitions and effects (more relevant than information)Correct selections made it easy to see.Suitable size of photoCorrect transitions and effects (more relevant than information)10
Puncutality and timetable complianceGroup efficiency3 additional sessions needed2additonal sessions needed1 additional session neededNo additional session needed, the 7 sessions were respected.10
Assessment :
 

Score key:

1-49 Not Fair 

50-69 Fair


70-79 Good


80 Excellent.


Permitidme que os recuerde los 

Criterios de evaluación

Los criterios son:
Frecuencia de participación, calidad de la participación (ambas controladas por los instrumentos de evaluación colaborativa y coevaluación), calidad expresiva oral, calidad expresiva escrita, calidad de la síntesis, calidad de la presentación y maquetado. La evaluación consta de tres partes, a saber:
1.     Wiki / Póster y presentación (50%) con este documento
2.     Autoevaluación (15%) y coevaluación (15% de la media resultante de la coevaluación)
3.     Respuesta de las Conclusiones (20%)
Elemento de ayuda para  comprobación de trabajos.



No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario

Gracias por tu atención. MFCarro