Celtic Dance

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page serves as the "hub" for a Cape Breton University course project.

Project Description[edit | edit source]

We are going to create a set of resources (pages) about various aspects of Celtic Dance. Your job is to identify a topic that you would like to write a page about. You could write about a type of Celtic dance, an issue (e.g., competition, gender), an organization, an event, or anything else! When deciding on a topic, keep in mind that your final page should consist of about 2,500 words.

Objectives[edit | edit source]

  1. Write a well-researched public entry on a topic related to Celtic Dance;
  2. Develop research and referencing skills; and
  3. Develop technology (wiki) skills that can be used outside of our course.

Getting Started in Wikiversity[edit | edit source]

  1. Learn about Wikiversity and how to use it
  2. Create a Wikiversity account - choose a user name appropriate to your privacy requirements (can be based on your real name or a pseudonym).
  3. Practice editing in a sandbox.
  4. Describe a little about yourself and your areas of interest on your Wikiversity user page.

Guidelines[edit | edit source]

Follow these guidelines and address the marking criteria):

  1. Topic: Each topic/page should clearly contribute to the overarching theme of Celtic dance. The target audience is a general (non-topic-expert) reader.
  2. Wikiversity: Present the topic as a single page on the English Wikiversity website. A link to the topic/page should appear on this page (under "Topics," below) along with the primary author's Wikiversity user name.
  3. Topic development and plan: The topic and plan must be approved. For more information, see topic development.
  4. Originality: Each student is expected to write original content. Do NOT copy content from any other source without citing it. Acknowledge the sources of all information -- whether paraphrased or quoted directly -- with citations.
  5. Images & Video:
    1. Images: Images are optional but encouraged. However, any images used must be licensed to use non-commercially. In other words, do NOT incorporate copyrighted images. You can find suitable images by using Google Images Tools > Usage Rights and filtering an image search to images that have "Creative Commons licenses." These can be legally uploaded for this project.
    2. Video: Your page should refer to at least one video. I recommend linking to videos that exist elsewhere on the internet (e.g., YouTube, Vimeo) rather than uploading video files into Wikiversity.
  6. Collaboration and peer feedback:
    1. Topics should be independently developed but collaboration is strongly encouraged (e.g., by using feedback and incorporating useful edits and suggestions by others).
    2. Students are strongly encouraged to seek feedback about their topics during the drafting process.
    3. One way to request feedback is to contribute to a Moodle discussion thread (use the topic title in the subject line and include a hyperlink to the Wikiversity page in the message).
    4. Feedback is usually best placed on the topic's wiki discussion page.
  7. Length (Word count):
    1. Approximately 2,500 words per topic.
    2. How to count:
      1. Count everything from top to bottom of the editable page (using page view, not edit mode).
      2. Include the title, subtitle, headings, text, tables, figures, and links. Do NOT include references or any table of contents provided.
      3. Do not include the top and side navigation bars or content in linked Appendices (see subpages).
      4. Use this Word count tool (Google Chrome Extension) or cut and paste into a word processing document.
      5. Do not use the in-built Wikiversity word count (it underestimates).
  8. Submission: Submit your page URL (website address) and your Wikiversity user name via Moodle.

Topics[edit | edit source]

This is where you should provide a link to your topic/page.

Marking criteria[edit | edit source]

Additional information about this assignment and a grading rubric are available in CBU's Moodle. Generally speaking, each topic/page will be marked according to four criteria:

  1. Content (60%): Write a detailed, original contribution about a topic related to Celtic Dance. This contribution should make connections to course concepts and to other project pages. It should reference illustrative videos. Cite all information that is not your own original thought or analysis.
  2. Research (20%): Support your content with references to other sources. Although you are welcome to use non-peer reviewed sources, you MUST also reference peer-reviewed scholarship. Cite your sources properly.
  3. Written expression (10%): Present and illustrate your topic in an interesting and readable way (e.g., using images, tables, and/or applied examples) to an intelligent layperson, using a logical structure and clear layout, professional spelling and grammar, interactive learning features, and using a recognized writing and citation style (e.g., Chicago, MLA, APA).
  4. Social contribution (10%): Social contribution is about editing which enhances the quality of other assignment pages via direct editing of the page or via discussion that helps other contributors to improve their pages. The value of contributions is assessed by the quality and quantity of any improvements and the timeliness and insightfulness of discussion. Useful actions include, but are not restricted to, direct editing of assignment pages, providing comments on individual talk pages, and/or CBU Moodle discussion posts. In order to be accepted for marking purposes, social contributions must be publicly logged (i.e., with a user name and time-stamp) and summarized on your Wikiversity user page (in a section called "Social contributions") using a numbered list with hyperlinks to direct evidence for each contribution. For more info about how to do this, see "Making and summarizing social contributions" below.
    1. Breadth refers to the scope and quantity of contribution, including:
      1. the number of different pages contributed to
      2. range of communication channels used (e.g., direct editing, contributions to talk pages, Moodle discussions)
    2. Depth refers to the quality of contributions in terms of their:
      1. insightfulness
      2. practical value
    3. Timeliness recognizes that there is:
      1. greater value in earlier contributions
      2. lesser value in "last minute" feedback
    4. Bonus marks may be awarded for exceptional levels of contribution.

Making and summarizing social contributions[edit | edit source]

Social contributions are assessed by reviewing the summaries provided on Wikiversity user pages. The better the summary, the more likely it is that I can find, assess, and reward your social contributions.

If no summary of social contributions is available on the user page at the time of marking then no marks will be awarded for this part of the marking criteria.

Here are some examples of user pages which provide effective summaries of the user's social contributions (note that these users were working on a completely different project for another university): User:U3083764, User:U3096454!, User:Ccgmjb, User:Uu3148421, User:Jbboys, User:U3100481.

Although there is no standard format for documenting your contributions, here are some suggested ways of summarizing evidence, ranging from basic to fantastic:

  1. Basic: Link to pages to which you contributed
    e.g., Health behaviours
    The link goes to a page. The instructor would need to go to this page's history tab and then trawl/search to find and examine the user's contributions.
  2. Reasonable: Link to the history of a chapter to which you contributed to e.g., Added to health behaviour chapter
    This link goes to the chapter's edit history, but the instructor would still need to trawl/search to find and the examine users' contributions.
  3. Advanced: Briefly summarize each significant contribution, with direct links that show actual changes (or discussion posts)
    e.g., Added a section and paragraph about the Theory of Planned Behavior and Theory of Reasoned Action to the health behaviour chapter
    The marker can quickly understand the claimed contribution and with a single click can see exactly what changes were made.
  4. Fantastic: Provide date/time stamp and briefly summarize each significant contribution, with direct links that show actual changes (or discussion posts)
    e.g., 13:40, 18 October 2013: Added a new section and wrote a paragraph about the Theory of Planned Behavior and Theory of Reasoned Action to the health behaviour chapter
    The instructor can quickly understand when and what kind of contribution was made and, with a single click, see exactly what changes were made.

How to provide a date/time stamp and briefly summarize each significant contribution, with direct links that show actual changes:

  1. Go the page you edited and click "View history" (towards top-right)
  2. Select the left radio button for the version of the page before you edited
  3. Also select the right radio button for the version of the page after you edited
  4. Click "Compare selected revisions"
  5. Copy the website address from the web browser address bar
  6. Go to your user page. Click "Edit". Insert an external link in the "Social contributions" sections, pasting the website address - this link will directly compare the page before and after your contribution and provide easy to see evidence of exactly what you contributed.
Types of social contributions might include:
  1. Feedback added to other students' discussion pages (e.g., especially about page plans and/or drafts);
  2. Direct editing to improve other students' pages (e.g., adding new info/content, fixing errors, improving layout/formatting);
  3. CBU Moodle discussion posts related to book chapters.
Social contribution rubric
Grade /10 Description
Bonus marks Up to 5 bonus marks are available in exceptional circumstances where wiki contributions to the project are above and beyond those required for the High Distinction level. Such contributions could include very substantial contributions across multiple topics. This could include extensive copyediting, regular feedback, and support on multiple topic discussion pages. It may also involve substantial activity in Moodle discussions.
10 (High Distinction) Very significant contributions are made to development of other topics (beyond one's own topic). The contributor clearly embraced the collaborative nature of the project. This is indicated primarily by the user's edit history on Wikiversity which shows significant and regular contributions to the development of at least several topics via discussion page comments and probably also page edits. Such contributions are likely to have occurred across at least half of the semester. It is also quite likely that contributions extend across both wiki contributions and Moodle discussion. Helping to significantly improve at least four other topics is likely to be worth a High Distinction.
8-9 (Distinction) Significant contributions are made to other topics (beyond one's own topic). The contributor embraced online collaboration as indicated by the user's wiki edit history. Notable contributions are made to the development of several topics via discussion pages and page edits. Contributions are spread over at least a month. Contributions are likely to have extended across both wiki contributions and Moodle discussion. Helping to significantly improve at least three others topics is likely to be worth a Distinction.
6-7 (Credit) Moderate contributions to other topics (beyond one's own topic). The contributor embraced some aspects of online collaboration by providing many wiki edits beyond the contributor's own topic and/or Moodle discussion posts. These contributions are made over a period of at least a couple of weeks and in sufficient time for other authors to incorporate the feedback into the final drafting process. As a guide, helping to significantly improve at least two other topics is likely to be worth Credit.
5 (Pass) Basic contributions are made to other project pages (beyond one's own page). For example, at least one other topic is significantly enhanced because of the user's contributions. This might involve some helpful comments on several occasions about at least one other topic - or perhaps a single, substantial proofread with several useful comments about a full draft could be sufficient for a Pass.
0-4 (Fail) Either no contributions are made or contributions were limited. A lack of collaborative effort is evident, indicated by minimal, if any, wiki contributions beyond one's primary page. For example:
  1. comments lacked detail and/or depth;
  2. comments were not timely (e.g., were provided very late in the drafting process)