Motivation and emotion/Assessment/Chapter/Summarising social contributions
[edit | edit source]
Social contributions are assessed by reviewing the summaries provided on Wikiversity user pages in a section titled "Social contributions". The better the link and summary of each contribution, the more likely it is that the marker can find, assess, and reward your social contributions.
If no summary of social contributions is available on the user page or the summary does not provide direct links to evidence of the contributions at the time of marking then no marks will be awarded for this criterion.
Here are some examples of user pages which provide effective summaries of each user's social contributions:
- User:U3083764#Social contributions
- User:U3096454!#Social contributions
- User:Ccgmjb#Social contributions
- User:Uu3148421#Social contributions
- User:Jbboys#Social contributions
- User:U3100481#Social contributions
Although there is no standard format, here is a suggested way of summarising each contribution:
- Use a numbered list
- Provide date/time
- Briefly summarise the contribution
- Provide a direct link that shows the actual changes (or the exact discussion post or
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. This way, the marker can quickly understand when and what kind of contribution was made and, with a single click, see exactly what changes were made. How to do this:
- Go the page you edited and click "View history" (towards top-right)
- Select the left radio button for the version of the page before you edited
- Also select the right radio button for the version of the page after you edited
- Click "Compare selected revisions"
- Copy the website address from the web browser address bar
- 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
- Feedback added to chapter discussion pages (e.g., especially about chapter plans and/or drafts)
- Direct editing to improve chapter pages (e.g., adding new info/content, fixing errors, improving layout/formatting) - changes could be to current year chapters and/or chapters developed in previous years - examples.
- discussion posts related to book chapters
- Tweets about book chapters using the hashtag etc.
- Social contribution rubric
|Bonus marks||Up to 5 bonus marks are available in exceptional circumstances where wiki contributions to the book are above and beyond those required for HD-level. Such contributions could include very substantial contributions across multiple chapters. This could include extensive copyediting, regular feedback, and support on multiple chapter discussion pages. It may also involve substantial activity on thediscussion and/or Twitter hashtag.|
|HD (High Distinction)||Very significant contributions are made to development of other book chapters (beyond one's target chapter). The contributor clearly embraced the collaborative nature of the online book task. 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 chapters via discussion page comments and probably also chapter edits. Such contributions are likely to have occurred across at least half of the semester. It is also quite likely that contributions extend across more than one channel of electronically logged communication (e.g., wiki contributions,discussion, and/or twitter hashtag contributions). Helping to significantly improve at least four other chapters is likely to be worth a HD.|
|DI (Distinction)||Significant contributions are made to other book chapters (beyond one's target chapter). The contributor embraced online collaboration as indicated by the user's wiki edit history. Notable contributions are made to the development of several chapters via discussion pages and chapter edits. Contributions are spread over at least a month. Contributions are likely to have extended across more than one publicly logged electronic communication channels (e.g., wiki contributions,discussion, and the twitter hashtag). Helping to significantly improve at least three others chapters is likely to be worth a DI.|
|CR (Credit)||Moderate contributions to other book chapters (beyond one's target chapter). The contributor embraced some aspects of online collaboration by providing many wiki edits beyond the contributor's target chapter,discussion posts and/or use of the twitter hashtag. 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 chapters is likely to be worth a CR.|
|P (Pass)||Basic contributions are made to other book chapters (beyond one's target chapter). For example, at least one other chapter in the book is significantly enhanced because of the user's contributions. This might involve some helpful comments on several occasions about at least one other book chapter - or perhaps a single, substantial proofread with several useful comments about a full draft could be sufficient for a Pass.|
|F (Fail)||Either no contributions are made or contributions were limited. A lack of collaborative effort is evident, as indicated by minimal, if any, wiki contributions beyond one's primary chapter, forum, and/or twitter hashtag. For example: