Assignment: Resources, reviews, & report

Weight: 44%
Due: 02 June 2016
Length: 1300 to 2000 words for peer reviews and report

Your assignment submission should include the following components:

  1. two resources to support implementation of selected content descriptions, one from each subject in the Australian Curriculum: Technologies,
  2. evidence of peer reviews (120 to 180 words each) of 6 assigned resources developed by colleagues – (extracts of) comments you provided through the relevant Moodle workshops
  3. a report (600 to 900 words) about your design and development process, learning from the project, and effects of professional engagement on the outcomes.

The project page includes an outline of steps toward successful completion of the project. There are additional pages with samples of resources developed by students in previous offers of the course and details of the peer review process. You should consult them early in the semester and as needed.

Deliverable(s)

Your core submission should be a single document comprising the required elements. Acceptable file formats are, in order of preference, DOCX, DOC and RTF. Depending upon the format(s) you select for your resources they may be included in the core document, submitted as an additional file in the relevant format, or represented by a URL included in the core document. Note that, regardless of how you submit your resources for marking, they must be made available to other students in the course. Name your submission file simply assign + the relevant extension, that is, assign.docx, assign.doc, or assign.rtf. The assignment system will ensure that your file is adequately identified. There is no need to add a cover sheet or copy of the marking guide.

Your performance on this Assignment will contribute 44% to your grade for the course. The marking guide below indicates the standards that will be applied in grading each element. For assistance with interpretation, consult the expanded standards with notes.

Element Exemplary
[4]
Exceeds requirement
[3]
Meets requirement
[2]
Less than required
[1]
Inadequate
[0]
Design and Technologies resource - content The content of the resource exceeds requirements, explicitly integrates general capabilities and/or cross curriculum priorities, and is enhanced by the inclusion of alternative activities or sequences to facilitate differentiation. The content of the resource meets requirements, incorporates at least one key idea from the curriculum and contributes to broader curriculum goals. The content of the resource is aligned to the identified content description and the scope and sequence of activities is appropriate to support the intended learning. The content of the resource is not aligned to the identified content description or the scope and sequence are not appropriate to support the intended learning. The resource is not able to be accessed or the content is not aligned to the identified content description and the scope and sequence are not appropriate to support the intended learning.
Design and Technologies resource - format Design features of the resource exceed requirements, enhance its utility and flexibility for learners and teachers, and facilitate links to the curriculum within a professionally presented package with aesthetic appeal. The design of the resource meets requirements and enables convenient access within a professionally presented package. The resource is able to be accessed and navigated by teachers and learners to support learning and teaching. The resource is able to be accessed but navigation by teachers and learners is not well supported. The resource is not able to be accessed.
Digital Technologies resource - content The content of the resource exceeds requirements, explicitly integrates general capabilities and/or cross curriculum priorities, and is enhanced by the inclusion of alternative activities or sequences to facilitate differentiation. The content of the resource meets requirements, incorporates at least one key idea from the curriculum and contributes to broader curriculum goals. The content of the resource is aligned to the identified content description and the scope and sequence of activities is appropriate to support the intended learning. The content of the resource is not aligned to the identified content description or the scope and sequence are not appropriate to support the intended learning. The resource is not able to be accessed or the content is not aligned to the identified content description and the scope and sequence are not appropriate to support the intended learning.
Digital Technologies resource - format Design features of the resource exceed requirements, enhance its utility and flexibility for learners and teachers, and facilitate links to the curriculum within a professionally presented package with aesthetic appeal. The design of the resource meets requirements and enables convenient access within a professionally presented package. The resource is able to be accessed and navigated by teachers and learners to support learning and teaching. The resource is able to be accessed but navigation by teachers and learners is not well supported. The resource is not able to be accessed.

Peer reviews of 3 Design and Technologies resources – Grades from the Moodle workshop may be considered.

The reviews exceed requirements and explain practical suggestions for enhancement of content and/or format with appropriate references to curriculum, course objectives and/or professional standards. The reviews meet requirements and describe potential improvements to content or format supported by reference to curriculum. The reviews provide constructive comments relevant to the criteria for content & format outlined above. The reviews are not constructive or neglect either content or format. No review is included.
Peer reviews of 3 Digital Technologies resources – Grades from the Moodle workshop may be considered. The reviews exceed requirements and explain practical suggestions for enhancement of content and/or format with appropriate references to curriculum, course objectives and/or professional standards. The reviews meet requirements and describe potential improvements to content or format supported by reference to curriculum. The reviews provide constructive comments relevant to the criteria for content & format outlined above. The reviews are not constructive or neglect either content or format. No review is included.
Design and Technologies design decisions The report explains design decisions about content and format with reference to design thinking, the curriculum, course objectives, and/or relevant professional standards. The report describes significant design decisions about content and format with reference to a relevant framework. The report identifies some design decisions about content and format of the shared resource. The report neglects design decisions about either content or format. The report does not address design decisions.
Digital Technologies design decisions The report explains design decisions about content and format with reference to design thinking, the curriculum, course objectives, and/or relevant professional standards. The report describes significant design decisions about content and format with reference to a relevant framework. The report identifies some design decisions about content and format of the shared resource. The report neglects design decisions about either content or format. The report does not address design decisions.
Learning reflection The report explains learning that occurred with reference to design thinking, curriculum content, pedagogy, course objectives, and/or professional standards. The report describes significant learning that occurred relevant to the curriculum content, pedagogy, and course objectives. The report identifies learning that occurred relevant to the curriculum content and pedagogy. The report neglects learning about either curriculum content or pedagogy. The report does not address learning.
Engagement reflection The report explains how reciprocity in interactions with peers and the wider profession affected the project outcomes including professional learning. The report describes how input from peers and the wider profession affected the project outcomes. The report identifies some effects of peer interaction during the project. The report describes peer interaction but does not address the effects. The report does not address engagement.
Professional presentation Submission meets all requirements for the deliverable, is very well organised to assist the reader, demonstrates sophisticated use of language with no significant lapses in conventions, and acknowledges all sources with a high degree of accuracy. Submission meets all requirements for the deliverable, is organised to assist the reader, has no significant lapses in language conventions, and accurately acknowledges all significant sources. Submission meets all requirements for the deliverable, is clearly organised, has very few significant lapses in language conventions, and acknowledges all signficant sources. Submission meets most requirements for the deliverable, is organised, has few significant lapses in language conventions, and acknowledges most significant sources. Submission meets few or no requirements for the deliverable, is disorganised, includes numerous significant lapses in language conventions, and fails to acknowledge sources.