Bcm301 Final Assessment Guide 161009

BCM301 Friday October 16, 2009 Next week we will be joined by Dr Colin Salter, his lecture is titled Open Publishing, History2.0 and Click-through Activism. The reading is available in the library for loan, and is hosted at http://www.mediafire.com/file/otqhqmdnzmq/Meikle(1999).pdf until next week and there is more information available in the subject outline. The group projects are due Tuesday, October 27 at 3.30pm and will be presented and discussed briefly in the tutorials in Week 13. I am extending the deadline of the accompanying individual report by one week to November 4, by 3.30pm by email to your tutor or by paper submission at the Arts office. The group projects are worth 15% and the individual reports are also worth 25% of the total grade for the course. The digital component of the project is the expansion of the creative element of the tutorial presentation. The final project submission is one that represents a significant degree of critically oriented discussion, research, planning and group implementation. So far the group projects include extended annotated bookmark collections on Delicious, large Flickr.com galleries, Twilight Slash Fiction YouTube channels, online debates, Social Network identities, collaborative blogs and podcasts. All of the projects should address one or more elements of the History 2.0 rubric and the final submission of the project should reflect substantial collaborative effort and contribution, and while it is difficult to quantify such an engagement in a group situation, the evidence for your research, involvement and engagement with the project should be made clear in the individual written report. The report is an individual account of your group project. You should include at least four sections in your report (not a traditional essay structure) including aim, methodology, results and discussion (use subheadings to denote these sections, but you don't have to use these terms exclusively). The aim outlines what your group sought to accomplish, the methodology should include attention to relevant features of the media or online services you choose to base your projects. The results and discussion is where you explore relevant sources that ground your interpretation in critical theory.

You should connect to the ideas and concepts developed in the lectures and background readings, and introduce your own research. The discussion is also the place to review your input in the group, and review the success, issues, and critical observations developed during the work on the project. You can site your project heavily as primary source material in your report, but extended this with secondary and tertiary sources from the course content and your own reading and research. Group Projects Assessment Guide The projects will be assessed for their presentation, communication and integration and the reports will focus on assessing your research, planning and critique. Presentation of the project is assessed in terms of the group’s investigative, collaborative, and creative interpretation of the rubric of History2.0. Communication includes the capacity to convey an argument that is substantiated with relevant supporting evidence in a concise, well-constructed and logical way. Integration involves the ability to move between online sources and information systems (including wikis, blogs, social networks, folksonomies, and media resources) that deal directly with the subject into forms of commentary generated about your subject. Individual Reports Research will be assessed in the report and your sources should come from a combination of locations: primary sources – your object of study and your own input into the materials generated for your tutorial presentations; secondary sources – these include news and popular sources, student commentaries, and blogs; and tertiary sources – original works from academic sources from academic journals or books related to the topic. Planning is assessed according to your self-reflection on the group’s creative and practical production. The depth of your critical argument will be also assessed, and your report should be critique oriented, and be well researched, logical and example driven.