Talk:Digital Media & Culture: Collaborative Essay Collection 2018/Always-on Culture/Research Question 4: Team Szucs

Hi Team Szucs!

you're in a team with Chris Szucs and Alison Williamson. I'm afraid that neither have been in touch to inform me of their usernames yet, but there it is. I'm sure you'll find a way to get in touch (e.g. uni email etc.)

This is the discussion page for collaborative essay. Use this pages to edit in discussions, decision making, project planning, and information sharing. Invite other groups to add to the discussion, and contribute to others. Ask for advice from others and share your knowledge. This builds contribs considerably. Start off your discussion by recording your decision-making process re: your research question, email the lecturer to get approval/suggested amendments.Once that's done, you're away.

You can leave notifications for other users by using the reply to template (as I've used in this notice). You can also use your own and each other's discussion pages, as well as the main discussion page on the general theme page. All of this adds to contribs, which are essential to getting a pass mark for this assessment. Don't be tempted to use social media group chat or other platforms to do this. It won't be marked and really misses the entire point of the wiki.

Don't forget to use the four tildes (~) to sign and date your contribution. Every edit you make whilst signed in is still traceable, but a signature makes it much easier to track and respond, and much less likely that the edit will be mis-recognised as spam or vandalism. However: don't sign your edits on the essay page - it looks messy and is unnecessary.

Good Luck!
 * GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 19:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Still not heard anything back from your team mates re wiki usernames. Anything to be concerned about? where is your discussion? It may well be that you are recording your discussion on other wiki book discussion pages (which is fine, they are all "contribs" which can be traced back to individual users) but this is a space created to make things easier for you. Whatever, we need to see lots of discussion recorded here for you to amass "contribs" which are used to evaluate engagement. GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 13:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey team just wanted to say a big well done, I think we've all done massively well. Good luck to you all!MTxPrincipessa18 (discuss • contribs) 10:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK
General Feedback
 * Essays of this standard attain the following grade descriptor for the collaborative essay. Whereas not all of the elements here will be directly relevant to your particular response to the brief, this will give you a clearer idea of how the grade you have been given relates to the standards and quality expected of work at this level:
 * Satisfactory. Among other things, satisfactory standard work may try to relate an idea from the module to an original example, but might not be very convincing. It may waste space on synopsis or description, rather than making a point. It may have spelling or grammatical errors and typos. It might not demonstrate more than a single quick pass at the assignment, informed only by lecture materials and/or cursory reading. It may suggest reading but not thinking (or indeed the reverse). The wiki markup formatting will need some work.

Specific Feedback:


 * You have submitted a rather functional response to the brief. Here you outline a number of arguments that specifically address the theme of always-on culture, although you make mention of a “Keen” quotation in the introduction that doesn’t appear here. There are excerpts of an interview with Keen from a Guardian article later on, and perhaps that is the quote to which you refer, but this should be structured a little more carefully.. It may have been an intention to add this at a later stage? Your discussion of the research evidences a working knowledge of some relevant scholarship on your chosen topic, but there seems to be an overreliance on newspaper reports (about the authors) rather than the academic, peer-reviewed work which you ought to be drawing from regularly at this level. The examples that you occasionally draw from to discuss your theme are well-chosen.


 * Although the essay is written in a fairly accessible style, the problem that I had was a difficulty in reading off the page as the essay is made up of large chunks of undifferentiated text. Some embedded links, images (from wikicommons) and interwiki links to other parts of the wikibook would help break this up, and an eye on formatting and presentation would have been worth the effort. There are also some extremely quirky things going on in terms of general formatting – citation is evidence and so forth which is fine, but it is apparent that your argument is rather disjoined and poorly structured. This is not helped by the fact that each section seems to be written by a single team member, and does not really seem to have worked as a true collaboration. The work would have been greatly improved through this, both stylistically, and conceptually.


 * N.B.:Feedback for your Discussion, engagement and contribs elements for the assessment will be given on your individual User Discussion Pages. Grades for all work will communicated confidentially via Canvas.’’’

GregXenon01 (discuss • contribs) 11:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)