Talk:Digital Media & Culture: Collaborative Essay Collection 2018/Collective Intelligence/Research Question 1: The Sum of Parts

Hi team The Sum of Parts!

you're in a team with Mark and Yukiko, although neither have informed me of their usernames yet

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) 19:42, 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) 13:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@GregXenon01 I’ve sent an email out as I’ve not heard anything either.

Danielmay89 (discuss • contribs) 14:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Essay Plan
Introduction and opening segments @markpopradi

Further analysis and conclusion - @danielmay89

At time of writing, Yukiko is not involved in the project therefore work has been shared between Mark and Daniel.

Danielmay89 (discuss • contribs) 11:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC) Danielmay89 (discuss • contribs) 11:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Update:

Following advice from CMC to @markpopradi we will be retaining the 3 part split of the essay. Mark will do the introduction, me (Daniel) the main argument and the conclusion shall remain Yukiko’s responsibility.

Essay question: does the concept of Web 2.0 and the collection of data impact on millennials’ use of social media

Danielmay89 (discuss • contribs) 11:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC) Danielmay89 (discuss • contribs) 11:29, 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 (although it should be noted that this work is right at the lower end of this grade description because you did not attend to the assigned theme of collective intelligence):
 * 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 functional response to the brief. Here you outline a number of arguments, but these are rather different to the assigned theme of collective intelligence. I am at a loss as to why you have chosen to do this, but in the end you have managed to put something together that merits attention. So, your research question which is a really interesting one aside from this fact. It addresses Web 2.0 (which you do not seem to engage with any of the literature, particularly in relation to definition of this as a key term) and millennials (which at its heart, implies a generational argument, and therefore one would have assumed that the digital native/migrant distinction would have been of at least some relevance?).


 * however your discussion of the research evidences working knowledge of a range of scholarship that relates your chosen topic.


 * The essay is written in a fairly useful style, and your argument has some structure to it, is at times critically engaged, and you have demonstrated awareness of some of the underlying implications contradictions. As an important note – signatures and timestamps are all over the essay page, but they do not belong there. Discussion pages fine, but it isn’t conventional for the book pages to include these. In the final analysis, this is fair work and some of the difficulties faces by this group in particular have been duly noted.


 * It was noted that the bulk of the content was added after the deadline had passed (last substantive contribs were 15:26 on 9th April), so I’ve taken this into consideration and applied the 12% penalty for late submission. The alternative was to assess a considerably shorter essay without much content at all, which would have substantially affected the mark to your disadvantage – i.e. resulted in a clear fail for this assessment element.


 * 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) 11:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)