User talk:AdilAslam1

Wiki Exercise #1: Educational Project
Whats Up Folks, This is Stirling Uni's Hottest Project Since Andy Murray Dropped That Fire Wimbledon Season On Us In 2013--AdilAslam1 (discuss • contribs) 13:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)--AdilAslam1 (discuss • contribs) 13:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Exercise #4: Wikibook Project Reflective Account
Review of Wikibooks assignment AdilAslam1 (discuss • contribs) 18:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The Wikibooks project titled “An Internet of Everything” was very well put together by all of the students through the discussion pages on the relevant chapters. The groups created different headings for different topics in which people posted their ideas and suggestions on what they wanted to do. My own performance on this task was more pre-planned research and the then posting my research by then end, however this ended up being a very stupid move on my part because I hadn’t checked the page and another individual had started the topic I was planning on doing. The way this then translated into our group discussion was efficient and quickly achieved. We met up on several different occasions, we very clearly outlined the points we wanted to make and what the intended effect would be, to the overall contribution of the project. This is very much a concept that relates to the module very well, as we have to deal with the differences of real world problems and at the same time deal with the same problems on an online basis.

The web is very much a more vast and intense place as opposed to being in a group, on the Wikibooks, we had to coordinate with almost 25-30 different individuals and make sure all of our ideas didn’t clash, as well as this we had a discussion page which was overloaded with questions and didn’t have any clear structure, therefore it became difficult to weed out the relevant information I was looking for. Wikibooks as a page for students to create such content like our project was very difficult to understand and very unappealing as the layout was so confusing and trying to remember what the shortcuts were for specific function also wasn’t ideal.

One thing that can be taken away from this topic is that, you have to be very efficient and ready to take on the task you want to, since we clearly all had the time and choice of topic, there is certainly guilt that you don’t need to put in all the best effort because you assume other people have done the work. Clay shrink once voiced that the actions of groups add up to much more than the aggregated acts of individuals, this is pretty evident because the finished article of the project doesn’t just show one person once but all of ours, and that was through efforts of compilation and coordination.

Wikibooks is very much an effective tool for individuals to get together and create content, however it is much more than just that, the information gathered must match up and must be sourced (an area in which I struggled myself), as well as this the ability to communicate with the other members is essential, through the discussion pages, or through social media, it can be very effective to match up what people are doing. However, when the class initially did the project through Wikipedia, and it was considered as spam, this makes it difficult for us as individuals to understand to what nature is what we post relevant to a topic and as freedom of expression online is being monitored, is what we post just to the topic or unclear because we might not have fully researched it. AdilAslam1 (discuss • contribs) 06:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I took the approach in which you did, collecting a load of information but then having the trouble of integrating it into the project as the topic had already been discussed. I'm glad you were able to over come your issues. Would you try this platform again when completing a group project task? Jowettgreen (discuss • contribs) 06:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

i think, i probably would, i actually like this discussion set-up, now that im used to it, however, not with a group of 25 people who are all trying to do the same thing, but it does have its pros and cons like every other platform, and i can see why it was picked AdilAslam1 (discuss • contribs) 07:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree! The platform itself is efficient for a project like this and it was very useful for the discussion page, however, it was easy to get lost and confused. I think that for this type of project it was ideal but I am a lot more confident using different platforms which I am more familiar with. Jowettgreen (discuss • contribs) 10:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello AdilAslam1 you make some very interesting and relatable points here, I also found that I was struggling to find a topic to write about and panicked when I went onto the discussion page to see that all the best topics had been taken. I personally found the discussion page very helpful as it was a way for everyone to communicate and help each other out so at the end of the day no one was struggling, would you agree? Overall I found it a very interesting task and it was something I had never done before and I am not sure that I would want to do it again. Do you feel that now you have experience with the structure and basis of the site that you would want to use it again in the future? Kirstyyy smith (discuss • contribs) 10:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Marker’s Feedback on Wikibook Project Work
Your contributions do not demonstrate a sustained or critical engagement with the task of working on Wikibooks. While there is adequate evidence of discussion on a colleague's talk page, you seldom interact with larger group working on the chapter. Your discussion contribs mainly point towards territory grabbing rather than attempting collaboration. While some of the eariler exercises are very superficial, you demonstrate a better level of reflection in the final exercise. Your contributions to the chapter are primarily descriptive and lack engagement with critical debates or evidence of secondary reading.

Content (weighted 20%)

 * Your contribution to the book page gives a good brief overview of the subject under discussion in your chosen themed chapter. There is a good range of concepts associated with your subject, and the effort to deliver critical definitions, drawing from relevant literature and scholarship, and your own critical voice in the building of a robust argument is very much in evidence. The primary and secondary sources you found about the chapter’s themes cover a good range and depth of subject matter.

Understanding (weighted 30%)

 * Reading and research:
 * no evidence of critical engagement with set materials;
 * no evidence of independent reading of appropriate academic and peer-reviewed material
 * Argument and analysis:
 * poor articulation and lack of support in argument, or no argument at all;
 * no evidence of critical thinking (you did not take a position in relation to key ideas from the module, nor did you support this position in discussion);
 * no evidence of relational thinking (you did not make connections between key ideas from the module and wider literature, nor did you support these connections in discussion);
 * no evidence of independent critical ability

Engagement (weighted 50%)

 * Evidence from contributions to both editing and discussion of content suggests somewhat deficient standard of engagement (i.e. volume and breadth of activity as evidenced through contribs)
 * lack of engagement with and learning from other Wikipedians about the task of writing/editing content for a Wikibook
 * Lacking in reflexive and creative use of discussion pages

Overall Mark % available on Succeed

FMSU9A4marker (discuss • contribs) 14:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)