Rubric Made Using:

RubiStar ( http://rubistar.4teachers.org )

CATEGORY

4

3

2

1

Innovation and creativity

As well as all that is described in point 4, there is a strong relation between academic rigor and creativity in the management and development of the project. There is originality in the chosen topic.

The project encourages interactive and collaborative pedagogy: the learning strategies are clearly identified (information gathering, comparative work, problem solving, collaborative creation: literary, artistic, scientific, journalistic…)

The project is designed and implemented so that the students interact with their companions and also organize the work in different ways (individually, in small groups, in international teams…)

At least some of the activities are designed using methodologies which are different from the traditional lecture. The working methods permit the students to interact with their partners (for example comparing information, working together to obtain a common product…)

Curricular integration

As well as the points mentioned previous, the pedagogical frame-work on which the project is based is clearly explained, for example, describing the objectives pursued with the proposed activities.

The curricular integration is very clear: the project clearly uses project-based learning methodology, the objectives of which permit the students to develop skills and acquire curricular learning in the areas/subjects worked on.

It is obviously integrated into the curriculum but this is not explicitly expressed in the description of the project, nor in the activities of the students.

The project is being developed as an out-of-school activity with workshops and volunteer students. Curricular integration is not a priority. The objectives are more educational than pedagogical. In spite of this, it may be an excellent, creative and original project in which the students are completely involved, which would permit it to get a good score in other quality evaluation criteria.

Communication and interraction among partner schools

As well as the points mentioned previous, the teachers have encouraged the interaction and information sharing as a first step towards collaborative work among the students. The work has been shared, common topics have been worked on, they have been discussed by the students, there is an end product.

The information has been shared with clearly defined objectives: comparing, achieving more in-depth learning, and widening the students’ horizons. These objectives have been reached using teaching processes designed by the teachers and implemented by the students, thanks to suitable communication among the students which has been a main objective under the guidance of the teachers.

The students have shared their products and they have been improved with the contributions of their partners; as the teachers have proposed specific activities so that there is an interaction among the students from different countries. The different schools have worked on the same topics following common or similar instructions, so that the students have been curious to see the creations of their partners and have reacted to them. Topics (proposed by the teachers) have been shared, but not enough to produce a common end product in the TwinSpace or another tool.

The partner students create a variety of products and share them on the TwinSpace or another similar external tool. However the teachers have proposed few (or no) activities which ensure that the students really share and communicate. The students from each country work separately, there is little coordination in the topics dealt with by the partner teachers.

Collaboration

Same as previous, but with particularly high quality; productions are original, international work is rigorous.

Collaborative activities have resulted in work or an end product achieved by using especially appropriate tools (wiki, for example).

There are clear signs of collaborative activities. This collaboration is shown in a TwinSpace, a blog or any other well organized communication tool showing the work of pupils (classified by subject, for example), giving a clear idea of exchanges and cooperation between them.

There are attempts of collaborative activities, but not all attempts have been unsuccessful and there is some sporadic collaboration.

Use of technology

All the previous, but it has also been implemented with a particularly intelligent and creative use by pupils.

– TwinSpace or external communication tools are used. – Commercial blogs without advertising are used, in which there is a high degree of participation by ALL pupils involved in the project. – Creative tools are used to exchange information. – Multimedia documents are produced with the appropriate software, video editing… – Wikis are used… – There is full awareness on issues relating to security; for example, pupils are not identifiable; aspects relating to copyright of music and images used are always taken into account.

– Some TwinSpace communication tools are used. – Commercial blogs are used but advertising has not been taken into account in these. – Creative tools are used for exchanges between pupils. – Documents are created with software for presentations, videos, etc. – There is some awareness about safety aspects; for example, pupils are not identifiable; aspects relating to copyright of music and images used are taken into account but not in all cases

– Only a few pupils are registered in TwinSpace or other tools. – Some communication tools or TwinSpace have been used: basic tools for exchange of information (texts, photos and possibly video-slideshows). – Not all entries are genuine pupil productions (for example, documents that contain information copied directly from the Internet). – There is some awareness about safety aspects; for example, pupils are not identifiable, but there is concern over issues of copyright in images, music…

Results, impact and documentation

Excellent – There is a great variety of results presented, most of them of exceptional quality. The project documentation is thorough as it outlines the information and evaluation very well (most or all parts of the project), also including information about the impact on pupils and their learning abilities, on teaching abilities and the rest of the community. The stated objectives have been achieved and clearly documented in detail. The material presented is consistent with the documentation.

Very good – A great variety of project results is presented, some of excellent quality, created by pupils with the appropriate tools. The project documentation is complete and includes an evaluation (skills and impact on students, teacher reflections) and shows that the established objectives have been achieved, as well as a favourable impact on the rest of the community. The material presented is consistent with the documentation.

Good- Many project (procedural or final) results have been presented, and they have been created by pupils, mostly using basic and appropriate tools. Project documentation includes evaluation (the pupils have at least reflected their views, and which may serve as suggestions for improvement). In addition, there are reflections on the extent to which the objectives have been achieved. The material is consistent with the documentation for the most part and includes some notes on the impact (pupils, teachers and the rest of the community).

Acceptable – Some results of the project are presented (procedural or final ones), there is an occasional intervention of pupils. The project documentation is incomplete or not consistent with the material presented..