Ejournal projects. Award of Excellence "Best article" 2012-2013
Congratulations to all the Winners!!
Mrs. Susanne Bosklopper. Poland .
Mr. Pim Vuijk and mrs. Niesje Vuijk. Netherlands.
The Winners (Max. 2 certificates per school):
Pontes Goese Lyceum:
Places of Recreation
Remarks: Good time-table. Nice Lay-out, very original. Clear map with overview of facilities. You have taken into account different age groups. Good conclusion but be more clear about the number of interviews you have conducted.
Remarks: Nice video, very funny and personalized. Where does the water really come from? Nice pictures, well done. No clear conclusion to the main question.
Remarks: Nice graphs and pictures. Good conclusion. No back up for your results, e.g. How many people you interviewed, no sourcing of info from internet.
Places of Recreation
Remarks: You provided a clear backup of your results, Analysis was supported by many graphs and resulted in a good conclusion. Lay-out is a bit messy. Think next time about graphic design!
Remarks: Great introductions with creative interesting video’s. Especially Kees’s video. Nice graphs and videos to support your analysis. We were surprised by the two languages (Dutch and English). Good backup of your results by providing results of survey. No sourcing of articles. We liked your evaluation.
Remarks: Very good map! Nice-layout. Good referencing of your sources. Nice video of the interview and interesting graphs to attract the reader’s attention. Clear explanations. Well done.
Greenlawns High School:
Remarks: This is a very creative and extensive research on waste (even e-waste). Great layout with pictures and video to support your text. Action to involve the wider community is greatly appreciated.
Places of Recreation
Remarks: Very interactive layout showing 4 videos of different viewpoint from the various age groups, nice! Try to improve the quality of the videos. Nice graphs provided a clear overview for the reader. It was not clear how many interviews were conducted.
Hasanat High School:
Remarks: This was a great research involving many different people and aspects of waste. The reader was absolutely attracted by the interesting stories, good pictures and nice layout. Great actions to spread awareness among many people; excellent job!
Remarks: Very extensive in-depth research and very interesting to read. Conclusion showed a balanced answer to the main question. Very good! Improvements can be made on the graphs, they should have a title and some explanation.
1. Certificates of participation for each student provided all activities have been completed by deadlines Jan 31
2. Certificates of excellence for "best articles"
Criteria to assess the articles:
a. Attractive Lay out . 20 p.
Pictures. Are there enough pictures and relevant to the topic?
Video’s. Are they creative (scenario, humor). Video’s are not mandatory. 2 p. extra if video's are made
Lay out: headers, clear distinction of subtopics etc.. 18: exceptional 16 : very good 14 : good 12: moderately No pictures or video’s: max. 6 p
b. Readiness text. 10 p.
Is it clear that the students have written the text themselves using own words? 9 = very good 8= good If the text is copied/pasted from internet : 5
c. Presentation of group: text, pictures, video . 10 p. If excellent : 9
d. Methodology. 10 p.
Are the tasks well divided ( group leader, photographing, questionnaires etc.) and the methods used indicated: interviews, questionnaires.
9 : exceptional well explained –
e. Research. 40 p.
36: exceptional 32: very good 28: good . (Scores can vary very much) Reward extra the groups who give a personal touch
Are all research questions covered? If research questions are not covered: max. 22/40
Is it clear how the research has been conducted: how many interviews, how many questionnaires, who has been interviewed etc??
How good was the research? Any evidence of the process of the research?
How have they reported on the results? Was the research conducted according the action plan??
f. Conclusion. 10 p.
Is there a clear answer to the main question?
1. Preselection. Shortlist will be compiled by International coordinators by Febr. 10th
2. International jury members will assess the articles on the shortlist by end of Febr.
3. In case of divergence of assessments, Ludo Mateusen will take the final decision.
4. Maximum awards per school per project = 2
1. Greenlawns High School
2. DG Khetan International
3. Hasanat High School
4. Cambreur College
5. Beatrix College
6. Pontes Goese Lyceum
7. Ichthus Lyceum
8. Wolfert van Borselen