أحلى الغرام
29-02-04 ||, 01:51 AM
<font color='#F52887'><p align=right><strong><font size=3>السلام عليكم
مشكورين على مساعدتكم مقدما
دخيلكم اللي يعرف انجليزي يشرحلي شو مكتوب؟؟؟؟
ضروري اعرف اليوم لأن الوقت تايم آوت ....وهب لازم تشرحون بالظبط بس ابا اعرف شو مضمون الكلام
أسمحولنا بس كليات بوظبي التقنية فرت راسنا فررررر فدخيل والديكم تترجمولي لو اشوي من هني ومن هناك عسب أفهم شو السالفه
ودخيلكم اللي داخل يتفلسف ويسوي عمره يعرف انجليزي لا يقص علي لأني أباه ظروري
</p></font></strong>
<p align=left><strong><font size=3><font face="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color=#cccccc><font color=#15487e>detailed criteria for judging projects</font></font>
<font face="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif">projects are marked in four sections, each worth 10 marks. an average project would expect to score 5, a substandard project 1 or 2, an exceptional project 8 or 9. jurors should follow the guidelines below in determining the marks to be awarded for the sections. reference should be continually made to responses on the entry form and any supplemental material provided by the project authors in determining the value weighting for each section. </font></font></strong></p>
<div align=left><strong><font size=3></font></strong></div>
<blockquote>
<p align=left><font face="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif" size=3><strong>1: innovation
innovation includes new, exciting, interactive, exploratory, engaging. it means more than just displaying data. for example, a web site produced by students that displays traffic accident data will score less than the same web site that attempts to explain the data and draw conclusions from it, possibly using what if analysis. we are looking for projects that go beyond the display of data. new and exciting ways could be 3d rotational models, simulations, online games, chat, guestbooks, all designed to involve the participants in more than just clicking on a link and looking at text. is this a project that captivates the attention and imagination of participants? is there interaction and activity that engages the viewer and allows them to contribute? are there any feedback mechanisms? in judging this section, jurors will look at the questions on the entry form related to innovation, as well as the aims of the project (how it differs from other projects of the same type). jurors will also give consideration to the project problems, and how these problems were overcome. technology is not the issue, rather, it is the use of the technology. flash graphics and animations are not necessarily by themselves innovative; how they are used to explain difficult concepts could be innovative.</strong></font></p>
<p align=left><font face="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif" size=3><strong>2: transferability / participation
projects are marked on how transferable they are to other educational sectors or areas. jurors are looking for generic ideas that can be transferred. if the ideas behind the project could be used again by others then they will score high. for example, a website dedicated to preserving culture by cataloguing native birds would score high because it can also be used to catalogue other species. in judging this section, jurors will look at the questions on the entry form related to the projects future (will it be piloted or used in other schools), are the authors willing to assist other educators start similar projects, and the questions related to how many other participants are involved (this gives an indication on transferability, a project being used in more than one location means it is transferable). </strong></font></p>
<p align=left><font face="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif" size=3><strong>participation deals with how the project has involved other people. projects that involve a lot of people will score higher than those that involve few people. for instance, a school e-newspaper that is produced by teachers and students, and has a readership of 500 has a great deal of participation. if it was read by people outside the school it would score higher. in contrast, a website produced by a teacher that is only used by their students would score lower. if the teacher took the step of sharing their web site so that other classes or schools could use it, then it would score much higher. in judging this section, jurors will look at the questions on the entry form related to the student involvement, how many students are using the project, teacher involvement, other schools/etc involvement, and how they are involved. </strong></font></p>
<p align=left><font face="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif" size=3><strong>3: educational value
this section deals with how the project enhances the learning of the authors and those that use the project. authors should learn something from implementing their project. a project that contributes to the learning of others will score higher than one that is purely for the project author. student projects that go beyond curriculum requirements to empowering the learning of others will score higher. </strong></font></p>
<p align=left><font face="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif" size=3><strong>4: user needs
this section deals with how the project fulfills the needs of the end user. jurors will be looking for evidence that the project has clearly demonstrable goals and that these are achievable or have been achieved. in some instances, this can be verified by user feedback (typically guestbooks on websites that have user comments). in other cases, it may be by supporting testimonials included in the project documentation. jurors are also looking for the future of the project and suggestions for improvement. projects that meet user needs would score 5 or 6, those that are clearly exceptional will score higher. projects that fall short of the user needs would score less. in judging this section, jurors will look at the questions on the entry form related to project outcomes, the lessons learned by students, suggestions for improvement, and the future plans for the project. jurors will examine these answers with the original aims of the project in mind, to see whether these aims have been realized. </strong></font></p></blockquote>
<p align=left><font face="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif" size=3><strong>it is expected that projects will be submitted with evidence to support claims made on the entry form. this may be in the form of letters from other project team members, industry or students using the project. if the project is a web site, examples may be hit logs and user comments via guestbooks. the jury will give more weight to claims that can be verified.
وشكراً أدري لعوزتكم وياي
</strong></font></p></font>
مشكورين على مساعدتكم مقدما
دخيلكم اللي يعرف انجليزي يشرحلي شو مكتوب؟؟؟؟
ضروري اعرف اليوم لأن الوقت تايم آوت ....وهب لازم تشرحون بالظبط بس ابا اعرف شو مضمون الكلام
أسمحولنا بس كليات بوظبي التقنية فرت راسنا فررررر فدخيل والديكم تترجمولي لو اشوي من هني ومن هناك عسب أفهم شو السالفه
ودخيلكم اللي داخل يتفلسف ويسوي عمره يعرف انجليزي لا يقص علي لأني أباه ظروري
</p></font></strong>
<p align=left><strong><font size=3><font face="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color=#cccccc><font color=#15487e>detailed criteria for judging projects</font></font>
<font face="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif">projects are marked in four sections, each worth 10 marks. an average project would expect to score 5, a substandard project 1 or 2, an exceptional project 8 or 9. jurors should follow the guidelines below in determining the marks to be awarded for the sections. reference should be continually made to responses on the entry form and any supplemental material provided by the project authors in determining the value weighting for each section. </font></font></strong></p>
<div align=left><strong><font size=3></font></strong></div>
<blockquote>
<p align=left><font face="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif" size=3><strong>1: innovation
innovation includes new, exciting, interactive, exploratory, engaging. it means more than just displaying data. for example, a web site produced by students that displays traffic accident data will score less than the same web site that attempts to explain the data and draw conclusions from it, possibly using what if analysis. we are looking for projects that go beyond the display of data. new and exciting ways could be 3d rotational models, simulations, online games, chat, guestbooks, all designed to involve the participants in more than just clicking on a link and looking at text. is this a project that captivates the attention and imagination of participants? is there interaction and activity that engages the viewer and allows them to contribute? are there any feedback mechanisms? in judging this section, jurors will look at the questions on the entry form related to innovation, as well as the aims of the project (how it differs from other projects of the same type). jurors will also give consideration to the project problems, and how these problems were overcome. technology is not the issue, rather, it is the use of the technology. flash graphics and animations are not necessarily by themselves innovative; how they are used to explain difficult concepts could be innovative.</strong></font></p>
<p align=left><font face="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif" size=3><strong>2: transferability / participation
projects are marked on how transferable they are to other educational sectors or areas. jurors are looking for generic ideas that can be transferred. if the ideas behind the project could be used again by others then they will score high. for example, a website dedicated to preserving culture by cataloguing native birds would score high because it can also be used to catalogue other species. in judging this section, jurors will look at the questions on the entry form related to the projects future (will it be piloted or used in other schools), are the authors willing to assist other educators start similar projects, and the questions related to how many other participants are involved (this gives an indication on transferability, a project being used in more than one location means it is transferable). </strong></font></p>
<p align=left><font face="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif" size=3><strong>participation deals with how the project has involved other people. projects that involve a lot of people will score higher than those that involve few people. for instance, a school e-newspaper that is produced by teachers and students, and has a readership of 500 has a great deal of participation. if it was read by people outside the school it would score higher. in contrast, a website produced by a teacher that is only used by their students would score lower. if the teacher took the step of sharing their web site so that other classes or schools could use it, then it would score much higher. in judging this section, jurors will look at the questions on the entry form related to the student involvement, how many students are using the project, teacher involvement, other schools/etc involvement, and how they are involved. </strong></font></p>
<p align=left><font face="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif" size=3><strong>3: educational value
this section deals with how the project enhances the learning of the authors and those that use the project. authors should learn something from implementing their project. a project that contributes to the learning of others will score higher than one that is purely for the project author. student projects that go beyond curriculum requirements to empowering the learning of others will score higher. </strong></font></p>
<p align=left><font face="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif" size=3><strong>4: user needs
this section deals with how the project fulfills the needs of the end user. jurors will be looking for evidence that the project has clearly demonstrable goals and that these are achievable or have been achieved. in some instances, this can be verified by user feedback (typically guestbooks on websites that have user comments). in other cases, it may be by supporting testimonials included in the project documentation. jurors are also looking for the future of the project and suggestions for improvement. projects that meet user needs would score 5 or 6, those that are clearly exceptional will score higher. projects that fall short of the user needs would score less. in judging this section, jurors will look at the questions on the entry form related to project outcomes, the lessons learned by students, suggestions for improvement, and the future plans for the project. jurors will examine these answers with the original aims of the project in mind, to see whether these aims have been realized. </strong></font></p></blockquote>
<p align=left><font face="verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif" size=3><strong>it is expected that projects will be submitted with evidence to support claims made on the entry form. this may be in the form of letters from other project team members, industry or students using the project. if the project is a web site, examples may be hit logs and user comments via guestbooks. the jury will give more weight to claims that can be verified.
وشكراً أدري لعوزتكم وياي
</strong></font></p></font>