We found 78 results that contain "rubrics"
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Sample discussion forum rubric
This is a sample discussion forum rubric shared by Dr. Stephen Thomas.
Authored by: Stephen Thomas
Assessing Learning
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Applying the Quality Matters Rubric (APPQMR)
Learn the underlying principles behind the QM Rubric and the critical elements of the QM quality assurance process. Learn about drafting helpful recommendations as you apply the Rubric to an actual course.
Course Length: Two weeks (May 9th-20th)Delivery Mode: Online (Asynchronous)Instruction: FacilitatedFee (Single Registration): $25 tech fee per enrollment (capped at 20 participants) Cost is being covered through the Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation (CTLI)// --> REGISTER HERE <-- //
Please refer to the Schedule & Checklist for more information on workshop requirements. Note that the Schedule & Checklist for Independent sessions may vary from the Schedule & Checklist provided here.
QM's flagship workshop on the QM Rubric and its use in reviewing the design of online and blended courses is intended for a broad audience, including but not limited to faculty, instructional designers, administrators, and adjunct instructors. It is particularly helpful to those new to QM or those considering the adoption of a quality assurance process for online and blended learning.
In addition to learning about the QM Rubric and the course review process, participants will learn to apply the concept of alignment and draft helpful recommendations for course improvement.
The APPQMR is the prerequisite for the Peer Reviewer Course, which is the required course to become a QM Peer Reviewer.
Recommended For:
Those looking to understand the QM Rubric and course review process.
Members with a stand-alone CPE membership.
Those who wish to complete the Higher Ed Peer Reviewer Course.
Learning Objectives:
After completing this workshop, participants will be able to:
Recognize the foundational concepts of Quality Matters.
Identify the critical elements of the QM quality assurance program, including the QM Rubric, materials, processes, and administrative components.
Apply the QM Rubric to review online courses.
Make decisions on whether the demo course meets selected QM Rubric Standards.
Apply the concept of alignment.
Draft helpful recommendations for course improvement by citing annotations from the QM Rubric and evidence from the course.
What Participants Need:
At least 10 to 12 hours of time per week to spend on achieving the learning objectives.
Some participants report spending at least 15 hours per week.
Course Length: Two weeks (May 9th-20th)Delivery Mode: Online (Asynchronous)Instruction: FacilitatedFee (Single Registration): $25 tech fee per enrollment (capped at 20 participants) Cost is being covered through the Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation (CTLI)// --> REGISTER HERE <-- //
Please refer to the Schedule & Checklist for more information on workshop requirements. Note that the Schedule & Checklist for Independent sessions may vary from the Schedule & Checklist provided here.
QM's flagship workshop on the QM Rubric and its use in reviewing the design of online and blended courses is intended for a broad audience, including but not limited to faculty, instructional designers, administrators, and adjunct instructors. It is particularly helpful to those new to QM or those considering the adoption of a quality assurance process for online and blended learning.
In addition to learning about the QM Rubric and the course review process, participants will learn to apply the concept of alignment and draft helpful recommendations for course improvement.
The APPQMR is the prerequisite for the Peer Reviewer Course, which is the required course to become a QM Peer Reviewer.
Recommended For:
Those looking to understand the QM Rubric and course review process.
Members with a stand-alone CPE membership.
Those who wish to complete the Higher Ed Peer Reviewer Course.
Learning Objectives:
After completing this workshop, participants will be able to:
Recognize the foundational concepts of Quality Matters.
Identify the critical elements of the QM quality assurance program, including the QM Rubric, materials, processes, and administrative components.
Apply the QM Rubric to review online courses.
Make decisions on whether the demo course meets selected QM Rubric Standards.
Apply the concept of alignment.
Draft helpful recommendations for course improvement by citing annotations from the QM Rubric and evidence from the course.
What Participants Need:
At least 10 to 12 hours of time per week to spend on achieving the learning objectives.
Some participants report spending at least 15 hours per week.
Authored by: Dave Goodrich
Pedagogical Design
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Fairytale Oral Exam Rubric IAH 207
This is a rubric that corresponds to the Fairytale Oral Exam.
Authored by: Nicola Imbracsio
Assessing Learning
Posted on: Implementing Qualit...
Applying the Quality Matters Rubric (APPQMR) Workshop
Learn the underlying principles behind the QM Rubric and the critical elements of the QM quality assurance process. Learn about drafting helpful recommendations as you apply the Rubric to an actual course.
Delivery Mode: Online (Asynchronous)Instruction: FacilitatedFee (Single Registration): $25 tech fee per enrollment (capped at 20 participants) Cost is being covered through the Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation (CTLI)
Please refer to the Schedule & Checklist for more information on workshop requirements. Note that the Schedule & Checklist for Independent sessions may vary from the Schedule & Checklist provided here.
QM's flagship workshop on the QM Rubric and its use in reviewing the design of online and blended courses is intended for a broad audience, including but not limited to faculty, instructional designers, administrators, and adjunct instructors. It is particularly helpful to those new to QM or those considering the adoption of a quality assurance process for online and blended learning.
In addition to learning about the QM Rubric and the course review process, participants will learn to apply the concept of alignment and draft helpful recommendations for course improvement.
The APPQMR is the prerequisite for the Peer Reviewer Course, which is the required course to become a QM Peer Reviewer.
Recommended For:
Those looking to understand the QM Rubric and course review process.
Members with a stand-alone CPE membership.
Those who wish to complete the Higher Ed Peer Reviewer Course.
Learning Objectives:
After completing this workshop, participants will be able to:
Recognize the foundational concepts of Quality Matters.
Identify the critical elements of the QM quality assurance program, including the QM Rubric, materials, processes, and administrative components.
Apply the QM Rubric to review online courses.
Make decisions on whether the demo course meets selected QM Rubric Standards.
Apply the concept of alignment.
Draft helpful recommendations for course improvement by citing annotations from the QM Rubric and evidence from the course.
What Participants Need:
At least 10 to 12 hours of time per week to spend on achieving the learning objectives.
Some participants report spending at least 15 hours per week.
Delivery Mode: Online (Asynchronous)Instruction: FacilitatedFee (Single Registration): $25 tech fee per enrollment (capped at 20 participants) Cost is being covered through the Center for Teaching and Learning Innovation (CTLI)
Please refer to the Schedule & Checklist for more information on workshop requirements. Note that the Schedule & Checklist for Independent sessions may vary from the Schedule & Checklist provided here.
QM's flagship workshop on the QM Rubric and its use in reviewing the design of online and blended courses is intended for a broad audience, including but not limited to faculty, instructional designers, administrators, and adjunct instructors. It is particularly helpful to those new to QM or those considering the adoption of a quality assurance process for online and blended learning.
In addition to learning about the QM Rubric and the course review process, participants will learn to apply the concept of alignment and draft helpful recommendations for course improvement.
The APPQMR is the prerequisite for the Peer Reviewer Course, which is the required course to become a QM Peer Reviewer.
Recommended For:
Those looking to understand the QM Rubric and course review process.
Members with a stand-alone CPE membership.
Those who wish to complete the Higher Ed Peer Reviewer Course.
Learning Objectives:
After completing this workshop, participants will be able to:
Recognize the foundational concepts of Quality Matters.
Identify the critical elements of the QM quality assurance program, including the QM Rubric, materials, processes, and administrative components.
Apply the QM Rubric to review online courses.
Make decisions on whether the demo course meets selected QM Rubric Standards.
Apply the concept of alignment.
Draft helpful recommendations for course improvement by citing annotations from the QM Rubric and evidence from the course.
What Participants Need:
At least 10 to 12 hours of time per week to spend on achieving the learning objectives.
Some participants report spending at least 15 hours per week.
Authored by: Rashad Muhammad
Pedagogical Design
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Workshop in August: Applying the Quality Matters Rubric (APPQMR)
Learn the underlying principles behind the Quality Matters (QM) Rubric and the critical elements of the QM quality assurance process. Learn about drafting helpful recommendations as you apply the Rubric to an actual course.
Workshop Length:
Two weeks
Delivery Mode:
Online (Asynchronous)
Instruction:
Facilitated
Fee:
$300.00 Free for MSU Faculty
Please refer to the Schedule & Checklist for more information on workshop requirements.
QM's flagship workshop on the QM Rubric and its use in reviewing the design of online and blended courses is intended for a broad audience, including but not limited to faculty, instructional designers, administrators, and adjunct instructors. It is particularly helpful to those new to QM or those considering the adoption of a quality assurance process for online and blended learning.
In addition to learning about the QM Rubric and the course review process, participants will learn to apply the concept of alignment and draft helpful recommendations for course improvement.
The APPQMR is the prerequisite for the Peer Reviewer Course, which is the required course to become a QM Peer Reviewer.
Recommended For
Those looking to understand the QM Rubric and course review process.
Members with a stand-alone CPE membership.
Those who wish to complete the Higher Ed Peer Reviewer Course.
Learning Objectives
After completing this workshop, participants will be able to:
Recognize the foundational concepts of Quality Matters.
Identify the critical elements of the QM quality assurance program, including the QM Rubric, materials, processes, and administrative components.
Apply the QM Rubric to review online courses.
Make decisions on whether the demo course meets selected QM Rubric Standards.
Apply the concept of alignment.
Draft helpful recommendations for course improvement by citing annotations from the QM Rubric and evidence from the course.
Prerequisites
None
What Participants Need
At least 10 to 12 hours of time per week to spend on achieving the learning objectives. Some participants report spending at least 15 hours per week.Register here!
Workshop Length:
Two weeks
Delivery Mode:
Online (Asynchronous)
Instruction:
Facilitated
Fee:
$300.00 Free for MSU Faculty
Please refer to the Schedule & Checklist for more information on workshop requirements.
QM's flagship workshop on the QM Rubric and its use in reviewing the design of online and blended courses is intended for a broad audience, including but not limited to faculty, instructional designers, administrators, and adjunct instructors. It is particularly helpful to those new to QM or those considering the adoption of a quality assurance process for online and blended learning.
In addition to learning about the QM Rubric and the course review process, participants will learn to apply the concept of alignment and draft helpful recommendations for course improvement.
The APPQMR is the prerequisite for the Peer Reviewer Course, which is the required course to become a QM Peer Reviewer.
Recommended For
Those looking to understand the QM Rubric and course review process.
Members with a stand-alone CPE membership.
Those who wish to complete the Higher Ed Peer Reviewer Course.
Learning Objectives
After completing this workshop, participants will be able to:
Recognize the foundational concepts of Quality Matters.
Identify the critical elements of the QM quality assurance program, including the QM Rubric, materials, processes, and administrative components.
Apply the QM Rubric to review online courses.
Make decisions on whether the demo course meets selected QM Rubric Standards.
Apply the concept of alignment.
Draft helpful recommendations for course improvement by citing annotations from the QM Rubric and evidence from the course.
Prerequisites
None
What Participants Need
At least 10 to 12 hours of time per week to spend on achieving the learning objectives. Some participants report spending at least 15 hours per week.Register here!
Authored by: David Goodrich
Pedagogical Design
Posted on: #iteachmsu
February 2021 Online Workshops from MSU IT
Thinking about Assessment
The focus of our Febuary workshops is assessments, whether formative or summative and exams, essays, or projects. We are hosting three workshops for faculty and two open "tech support" Q&A webinars for students. The faculty workshops will each be offered once. The recordings shared by email to all registrants and also posted to either the D2L Instructor Self-Directed Training site or the MSU Tools and Technology site, as noted in the workshop description.
Building and Conducting Exams in D2L (Desire2Learn)
Monday February 8, 2021, starting at 10 a.m.
In this 90-minute workshop, we will provide detailed demonstrations of how to build an exam in the D2L Quizzes tool, show how to customize submission views, and briefly touch on exam security measures. The workshop recording will be posted to the MSU Instructor Self-Directed Training site (link below).
Registration link: https://msu.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJAod-qprTMoEt3tlcNQUPDO1wdKGG1ZD2O-
For a more immediate how-to resource, please refer to the MSU Instructor – D2L Self-Directed Training resource library “course” in D2L, which has a module with step-by-step walkthrough videos on how to use the D2L Quizzes tool.
Strategies and Tools for Formative Essays and Projects
Monday February 8, 2021, starting at 1 p.m.
In this 75-minute workshop, we will discuss strategies and technologies for formative assessments, including D2L rubrics, TurnItIn, and Eli Review. We will have faculty speakers share their experiences and philosophies regarding when & why they use formative assessment and what they have found valuable about it, then engage in peer discussion within smaller groups. The meeting recording and any companion resources will be shared by email with all registrants, even if you cannot attend the live session, and posted to the MSU Tools & Technologies "course".
Registration link: https://msu.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJwodO2gqD8jHtN5cK8TNCsIaL83HST_vbGv
For how-to resources and detailed overviews of each technology, please refer to the following:
MSU Tools and Technologies for Instructors “course” in D2L, especially the modules for each of these technologies.
This iTeach playlist of assessment resources originally built for the Beyond the Exam workshop
The MSU Instructor – D2L Self-Directed Training resource library “course” in D2L has a module on using the D2L Rubrics Tool
Tools for Grading Summative Essays & Projects
Tuesday February 9, 2021, starting at 10 a.m.
In this 75-minute workshop, we will discuss when and why to use Crowdmark, Gradescope, and Digital Desk to administer and grade summative, non-exam assessments such as essays and projects. This workshop will include brief presentations by faculty who have used these technologies in their courses, followed by informal peer discussion. The meeting recording and any companion resources will be shared by email with all registrants, even if you cannot attend the live session, and posted to the MSU Tools & Technologies course.
Registration link: https://msu.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJwscuqhqjMsGtX7S0Quya3mLxYhPG7sTse7
For how-to resources and detailed overviews of each technology, please refer to the following:
MSU Tools and Technologies for Instructors “course” in D2L, especially the modules for each of these technologies.
This iTeach playlist of assessment resources originally built for the Beyond the Exam workshop
This iTeach article with a feature comparison of Crowdmark, Gradescope, and Digital Desk
Technology Q&A for Students
Friday February 12, 2021 and Monday February 15, 2021, starting at 1 p.m.
These 90-minute webinars are open tech support time for students, especially for any concerns about upcoming online exams or assessments. Students can submit questions through their registration form, anonymously in the webinar Q&A area, and in the webinar chat area.
Registration link for Friday Feb 12, 2021 1:00 p.m.-2:30 p.m.: https://msu.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_Vk-kFbZZQ4W7zUs8gkkZRw
Registration link for Monday Feb 15, 2021 1:00 p.m.-2:30 p.m.: https://msu.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_zNhhPU0qQq2e9dZDjbS2HA
The focus of our Febuary workshops is assessments, whether formative or summative and exams, essays, or projects. We are hosting three workshops for faculty and two open "tech support" Q&A webinars for students. The faculty workshops will each be offered once. The recordings shared by email to all registrants and also posted to either the D2L Instructor Self-Directed Training site or the MSU Tools and Technology site, as noted in the workshop description.
Building and Conducting Exams in D2L (Desire2Learn)
Monday February 8, 2021, starting at 10 a.m.
In this 90-minute workshop, we will provide detailed demonstrations of how to build an exam in the D2L Quizzes tool, show how to customize submission views, and briefly touch on exam security measures. The workshop recording will be posted to the MSU Instructor Self-Directed Training site (link below).
Registration link: https://msu.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJAod-qprTMoEt3tlcNQUPDO1wdKGG1ZD2O-
For a more immediate how-to resource, please refer to the MSU Instructor – D2L Self-Directed Training resource library “course” in D2L, which has a module with step-by-step walkthrough videos on how to use the D2L Quizzes tool.
Strategies and Tools for Formative Essays and Projects
Monday February 8, 2021, starting at 1 p.m.
In this 75-minute workshop, we will discuss strategies and technologies for formative assessments, including D2L rubrics, TurnItIn, and Eli Review. We will have faculty speakers share their experiences and philosophies regarding when & why they use formative assessment and what they have found valuable about it, then engage in peer discussion within smaller groups. The meeting recording and any companion resources will be shared by email with all registrants, even if you cannot attend the live session, and posted to the MSU Tools & Technologies "course".
Registration link: https://msu.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJwodO2gqD8jHtN5cK8TNCsIaL83HST_vbGv
For how-to resources and detailed overviews of each technology, please refer to the following:
MSU Tools and Technologies for Instructors “course” in D2L, especially the modules for each of these technologies.
This iTeach playlist of assessment resources originally built for the Beyond the Exam workshop
The MSU Instructor – D2L Self-Directed Training resource library “course” in D2L has a module on using the D2L Rubrics Tool
Tools for Grading Summative Essays & Projects
Tuesday February 9, 2021, starting at 10 a.m.
In this 75-minute workshop, we will discuss when and why to use Crowdmark, Gradescope, and Digital Desk to administer and grade summative, non-exam assessments such as essays and projects. This workshop will include brief presentations by faculty who have used these technologies in their courses, followed by informal peer discussion. The meeting recording and any companion resources will be shared by email with all registrants, even if you cannot attend the live session, and posted to the MSU Tools & Technologies course.
Registration link: https://msu.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJwscuqhqjMsGtX7S0Quya3mLxYhPG7sTse7
For how-to resources and detailed overviews of each technology, please refer to the following:
MSU Tools and Technologies for Instructors “course” in D2L, especially the modules for each of these technologies.
This iTeach playlist of assessment resources originally built for the Beyond the Exam workshop
This iTeach article with a feature comparison of Crowdmark, Gradescope, and Digital Desk
Technology Q&A for Students
Friday February 12, 2021 and Monday February 15, 2021, starting at 1 p.m.
These 90-minute webinars are open tech support time for students, especially for any concerns about upcoming online exams or assessments. Students can submit questions through their registration form, anonymously in the webinar Q&A area, and in the webinar chat area.
Registration link for Friday Feb 12, 2021 1:00 p.m.-2:30 p.m.: https://msu.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_Vk-kFbZZQ4W7zUs8gkkZRw
Registration link for Monday Feb 15, 2021 1:00 p.m.-2:30 p.m.: https://msu.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_zNhhPU0qQq2e9dZDjbS2HA
Authored by: Natalie Vandepol
Posted on: #iteachmsu
High Impact Assessment: Infographic Assignment Example
Instructions and rubric for the final course project in ISB202 (Spring Semester 2020), which is an infographic. The rubric is designed to align with CLIP's infographic website.
Authored by: Andrea Bierema
Assessing Learning
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Utilizing Discussion Boards as a high-impact assessment tool (assignment example)
For Dr. Bierema’s ISB202 courses, two different approaches to discussion boards are applied- one that requires initial posts, and one that doesn’t. Here are the instruction overviews for each.
Initial Post Required: Students are engaged in online, asynchronous discussion during most weeks. “Engagement in asynchronous discussion” means that students are responding to instructor questions and replying to one another with new information, explanations, examples (cited or personal), and thought-provoking questions throughout the week at times that are convenient to the students.
Initial posts to each question and peer responses are required. Initial posts are due by Tuesday of each week. Peer responses can occur on any day throughout the discussion week-including the day that initial posts are submitted- provided that they happen on three different days. The purpose of having a required number of days rather than a required number of posts is to facilitate back-and-forth discussion. Students need to be engaged in the discussion, not just making posts on a discussion board. Posts must also only occur during the respective week, which starts on Sunday and ends on Saturday. For instance, posts made in the Week 1 forum during Week 2 do not count toward engagement of either week. This is to further facilitate engagement in active discussion. Peer responses can occur in any of the threads for that week. Therefore, a student may respond to peers three times (each on a different day) in one thread only and receive full credit, provided that the rubric is followed. Responses can occur to initial posts or to other peer responses.
Notice that there are two criteria in the rubric for peer responses, and that there is not one for just the number of posts. This means that simply making posts (such as “I agree with…”) on three days will not earn points. Instead, both critical thinking and comprehension must be illustrated on each of these days to earn credit for those posts. Examples of critical thinking include posting follow-up questions that extend the discussion, new examples (either personal or cited), or viewpoints of those not previously identified.
Completing initial posts does not count toward the number of days because the “number of days” in the rubric refers to peer responses. Initial posts are due by Tuesday but students are encouraged to begin as soon as they complete the prep assignment for that week. This way, students can also start their peer responses earlier in the week- students do not have to wait until after the initial post due date to start responding to peers.
Frequently asked Questions
What is the discussion board?
The discussion board is a D2L feature. Students post on the discussion each week. Weekly links are found in the corresponding weekly (e.g., Week 1) content folder. To access the discussion board directly, click on the “communications” tab and then “discussions.” See this video for a brief tutorial.
Why are we engaging weekly in the discussion board?
The engagement allows students to not only apply the content that they learned from the online preps, but it also gives them a chance to learn from other perspectives by interacting with their peers and teaching team. The course is a three-credit course that only meets face-to-face once a week; the other two contact hours are arranged online.
What does “asynchronous” mean?
This means that students can post during times that are convenient to them- there are no set times that students have to be in the online classroom but there are due dates.
How many posts do I need to do?
Post an initial post to each thread- the number of threads vary each week depending on the amount of work for each one. Then post peer responses on three days of the week. Make sure to read through the discussion board rubric located in the “Course Materials” content folder. Responses are not just counted; they are checked for comprehension and critical thinking.
How many initial posts do I have to do each week?
The number of questions vary each week. All threads (i.e., initial questions) need an initial response.
Do I need to post a peer response to each thread?
No, students are required to do three peer responses overall. This can be in any combination across the threads (i.e., initial questions) or even just in one thread.
Can I post a peer response on the same day as an initial post?
Yes, a peer response can be posted on any day of the discussion week (Sunday through Saturday), including days that initial posts are completed/due.
What happens if I do all my peer responses in one day?
As seen in the rubric, points for peer responses are provided by day, not by post. Therefore, posting three responses on one day is equivalent to posting one response. To receive full credit, students need to post on separate days.
How long does each post have to be?
There is not a length requirement on posts. The length will vary with the type of post. For instance, posting a cited example will be a longer post than posting a thoughtful question.
When are peer responses due?
Students can complete peer responses on any day of the respective week, which runs Sunday through Saturday. The last peer response has to be submitted by Saturday.
Are late posts accepted?
The initial post is due on Tuesday but is accepted late for partial credit. Posts and peer responses have to occur during the respective week, which runs Sunday through Saturday (the last day for posting a peer response is Saturday). The purpose is to promote a back-and-forth discussion.
Are any of the discussion board tasks dropped?
One discussion board task is dropped. The lowest grade is dropped, even if the lowest grade is 100% or zero. This is automatically updated in the gradebook. Therefore, if a 100% is dropped but later you receive an 80%, then the 80% will be dropped, and so on.
Do my posts need to include citations?
The instructions for the initial posts will explain if a citation is needed. Supporting ideas with cited information is a way to illustrate critical thinking. Make sure to include a citation whenever using information that was not part of your prior knowledge.
I included a citation in one of peer responses, but it did not count as critical thinking. Why?
Although a citation may be included, none of the content from the cited source was incorporated into the response.
Why is it some of the discussion boards are locked?
Discussion boards remain locked until the week begins. This is so that students can see the questions if they want to prepare ahead of time but also encourages students to engage in discussion during the specified timeframe so that they can interact with their peers.
I thought that there were over 100 students in this class. Why are there so few engaging in discussion?
The class was split into multiple groups for the discussion board. This was to help make it so that the number of posts was not overwhelming for students.
What do I do if I feel like another student was being disrespectful on the discussion board?
Disagreements and challenges (with the use of evidence) will happen but students are expected to always be respectful to each other. Disrespect can make for an unwelcoming environment. Therefore, if you think someone is being -or at least coming across as- disrespectful, then the student can either talk with that student privately or ask the instructor to talk with the student. Please do this via email rather than on the discussion board.
Initial Post NOT Required: Students are engaged in asynchronous discussion during Weeks 1-6. “Engagement in asynchronous discussion” means that students are responding to instructor questions and replying to one another with new information, explanations, examples (cited or personal), and thought-provoking questions throughout the week at times that are convenient to the them. To clarify the language used when referring to the D2L discussion board: If you click on the D2L tab labeled “Discussions”, it takes you to the discussion board. The board is separated into forums. Our class has a few forums, including one that houses everything for “engagement.” Within the forum, are “topics”- one for each week. Within each topic is a list of threads.
Several threads are posted each week for engagement, but not all of them are required. Students are required to:
Respond to the weekly case study thread (can be done any time of the week, but the earlier, the better)
Respond to the weekly reflection thread (can be done any time of the week, and should be toward the end of the week)
Complete three additional posts, each on a separate, non-consecutive day (discussion boards are open Monday through Sunday)
The three additional posts (last bullet point above) must be made on at least three non-consecutive days. “Non-consecutive” means that the days are not back-to-back. Therefore, waiting until Friday to start posting will result in a low grade. Rather, it must start earlier in the week to have time for non-consecutive days. The purpose of having a required number of non-consecutive days rather than a required number of posts is to facilitate back-and-forth discussion. The graded task is titled “engagement” rather than “discussion board” because students need to be engaged in the discussion, not simply posting on a discussion board. Posts must also only occur during the respective week. In other words, posts cannot be made before the week begins nor after the week ends. This is to further facilitate engagement in discussion.
Notice in the rubric (which is at the end of this document) that there is not a separate criterion for number of posting days. Instead, it is incorporated into the following criteria: critical analysis, variation, and comprehension. “Mastery” for nearly every critical element includes “three non-consecutive days.” This means that not only does that critical element need to be addressed in the posts but that posts occur on at least three non-consecutive days.
The rubric has a criterion titled “variation.” This means that students will need to do a variety of types of posts. For instance, if a student only responds to every topic posted by the instructor then that student will receive a “0%” for “Variation.” The purpose, again, is to facilitate engagement in discussion. For example, a student may post a current news event (which is a weekly thread), respond to one peer with a personal example, and respond to another peer with a thought-provoking question. This student would receive a 100% on “Variation.” If that student also posted on three non-consecutive days during the week, had the posts relate to course content, used correct spelling and punctuation, and had a professional and respectful tone, then that student would receive 100% on engagement. This is just one example of how a student can receive 100% on engagement. The following are types of posts:
Responding with an initial post to a non-required thread
Posting a news story by following the instructions in the “Current events” thread
Responding to a peer or teaching team member with
A thought-provoking question (not just- “why did you respond in this way?”)
A personal example
The viewpoint of another stakeholder (a stakeholder is a group of people that have similar interests/investments/influences)
A cited example (include the citation)
This is the interactive part of this online course, so have fun while learning new things from different perspectives!
Example rubrics are attached.
Initial Post Required: Students are engaged in online, asynchronous discussion during most weeks. “Engagement in asynchronous discussion” means that students are responding to instructor questions and replying to one another with new information, explanations, examples (cited or personal), and thought-provoking questions throughout the week at times that are convenient to the students.
Initial posts to each question and peer responses are required. Initial posts are due by Tuesday of each week. Peer responses can occur on any day throughout the discussion week-including the day that initial posts are submitted- provided that they happen on three different days. The purpose of having a required number of days rather than a required number of posts is to facilitate back-and-forth discussion. Students need to be engaged in the discussion, not just making posts on a discussion board. Posts must also only occur during the respective week, which starts on Sunday and ends on Saturday. For instance, posts made in the Week 1 forum during Week 2 do not count toward engagement of either week. This is to further facilitate engagement in active discussion. Peer responses can occur in any of the threads for that week. Therefore, a student may respond to peers three times (each on a different day) in one thread only and receive full credit, provided that the rubric is followed. Responses can occur to initial posts or to other peer responses.
Notice that there are two criteria in the rubric for peer responses, and that there is not one for just the number of posts. This means that simply making posts (such as “I agree with…”) on three days will not earn points. Instead, both critical thinking and comprehension must be illustrated on each of these days to earn credit for those posts. Examples of critical thinking include posting follow-up questions that extend the discussion, new examples (either personal or cited), or viewpoints of those not previously identified.
Completing initial posts does not count toward the number of days because the “number of days” in the rubric refers to peer responses. Initial posts are due by Tuesday but students are encouraged to begin as soon as they complete the prep assignment for that week. This way, students can also start their peer responses earlier in the week- students do not have to wait until after the initial post due date to start responding to peers.
Frequently asked Questions
What is the discussion board?
The discussion board is a D2L feature. Students post on the discussion each week. Weekly links are found in the corresponding weekly (e.g., Week 1) content folder. To access the discussion board directly, click on the “communications” tab and then “discussions.” See this video for a brief tutorial.
Why are we engaging weekly in the discussion board?
The engagement allows students to not only apply the content that they learned from the online preps, but it also gives them a chance to learn from other perspectives by interacting with their peers and teaching team. The course is a three-credit course that only meets face-to-face once a week; the other two contact hours are arranged online.
What does “asynchronous” mean?
This means that students can post during times that are convenient to them- there are no set times that students have to be in the online classroom but there are due dates.
How many posts do I need to do?
Post an initial post to each thread- the number of threads vary each week depending on the amount of work for each one. Then post peer responses on three days of the week. Make sure to read through the discussion board rubric located in the “Course Materials” content folder. Responses are not just counted; they are checked for comprehension and critical thinking.
How many initial posts do I have to do each week?
The number of questions vary each week. All threads (i.e., initial questions) need an initial response.
Do I need to post a peer response to each thread?
No, students are required to do three peer responses overall. This can be in any combination across the threads (i.e., initial questions) or even just in one thread.
Can I post a peer response on the same day as an initial post?
Yes, a peer response can be posted on any day of the discussion week (Sunday through Saturday), including days that initial posts are completed/due.
What happens if I do all my peer responses in one day?
As seen in the rubric, points for peer responses are provided by day, not by post. Therefore, posting three responses on one day is equivalent to posting one response. To receive full credit, students need to post on separate days.
How long does each post have to be?
There is not a length requirement on posts. The length will vary with the type of post. For instance, posting a cited example will be a longer post than posting a thoughtful question.
When are peer responses due?
Students can complete peer responses on any day of the respective week, which runs Sunday through Saturday. The last peer response has to be submitted by Saturday.
Are late posts accepted?
The initial post is due on Tuesday but is accepted late for partial credit. Posts and peer responses have to occur during the respective week, which runs Sunday through Saturday (the last day for posting a peer response is Saturday). The purpose is to promote a back-and-forth discussion.
Are any of the discussion board tasks dropped?
One discussion board task is dropped. The lowest grade is dropped, even if the lowest grade is 100% or zero. This is automatically updated in the gradebook. Therefore, if a 100% is dropped but later you receive an 80%, then the 80% will be dropped, and so on.
Do my posts need to include citations?
The instructions for the initial posts will explain if a citation is needed. Supporting ideas with cited information is a way to illustrate critical thinking. Make sure to include a citation whenever using information that was not part of your prior knowledge.
I included a citation in one of peer responses, but it did not count as critical thinking. Why?
Although a citation may be included, none of the content from the cited source was incorporated into the response.
Why is it some of the discussion boards are locked?
Discussion boards remain locked until the week begins. This is so that students can see the questions if they want to prepare ahead of time but also encourages students to engage in discussion during the specified timeframe so that they can interact with their peers.
I thought that there were over 100 students in this class. Why are there so few engaging in discussion?
The class was split into multiple groups for the discussion board. This was to help make it so that the number of posts was not overwhelming for students.
What do I do if I feel like another student was being disrespectful on the discussion board?
Disagreements and challenges (with the use of evidence) will happen but students are expected to always be respectful to each other. Disrespect can make for an unwelcoming environment. Therefore, if you think someone is being -or at least coming across as- disrespectful, then the student can either talk with that student privately or ask the instructor to talk with the student. Please do this via email rather than on the discussion board.
Initial Post NOT Required: Students are engaged in asynchronous discussion during Weeks 1-6. “Engagement in asynchronous discussion” means that students are responding to instructor questions and replying to one another with new information, explanations, examples (cited or personal), and thought-provoking questions throughout the week at times that are convenient to the them. To clarify the language used when referring to the D2L discussion board: If you click on the D2L tab labeled “Discussions”, it takes you to the discussion board. The board is separated into forums. Our class has a few forums, including one that houses everything for “engagement.” Within the forum, are “topics”- one for each week. Within each topic is a list of threads.
Several threads are posted each week for engagement, but not all of them are required. Students are required to:
Respond to the weekly case study thread (can be done any time of the week, but the earlier, the better)
Respond to the weekly reflection thread (can be done any time of the week, and should be toward the end of the week)
Complete three additional posts, each on a separate, non-consecutive day (discussion boards are open Monday through Sunday)
The three additional posts (last bullet point above) must be made on at least three non-consecutive days. “Non-consecutive” means that the days are not back-to-back. Therefore, waiting until Friday to start posting will result in a low grade. Rather, it must start earlier in the week to have time for non-consecutive days. The purpose of having a required number of non-consecutive days rather than a required number of posts is to facilitate back-and-forth discussion. The graded task is titled “engagement” rather than “discussion board” because students need to be engaged in the discussion, not simply posting on a discussion board. Posts must also only occur during the respective week. In other words, posts cannot be made before the week begins nor after the week ends. This is to further facilitate engagement in discussion.
Notice in the rubric (which is at the end of this document) that there is not a separate criterion for number of posting days. Instead, it is incorporated into the following criteria: critical analysis, variation, and comprehension. “Mastery” for nearly every critical element includes “three non-consecutive days.” This means that not only does that critical element need to be addressed in the posts but that posts occur on at least three non-consecutive days.
The rubric has a criterion titled “variation.” This means that students will need to do a variety of types of posts. For instance, if a student only responds to every topic posted by the instructor then that student will receive a “0%” for “Variation.” The purpose, again, is to facilitate engagement in discussion. For example, a student may post a current news event (which is a weekly thread), respond to one peer with a personal example, and respond to another peer with a thought-provoking question. This student would receive a 100% on “Variation.” If that student also posted on three non-consecutive days during the week, had the posts relate to course content, used correct spelling and punctuation, and had a professional and respectful tone, then that student would receive 100% on engagement. This is just one example of how a student can receive 100% on engagement. The following are types of posts:
Responding with an initial post to a non-required thread
Posting a news story by following the instructions in the “Current events” thread
Responding to a peer or teaching team member with
A thought-provoking question (not just- “why did you respond in this way?”)
A personal example
The viewpoint of another stakeholder (a stakeholder is a group of people that have similar interests/investments/influences)
A cited example (include the citation)
This is the interactive part of this online course, so have fun while learning new things from different perspectives!
Example rubrics are attached.
Authored by: Andrea Bierema
Assessing Learning
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Use AI to generate rubrics.
To create a rubric for just about anything, I find Chat GPT to be very useful. I use iterations of the following prompts, with specifics for each rubric I need to generate:
"In table form create a rubric with four cut-points ranging from "Not Present" to "Exemplary." There should be XXX number of categories: Category 1, Category 2, Category 3, etc... Leave a column on the left for notes or comments.
Typically, using that prompt as a starting point will lead Chat GPT to creating a workable first draft of a rubric.
ChatGPT provided some other things to consider as you prepare your prompt or modify the results:
"1. Define Clear Objectives: Start by providing the AI with specific objectives or outcomes that the rubric is intended to measure. This could include skills, knowledge, behaviors, or attitudes relevant to the task or subject matter.
2. Input Criteria and Levels of Performance: Give the AI detailed descriptions of the criteria you want to assess, along with different levels of performance (e.g., Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor). Ensure that these descriptions are clear and distinct to guide the AI in creating nuanced and differentiated levels.
3. Incorporate Examples and Standards: To enhance the rubric, include examples of exemplary work or specific standards you expect. This helps the AI to understand the context and quality you're seeking, allowing it to generate more accurate and useful content.
4. Refine and Customize: Once the AI provides a draft, review and refine it to ensure it aligns with your educational goals and standards. Personalize the rubric to the specific needs of your course or assignment, making adjustments based on your expertise and experience."
To create a rubric for just about anything, I find Chat GPT to be very useful. I use iterations of the following prompts, with specifics for each rubric I need to generate:
"In table form create a rubric with four cut-points ranging from "Not Present" to "Exemplary." There should be XXX number of categories: Category 1, Category 2, Category 3, etc... Leave a column on the left for notes or comments.
Typically, using that prompt as a starting point will lead Chat GPT to creating a workable first draft of a rubric.
ChatGPT provided some other things to consider as you prepare your prompt or modify the results:
"1. Define Clear Objectives: Start by providing the AI with specific objectives or outcomes that the rubric is intended to measure. This could include skills, knowledge, behaviors, or attitudes relevant to the task or subject matter.
2. Input Criteria and Levels of Performance: Give the AI detailed descriptions of the criteria you want to assess, along with different levels of performance (e.g., Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor). Ensure that these descriptions are clear and distinct to guide the AI in creating nuanced and differentiated levels.
3. Incorporate Examples and Standards: To enhance the rubric, include examples of exemplary work or specific standards you expect. This helps the AI to understand the context and quality you're seeking, allowing it to generate more accurate and useful content.
4. Refine and Customize: Once the AI provides a draft, review and refine it to ensure it aligns with your educational goals and standards. Personalize the rubric to the specific needs of your course or assignment, making adjustments based on your expertise and experience."
Posted by: Jeremy Van Hof
Pedagogical Design
Posted on: CISAH
Since we ran out of time to discuss the creative rubric examples today, I've posted links below. Please take a look and consider sharing your thoughts, or your own examples of rubrics you use to evaluate creative work, as a comment on this post!
- GJS
Creative Thinking VALUE Rubric (from AACU): https://teaching.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/value_rubric_packet.pdf
Creativity Process & Product (from OECD): https://www.oecd.org/education/class-friendly-assessment-rubric-creativity.pdf
Co-Creating Rubrics with Students (from UC Boulder): https://www.colorado.edu/center/teaching-learning/teaching-resources/assessment/assessing-student-learning/rubrics/co-creating-rubrics-students
- GJS
Creative Thinking VALUE Rubric (from AACU): https://teaching.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/value_rubric_packet.pdf
Creativity Process & Product (from OECD): https://www.oecd.org/education/class-friendly-assessment-rubric-creativity.pdf
Co-Creating Rubrics with Students (from UC Boulder): https://www.colorado.edu/center/teaching-learning/teaching-resources/assessment/assessing-student-learning/rubrics/co-creating-rubrics-students
Posted by: Garth J Sabo
Pedagogical Design
Posted on: GenAI & Education
AI Commons Bulletin 12/16/2024
Human-curated news about generative AI for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education.
💚 New CTLI Resource for Using AI in Courses
Very practical introduction to AI at MSU. Details for accessing MSU’s licensed Co-Pilot. Step-by-step instructions on using AI for:
1. Writing emails to students.
2. Summarizing your course videos.
3. Designing lesson rubrics.
4. Forming learning objectives.
Learn More: http://bit.ly/SLXD_07
🏹 Open AI targeting K-12 Educators
Can Higher Ed be far behind? At the very least, increased use in K-12 will shape our incoming students. Topics in the new Open AI free online course: What is ChatGPt and how does it work, ways to use ChatGPT in teaching, best practices for responsible AI in a school setting.
Learn More: https://www.commonsense.org/education/training/chatgpt-k12-foundations
💚 ChatGPT for Natural Course Design
MSU educators explore how using ChatGPT enhances course design by improving structure, aligning objectives, and generating engaging content. Key challenges include content inconsistencies and a steep learning curve, highlighting the need for AI literacy to maximize its potential while managing risks.
Learn More: Kumar, J. A., Zhuang, M., & Thomas, S. (2024). ChatGPT for natural sciences course design: Insights from a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis. Natural Sciences Education, 53, e70003. https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nse2.70003
Get the AI-Commons Bulletin on our Microsoft Teams channel, at aicommons.commons.msu.edu, or by email (send an email to aicommons@msu.edu with the word “subscribe”).
Human-curated news about generative AI for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education.
💚 New CTLI Resource for Using AI in Courses
Very practical introduction to AI at MSU. Details for accessing MSU’s licensed Co-Pilot. Step-by-step instructions on using AI for:
1. Writing emails to students.
2. Summarizing your course videos.
3. Designing lesson rubrics.
4. Forming learning objectives.
Learn More: http://bit.ly/SLXD_07
🏹 Open AI targeting K-12 Educators
Can Higher Ed be far behind? At the very least, increased use in K-12 will shape our incoming students. Topics in the new Open AI free online course: What is ChatGPt and how does it work, ways to use ChatGPT in teaching, best practices for responsible AI in a school setting.
Learn More: https://www.commonsense.org/education/training/chatgpt-k12-foundations
💚 ChatGPT for Natural Course Design
MSU educators explore how using ChatGPT enhances course design by improving structure, aligning objectives, and generating engaging content. Key challenges include content inconsistencies and a steep learning curve, highlighting the need for AI literacy to maximize its potential while managing risks.
Learn More: Kumar, J. A., Zhuang, M., & Thomas, S. (2024). ChatGPT for natural sciences course design: Insights from a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis. Natural Sciences Education, 53, e70003. https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nse2.70003
Get the AI-Commons Bulletin on our Microsoft Teams channel, at aicommons.commons.msu.edu, or by email (send an email to aicommons@msu.edu with the word “subscribe”).
Posted by: Sarah Freye
Posted on: #iteachmsu
Syllabus as an Administrative Tool Rubric
Posted by: Erik Flinn
Pedagogical Design
Posted on: Reading Group for S...
My background in Scandinavian languages and literature keeps rearing its head in various ways after many years. Specifically,when it comes to folklore, magical tales, and perilous journeys toward maturation. In a way, I have become a pedagogical Ashland, of sorts, since coming to MSU in 2015. My journey, an ongoing quest if you will, has been in trying to find that one magical key, which will unlock the enchanted door to greater student interest and involvement in their general education course requirements.
Those of us who teach these courses know that, too often, many students view gen. ed. requirements as hoops to jump through. Something they must satisfy to graduate. Subjects that, they feel, have little to do with the real world, their intended majors, or envisioned careers. Scheduling and convenience more than genuine interest seem to be the determining factor for many students when they choose to enroll in such courses. Put the head down, muddle through, and get it done with as little effort as possible.
But there might be another way.
In my own ongoing quest to motivate and engage the students in my various IAH courses more effectively, I have come back to Bloom's Taxonomy again and again since first learning about it in the 2016-2017 Walter and Pauline Adams Academy cohort. More specifically, it is Bloom's Digital Taxonomy, revised by various scholars for use with 21st century students who exist in an increasingly digital world, that has been especially useful when it comes to designing assessments for my students.
For those who are interested, there are all kinds of sources online -- journal article pdfs, infographics, Youtube explainer videos, etc. -- that will be informative and helpful for anyone who might be interested in learning more. Just search for 'Bloom's Digital Taxonomy' on Google. It's that easy.
For my specific IAH courses, I organize my students into permanent student learning teams early each semester and ask them to create three collaborative projects (including a team reflection). These are due at the end of Week Five, Week 10, and Week 14. Right now, the projects include:
1) A TV Newscast/Talkshow Article Review Video in which teams are ask to locate, report on, review, and evaluate two recent journal articles pertinent to material read or viewed during the first few weeks of the course.
2) A Readers' Guide Digital Flipbook (using Flipsnack) that reviews and evaluates the usefulness of two books, two more recent journal articles, and two blogs or websites on gender and sexuality OR race and ethnicity within the context of specific course materials read or viewed during roughly the middle third of the course.
3) An Academic Poster (due at the end of Week 14) in which student teams revisit course materials and themes related to gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, class, and identity. In addition, students are asked to examine issues of power, marginalization, disparity, equity, etc. in those same sources and look at how these same issues affect our own societies/cultures of origin in the real world. Finally, student teams (in course as diverse as Film Noir of the 1940s and 50s, Horror Cinema, and the upcoming Contemporary Scandinavian and Nordic Authors) are asked to propose realistic, concrete solutions to the social problems facing us.
Anecdotally, student feedback has been largely very favorable so far. Based on remarks in their team reflections this semester (Fall 2021), students report that they enjoy these collaborative, creative projects and feel like they have considerable leeway to shape what their teams develop. Moreover, they also feel that they are learning quite a bit about the material presented as well as valuable 21st century employability skills in the process. Where their all important assignment grades are concerned, student learning teams in my courses are meeting or exceeding expectations with the work they have produced for the first two of three team projects this semester according to the grading rubrics currently in use.
Beginning in Spring 2022, I plan to give my student teams even more agency in choosing how they are assessed and will provide two possible options for each of the three collaborative projects. Right not, these will probably include:
Project #1 (Recent Journal Article Review and Evaluation)-- Powtoon Animated TV Newscast OR Infographic
Project #2 -- (Review and Evaluation of Digital Sources on Gender and Sexuality OR Race and Ethnicty in our specific course materials) a Digital Flipbook OR Podcast
Project #3 -- (Power, Marginality, Disparity, Equity in Course Materials and Real World of 21st Century Problem-Solving) an Interactive E-Poster OR Digital Scrapbook.
Through collaborative projects like these, I am attempting to motivate and engage the students in my IAH courses more effectively, help them to think more actively and critically about the material presented as well as the various social issues that continue to plague our world, and provide them with ample opportunity to cultivate essential skills that will enable their full participation in the globalized world and economy of the 21st century. Bloom's (Revised) Digital Taxonomy, among other resources, continues to facilitate my evolving thought about how best to reach late Gen Y and Gen Z students within a general education context.
If anyone would like to talk more about all of this, offer constructive feedback, or anything else, just drop me a line. I am always looking for those magic beans that will increase student motivation and engagement, and eager to learn more along the way. Bloom's Digital Taxonomy has certainly been one of my three magical helpers in the quest to to do that.
Takk skal dere ha!
Those of us who teach these courses know that, too often, many students view gen. ed. requirements as hoops to jump through. Something they must satisfy to graduate. Subjects that, they feel, have little to do with the real world, their intended majors, or envisioned careers. Scheduling and convenience more than genuine interest seem to be the determining factor for many students when they choose to enroll in such courses. Put the head down, muddle through, and get it done with as little effort as possible.
But there might be another way.
In my own ongoing quest to motivate and engage the students in my various IAH courses more effectively, I have come back to Bloom's Taxonomy again and again since first learning about it in the 2016-2017 Walter and Pauline Adams Academy cohort. More specifically, it is Bloom's Digital Taxonomy, revised by various scholars for use with 21st century students who exist in an increasingly digital world, that has been especially useful when it comes to designing assessments for my students.
For those who are interested, there are all kinds of sources online -- journal article pdfs, infographics, Youtube explainer videos, etc. -- that will be informative and helpful for anyone who might be interested in learning more. Just search for 'Bloom's Digital Taxonomy' on Google. It's that easy.
For my specific IAH courses, I organize my students into permanent student learning teams early each semester and ask them to create three collaborative projects (including a team reflection). These are due at the end of Week Five, Week 10, and Week 14. Right now, the projects include:
1) A TV Newscast/Talkshow Article Review Video in which teams are ask to locate, report on, review, and evaluate two recent journal articles pertinent to material read or viewed during the first few weeks of the course.
2) A Readers' Guide Digital Flipbook (using Flipsnack) that reviews and evaluates the usefulness of two books, two more recent journal articles, and two blogs or websites on gender and sexuality OR race and ethnicity within the context of specific course materials read or viewed during roughly the middle third of the course.
3) An Academic Poster (due at the end of Week 14) in which student teams revisit course materials and themes related to gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, class, and identity. In addition, students are asked to examine issues of power, marginalization, disparity, equity, etc. in those same sources and look at how these same issues affect our own societies/cultures of origin in the real world. Finally, student teams (in course as diverse as Film Noir of the 1940s and 50s, Horror Cinema, and the upcoming Contemporary Scandinavian and Nordic Authors) are asked to propose realistic, concrete solutions to the social problems facing us.
Anecdotally, student feedback has been largely very favorable so far. Based on remarks in their team reflections this semester (Fall 2021), students report that they enjoy these collaborative, creative projects and feel like they have considerable leeway to shape what their teams develop. Moreover, they also feel that they are learning quite a bit about the material presented as well as valuable 21st century employability skills in the process. Where their all important assignment grades are concerned, student learning teams in my courses are meeting or exceeding expectations with the work they have produced for the first two of three team projects this semester according to the grading rubrics currently in use.
Beginning in Spring 2022, I plan to give my student teams even more agency in choosing how they are assessed and will provide two possible options for each of the three collaborative projects. Right not, these will probably include:
Project #1 (Recent Journal Article Review and Evaluation)-- Powtoon Animated TV Newscast OR Infographic
Project #2 -- (Review and Evaluation of Digital Sources on Gender and Sexuality OR Race and Ethnicty in our specific course materials) a Digital Flipbook OR Podcast
Project #3 -- (Power, Marginality, Disparity, Equity in Course Materials and Real World of 21st Century Problem-Solving) an Interactive E-Poster OR Digital Scrapbook.
Through collaborative projects like these, I am attempting to motivate and engage the students in my IAH courses more effectively, help them to think more actively and critically about the material presented as well as the various social issues that continue to plague our world, and provide them with ample opportunity to cultivate essential skills that will enable their full participation in the globalized world and economy of the 21st century. Bloom's (Revised) Digital Taxonomy, among other resources, continues to facilitate my evolving thought about how best to reach late Gen Y and Gen Z students within a general education context.
If anyone would like to talk more about all of this, offer constructive feedback, or anything else, just drop me a line. I am always looking for those magic beans that will increase student motivation and engagement, and eager to learn more along the way. Bloom's Digital Taxonomy has certainly been one of my three magical helpers in the quest to to do that.
Takk skal dere ha!
Posted by: Stokes Schwartz
Pedagogical Design
Posted on: Reading Group for S...
My background in Scandinavian languages and literature keeps rearing its head in various ways after many years. Specifically,when it comes to folklore, magical tales, and perilous journeys toward maturation. In a way, I have become a pedagogical Ashland, of sorts, since coming to MSU in 2015. My journey, an ongoing quest if you will, has been in trying to find that one magical key, which will unlock the enchanted door to greater student interest and involvement in their general education course requirements.
Those of us who teach these courses know that, too often, many students view gen. ed. requirements as hoops to jump through. Something they must satisfy to graduate. Subjects that, they feel, have little to do with the real world, their intended majors, or envisioned careers. Scheduling and convenience more than genuine interest seem to be the determining factor for many students when they choose to enroll in such courses. Put the head down, muddle through, and get it done with as little effort as possible.
But there might be another way.
In my own ongoing quest to motivate and engage the students in my various IAH courses more effectively, I have come back to Bloom's Taxonomy again and again since first learning about it in the 2016-2017 Walter and Pauline Adams Academy cohort. More specifically, it is Bloom's Digital Taxonomy, revised by various scholars for use with 21st century students who exist in an increasingly digital world, that has been especially useful when it comes to designing assessments for my students.
For those who are interested, there are all kinds of sources online -- journal article pdfs, infographics, Youtube explainer videos, etc. -- that will be informative and helpful for anyone who might be interested in learning more. Just search for 'Bloom's Digital Taxonomy' on Google. It's that easy.
For my specific IAH courses, I organize my students into permanent student learning teams early each semester and ask them to create three collaborative projects (including a team reflection). These are due at the end of Week Five, Week 10, and Week 14. Right now, the projects include:
1) A TV Newscast/Talkshow Article Review Video in which teams are ask to locate, report on, review, and evaluate two recent journal articles pertinent to material read or viewed during the first few weeks of the course.
2) A Readers' Guide Digital Flipbook (using Flipsnack) that reviews and evaluates the usefulness of two books, two more recent journal articles, and two blogs or websites on gender and sexuality OR race and ethnicity within the context of specific course materials read or viewed during roughly the middle third of the course.
3) An Academic Poster (due at the end of Week 14) in which student teams revisit course materials and themes related to gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, class, and identity. In addition, students are asked to examine issues of power, marginalization, disparity, equity, etc. in those same sources and look at how these same issues affect our own societies/cultures of origin in the real world. Finally, student teams (in course as diverse as Film Noir of the 1940s and 50s, Horror Cinema, and the upcoming Contemporary Scandinavian and Nordic Authors) are asked to propose realistic, concrete solutions to the social problems facing us.
Anecdotally, student feedback has been largely very favorable so far. Based on remarks in their team reflections this semester (Fall 2021), students report that they enjoy these collaborative, creative projects and feel like they have considerable leeway to shape what their teams develop. Moreover, they also feel that they are learning quite a bit about the material presented as well as valuable 21st century employability skills in the process. Where their all important assignment grades are concerned, student learning teams in my courses are meeting or exceeding expectations with the work they have produced for the first two of three team projects this semester according to the grading rubrics currently in use.
Beginning in Spring 2022, I plan to give my student teams even more agency in choosing how they are assessed and will provide two possible options for each of the three collaborative projects. Right not, these will probably include:
Project #1 (Recent Journal Article Review and Evaluation)-- Powtoon Animated TV Newscast OR Infographic
Project #2 -- (Review and Evaluation of Digital Sources on Gender and Sexuality OR Race and Ethnicty in our specific course materials) Flipbook OR Podcast
Project #3 -- (Power, Marginality, Disparity, Equity in Course Materials and Real World of 21st Century Problem-Solving) Electronic Poster OR Digital Scrapbook.
Through collaborative projects like these, I am attempting to motivate and engage the students in my IAH courses more effectively, help them to think more actively and critically about the material presented as well as the various social issues that continue to plague our world, and provide them with ample opportunity to cultivate essential skills that will enable their full participation in the globalized world and economy of the 21st century. Bloom's (Revised) Digital Taxonomy, among other resources, continues to facilitate my evolving thought about how best to reach late Gen Y and Gen Z students within a general education context.
If anyone would like to talk more about all of this, offer constructive feedback, or anything else, just drop me a line. I am always looking for those magic beans that will increase student motivation and engagement, and eager to learn more along the way. Bloom's Digital Taxonomy has certainly been one of my three magical helpers in the quest to to do that.
Those of us who teach these courses know that, too often, many students view gen. ed. requirements as hoops to jump through. Something they must satisfy to graduate. Subjects that, they feel, have little to do with the real world, their intended majors, or envisioned careers. Scheduling and convenience more than genuine interest seem to be the determining factor for many students when they choose to enroll in such courses. Put the head down, muddle through, and get it done with as little effort as possible.
But there might be another way.
In my own ongoing quest to motivate and engage the students in my various IAH courses more effectively, I have come back to Bloom's Taxonomy again and again since first learning about it in the 2016-2017 Walter and Pauline Adams Academy cohort. More specifically, it is Bloom's Digital Taxonomy, revised by various scholars for use with 21st century students who exist in an increasingly digital world, that has been especially useful when it comes to designing assessments for my students.
For those who are interested, there are all kinds of sources online -- journal article pdfs, infographics, Youtube explainer videos, etc. -- that will be informative and helpful for anyone who might be interested in learning more. Just search for 'Bloom's Digital Taxonomy' on Google. It's that easy.
For my specific IAH courses, I organize my students into permanent student learning teams early each semester and ask them to create three collaborative projects (including a team reflection). These are due at the end of Week Five, Week 10, and Week 14. Right now, the projects include:
1) A TV Newscast/Talkshow Article Review Video in which teams are ask to locate, report on, review, and evaluate two recent journal articles pertinent to material read or viewed during the first few weeks of the course.
2) A Readers' Guide Digital Flipbook (using Flipsnack) that reviews and evaluates the usefulness of two books, two more recent journal articles, and two blogs or websites on gender and sexuality OR race and ethnicity within the context of specific course materials read or viewed during roughly the middle third of the course.
3) An Academic Poster (due at the end of Week 14) in which student teams revisit course materials and themes related to gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, class, and identity. In addition, students are asked to examine issues of power, marginalization, disparity, equity, etc. in those same sources and look at how these same issues affect our own societies/cultures of origin in the real world. Finally, student teams (in course as diverse as Film Noir of the 1940s and 50s, Horror Cinema, and the upcoming Contemporary Scandinavian and Nordic Authors) are asked to propose realistic, concrete solutions to the social problems facing us.
Anecdotally, student feedback has been largely very favorable so far. Based on remarks in their team reflections this semester (Fall 2021), students report that they enjoy these collaborative, creative projects and feel like they have considerable leeway to shape what their teams develop. Moreover, they also feel that they are learning quite a bit about the material presented as well as valuable 21st century employability skills in the process. Where their all important assignment grades are concerned, student learning teams in my courses are meeting or exceeding expectations with the work they have produced for the first two of three team projects this semester according to the grading rubrics currently in use.
Beginning in Spring 2022, I plan to give my student teams even more agency in choosing how they are assessed and will provide two possible options for each of the three collaborative projects. Right not, these will probably include:
Project #1 (Recent Journal Article Review and Evaluation)-- Powtoon Animated TV Newscast OR Infographic
Project #2 -- (Review and Evaluation of Digital Sources on Gender and Sexuality OR Race and Ethnicty in our specific course materials) Flipbook OR Podcast
Project #3 -- (Power, Marginality, Disparity, Equity in Course Materials and Real World of 21st Century Problem-Solving) Electronic Poster OR Digital Scrapbook.
Through collaborative projects like these, I am attempting to motivate and engage the students in my IAH courses more effectively, help them to think more actively and critically about the material presented as well as the various social issues that continue to plague our world, and provide them with ample opportunity to cultivate essential skills that will enable their full participation in the globalized world and economy of the 21st century. Bloom's (Revised) Digital Taxonomy, among other resources, continues to facilitate my evolving thought about how best to reach late Gen Y and Gen Z students within a general education context.
If anyone would like to talk more about all of this, offer constructive feedback, or anything else, just drop me a line. I am always looking for those magic beans that will increase student motivation and engagement, and eager to learn more along the way. Bloom's Digital Taxonomy has certainly been one of my three magical helpers in the quest to to do that.
Posted by: Stokes Schwartz
Pedagogical Design