I have always included a participation grade in my upper year geography class, because I highly value the contributions that my students bring to the class environment. In addition, the skills they develop by participating in class are not only key for deep learning, but it’s also the skills that help them to be good colleagues and community members in their time after university.
However, participation has always bugged me a lot, from an assessment point of view. I used to keep an intense set of check-marks and meticulously watch students, writing down my observations of their contribution quality and quantity. But, how am I the best person to make a judgment about their participation? How can I ensure that my judgments are fair? How can I recognize diverse ways that students contribute to the class environment, including in ways that I cannot see?
The ideas presented in this post are adapted from the approach of Oakley, Felder, Brent, and Elhajj (2004) in their excellent paper: Turning student groups into effective teams. I have taken their general approach and applied it using digital forms and spreadsheets, as well as adjusted the grading criteria to suit my own classes.
There are a number of best practices that I recommend, such as introducing the evaluation at the beginning and asking students to complete it and share it with each other mid-way so that students who are not pulling their fair share or are dominating have a chance to adjust their approach (rather than only receiving this feedback when the project is completed).
In this post, I am leaping over a discussion of those practices for the moment to focusing on how to:
collect evaluations of team citizenship within a group project
adjust grades according to the results of the evaluations
How do I know if the workload for my existing course is reasonable?
When designing a new course, how do I judge a reasonable student workload?
When redesigning a course, how do I determine whether new components are balanced by the removal of other components?
When flipping or blending a course, how do I ensure that online or out-of-class components of the course are not overwhelming students?
In some cases, you can ask students using a survey or focus group how much time they spend on the course. However, that is not always possible especially within a course design or redesign process. You can also do your ownestimates of how much time an average successful student ought to be spending each week andhow they could be effectively spending that time. This all boils down to a question:
How much am I asking students to do each week, and is it a reasonable amount?
I’m an eLearning specialist, so part of my job is to provide advice and workshops on improving online learning. We often refer to “How Course Web Design Impacts Student Engagement” by Dian Schaufhausser and the infographic that inspired the article during these consults and workshops. The article is a summary of a study of hundreds of courses using a particular Learning Management System (Canvas). Although I often use this as reference material for online course design consults, it should also apply for course sites supporting face-to-face classes. So, when teaching a medium sized first year course this year, I decided to apply my own medicine and try to create a simple and deep design to my course site. From the article:
A simple, deep design might lay out the course directly on the home page with a lot of different activities organized to give the student a clear indication about how to move through them. A given week’s lessons page might include hyperlinks to each activity the student is supposed to do, and there’s no question about what comes next.
So, I divided my course up by themes (usually one per week), and set out with a template for each unit tab seen below in cartoon fashion:
A stonemason, a student, a superintendent, a dean, a pre-school director, a faculty member, a not-for-profit executive director, and a data scientist walk into a hotel. They’ve come together to share their ideas about access to education at “Rethinking Access: When Non-Traditional is the New Normal” a conference put on by HEQCO (Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario). Most sessions were set up as panels surrounding a given topic about access – each panel was ripe with ideas and well-articulated challenges. Given the breadth and depth of issues around access, each panel could really only scratch the surface of the research and on-the-ground work being done. Even so, I gained an appreciation for the systemic issues around access to education and some of the creative solutions for improving access from a variety of perspectives.
My big questions
I took the early train from London and arrived at the Delta Chelsea with my shirt on inside out and a lot of big questions: Who is accessing post-secondary education, and who is not? What are the barriers to accessing post-secondary education? What can and is being done about differences in educational access?
For a week in late March, I guest-hosted the rocur (rotation curation) account @iamscicomm. My initial motivation for hosting the account was to disseminate recent research on science communication and graduate training. Hosting this account would allow me to have a greater reach than the reach of my and my colleagues twitter followers. My hope was that by engaging with a community that’s already excited about #scicomm, I could move past sharing our work into engaging in a dialogue. I’m so pleased that our work was discussed with such excitement and that it was shared over 75 times during the week.
Amanda Freise started the week by introducing me to @iamscicomm followers.
This week our host is @bhundey. Beth is an Educational Developer & Adjunct Research Professor @westernu.
I’m a little troubled by workshops and resources that teach scientists how to do #scicomm (that is, web 2.0, social media heavy science communication) without any consideration or even a brief mention as to whether this is a fitting strategy. By jumping immediately to how to build a personal brand, choose a hashtag, and decide how often to post on 7 different social media platforms, the assumption is made that developing your own social media brand is the best strategy.
Building a lively and energized following on multiple platforms is an effective strategy for many scientists, and it may also be a valuable strategy for you. But, have you given enough attention to other possible modes of science communication that may be a better fit with your goals, available energy, and personal strengths?