My artifact is an overall course redesign based on the process of “working backwards” from revised learning goals. First, I revised the learning goals slightly since the first draft to clarify and to make the work more reasonable for a short Winter intercession. Working backwards, I’m now thinking about the projects and assessments I’ll use during each module to measure these goals. I’ve also established a rhythm for synchronous and asynchronous work.

I need to finish planning the third module, and lastly I’ll figure out “what I’m doing and assigning” so students can meet those goals.

Course Learning Goals

• By the end of this course, students will gain skills to describe, understand, and discuss the scope and degree of inequality in the United States. Students will be able to
  • Locate, access, and understand contemporary Sociological data about inequality produced by researchers and institutions in the U.S.
  • Recognize and analyze stratification associated with race, gender, sexuality, and other identities, statuses, and roles from an intersectional perspective.
  • Analyze contemporary issues of inequality as discussed in the media and in relation to their everyday lives using the Sociological imagination.
  • Use these ideas and concepts to make an informed argument about inequality, social mobility, and democracy in capitalist societies.
• Students will gain an understanding of key areas of inquiry in the Sociology of Inequality, and will be able to deploy the ideas and vocabulary developed in this class to analyze inequality in the U.S. These areas include
  • The Individual attributes and the structural approach to understanding and explaining inequality and the use of the Sociological imagination in analyzing and explaining our experiences, identities, and worldviews.
  • Racial capitalism and its relationship to contemporary forms of inequality.
  • Class power and the relational and dynamic view of class, social mobility, and democracy in capitalist societies.
  • Social movements against inequality from an intersectional perspective.

Synch Mon,Tues, Fri

Asynch Wed, Thurs

Course Modules

Course Introduction and Introduction to Inequality

Jan 3-7

Goals: 1,2,A

This module will include

• Wealth inequality guessing game. Students will estimate the wealth distribution in the U.S. and compare their estimates to data.
• Short in-class exploration and research assignments using Social Explorer designed to introduce students to mapping inequality, give them the opportunity to learn and explore the software, and to introduce them to the scope and degree of inequality in the U.S.
• Small research projects exploring and describing stratification in the labor market re: race and gender according to published data and reports.
• Sociological Imagination exercise

Capitalism, Class, and Democracy

Jan 10-14

Goals 3,4,A,B,C

This module will include

• How capitalism is supposed to work / how it works short essay
• Social Explorer map-making project visualizing a chosen aspect of inequality
• An introduction to social explorer stories, and practice
• Annotation and discussion of youtube videos on vocat re: social construction of race, and racial inequality
• Analysis of inequality in news media

Social Movements and Social Mobility

1/17-1/21

Here is the link to the course syllabus that I’ve reworked and made (I hope! :-)) more engaging for my students — https://docs.google.com/document/d/179KAyp1PraiYDPse1BWUYfWAvQEJdm_o7OUz1ialfT4/edit?usp=sharing

Here is the link to the scavenger hunt — https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p0Z826_-LLquJMYBlaOnc9xpz3Qmis40C7ewRW1A6pM/edit?usp=sharing

November 30, 2021

Dear Fellow Seminar Participants,

I hope you have had a valuable seminar experience. Our seminar has caused me to think a lot about student engagement in my teaching. I’ve applied what I learned in our seminar and the synchronous webinars, “It’s on the syllabus” and “Social-Constructivist Learning (& Teaching), to revise the syllabus for a new course – Writing II – which I’ll be teaching in spring.

I began the process of revising my concept of designing the syllabus and making it more engaging by creating it as a shared document in Google Docs, so that students can interact with the document as we review it on the first day of class. An example of how students can interact with it is by adding a self-introduction in the space provided in the document. They are provided with a writing model (i.e. my self introduction – discussed in the next paragraph) and writing practice (always a goal in the course). By having a self-introduction on the syllabus gives students a voice and agency in participating in the construction of the course.  

Another element of engagement that I included in my syllabus is my personal introduction. This is the first time I’ve ever thought about making the purpose of my syllabus something other than a means to inform my students about the expectations and policies of the course.  

I have also added images and emojis along with questions as sub-headings throughout. This makes the document more visually appealing and consequently, engaging to the reader.

Finally, I’m in the process of designing a scavenger hunt for the students to complete while we review the syllabus on the first day of class. The purpose of this is for students to know where to find important information on the syllabus and to share this with the class after the hunt is completed but to also have this as a quick guide to finding answers to the most commonly asked questions in the course.

This is a work in progress, so I have a lot more to do to make this as engaging as possible for the students.

I look forward to reading about your seminar experiences and learning from you,

Cate Grundleger

Open Letter:

My original assignment was what I call a “Reading Response”. A Reading Response is pretty vanilla basics. It is simply a homework assignment which asks a series of questions based on the assigned reading. The questions are either fact-based or based on judgments and inferences that need to be supported with reasoning and evidence. Typically these HW’s are treated as a kind of background assignment which help guarantee students read and read carefully, as well as to prepare them for class discussion of a text. Normally Reading Responses are simple two-step assignments, read and complete the questions. They do not involve any specific group activities outside of or in class except as they provide a foundation and background to lecture and class discussion.

The new assignment retains its base of reading the assigned text and answering questions. However, the new version is an interactive multi-level layered or scaffolded assignment where students provide feedback to each other at various stages in various modes within assigned groups. First they provide reactions to the text by making a simple short video for their group with their initial response to the text built around their own spontaneous reactions and broad questions which focus on their own judgements and opinions of it. Then they are to answer questions formally in writing and respond to each other’s work in terms of both writing quality and substance. These stages culminate in a group presentation where each student of the group is given a different question or different part of an answer to present to the class.

The main elements which changed are the use of multiple platforms and educational modes, the expansion of the assignment into a series of scaffolded procedures and steps, as well as the development of interactive steps where students respond to each other, including making them responsible for presenting the content of their work to the rest of the class (i.e. students who have not completed the assignment on their own group’s particular reading).

What’s left to do? While I have a schema here for a substantially revised assignment, I still have to go over the nuts and bolts of each step and brainstorm how they might best work, be effective and engaging. While the over-all structure of the assignment has found a definitive form, I need to think more carefully about the mechanics of each step and some of the wrinkles to illicit the interest and imagination of the students.

This seminar has provided a number of tools for me to integrate into my teaching repertoire such as a focus on scaffolding or developing a kind of multi-step multi-dimensional process for an assignment. It has introduced me to platforms like Vocat, that I would not have otherwise considered because it provides a convenient and practical format for students to communicate via video. I tend to avoid a variety of multi-media functions Blackboard offers precisely because of its limitations in terms of user-friendliness. These limitations turn into practical teaching limitations which can result in a less than engaged or satisfying experience for students. Meanwhile, Baruch Blogs and Vocat offer platforms that, because they are more user-friendly, are more practical to integrate into lesson plans and assignments. More generally the seminar has provided me time to “spitball” not so much about content issues which tend to be the focus of my class prep, but on matters of delivery of content and the structure of class/class assignments.

In terms of questions, I would really be interested to get more concrete information on scaffolding in terms of both a better understanding of what it is and its purpose as well as specific examples of how a basic assignment might be broken up into different types of scaffolded activities which might apply to any kind of educational content.

I decided to make my teaching artifact a redesigned assignment that is scaffolded (instead of two separate assignments) for my ENG2850 – Great Works of Literature class in the Spring (fully online). Right now, I assign my students two essays on two different books that we read in full. I give them different prompts about the same book, and I offer them the posisbility of making up their own prompt as well. However, I think it would be more engaging to let them write about the work they prefer rather than a given work (and less tedious for me to grade 20 assignments about the same book!). I also think that scaffolding a slightly longer assignment on one topic, and including peer-review, will give them a better chance to develop the analytical and writing skills aimed for in my course’s learning goals.

The seminar has convinced me that scaffodling is better, and that also matches my experience of scaffolding in other courses. Students have a feeling of working on less numerous assignments, and instead on abigger project that they can put effort in, and hopefully enjoy, since they choose the topic. I still need to adapt this to the texts I will teach next semester. I also may or may not include the option to make a podcast rather than an essay, but I’m not sure I’m allowed to do this… I’ll have to discuss with the department. Maybe I can do this instead of informal, low-stakes Google Doc posts, and keep the traditional essay as the formal assignment, worth 40% percent of the course grade (the rest can be 25% for a short analysis in groups submitted in early weeks, 20% for weekly asynchonous work, and 15% for in-class participation). A lingering concern I have is with traditional grading and percentages… I am tempted to try ungrading for this course, as I did for writing courses before, but I don’t know how to ensure participation in class in that case. I need to reassess after the current semester is finished. Another oncern with giving them the choice of authors to choose from on the syllabus AND having a scaffolded assignment is that we won’t have studied all the authors on the syllabus by the time they need to choose…

Assuming I stick with the traditional essay for 40% portion of their course grade, here is a draft of how I am planning my teaching artifact:

Final project: writing academically about your favourite text, one step at a time

Assignment specs:
– 1500-1700 words
– Worth 40% of your course grade
– Detailed draft needs to be ready for class on Thursday, March 24th
– Submit finished product via TurnitIn on Blackboard by May 8th

We will work gradually towards the most important assignment of this course. Here are the steps and timeline to the finished assignment:

• February: After choosing a text by an author on the syllabus, you will pick one aspect of the text that you found either beautiful, strange, confusing, or otherwise meaningful.
• Early March: You will brainstorm ideas to structure your analysis over two class workshop. You will then come up with a detailed draft with a structured introduction containing a thesis statement and an outline of points to address in your essay, including selected quotes and evidence to back up your interpretation of the text.
• March 24th: You will bring your detailed draft to class for peer-review in Breakout Rooms (pairs). You will swap your draft with your pair and get feedback based on a checklist. I will then review each draft and advise you on your next steps towards the finished essay. (This step is a crucial part of your assessment for this essay. If, for any reason, you cannot participate in the class eeting on that day, please email me so we can make up for it)
• April: Using the feedback you got from your paired classmate and myself, you will write out your essay according to your detailed draft. We will have in-class workshop on the following topics and you will have the opportunity to request workshops on other topics: Will Power; Inserting Evidence in an Argument; ”Painting the Structure Red”: Making your Argument the Continuous Thread that Holds your Essay Together; Keeping Your Reader With You: Writing Transitions and Reiterating your Argument; Proofreading and Editing. The in-class workshop will contain an in-class writing portion where you will be able to work on your assignment while having the option to ask questions at any time and join a Breakout Room if you need one-on-one help.
• May 8th, 11:59pm: your essay is due on BlackBoard, via a TurnitIn link under ”Course Documents.”

General Checklist to use before submitting your essay:

Thesis/Argument	Is the main “point” of my essay clear throughout? What insights does it offer, or what argument does it make, about my chosen topic? Considering the existing literature on this topic, what do I bring to the table? What are my “findings”?
Support of Thesis	Do I provide details that walk my reader through my argument, step by step? Do I provide rhetorically persuasive reasons and specific evidence to support my thesis in the framework of what has already been argued in the field (remember that your paper is part of a larger academic discussion)?
Quality & Integration of Quotes	Do I summarize, paraphrase, and quote directly in in a logical way from the text I’m analyzing? Do I acknowledge the text correctly, and is th formatting of my quotes appropriate?
Counter-arguments	Do I address the arguments and beliefs of those who may disagree with my position (in a respectful way)?
Organization	Do I organize my paragraphs in such a way that my readers can clearly follow my main argument? Do I announce my structure in the introduction, and do I write transition sentences when I move on to another point? Can my readers easily follow how I develop and support that argument in each paragraph? Does each paragraph contribute to my thesis, and if not, did I delete unnecessary ones? Do my paragraphs smoothly transition into each other using transition words to signal my reader where my argument is going? Do I group information that goes together? Do I use a new paragraph when I “switch gears” to a new subject? (No whole pages without paragraph splits).
Style, Grammar & Editing	Have I used the Word spelling and grammar check tool? Have I proofread myself at least twice to avoid typos and mistakes that would distract my reader from my story? Is my document well presented? Is the layout easy to the eye (Font 12 Arial, Calibri, or Times New Roman, justified alignment, 1st line indent, etc.) Does my writing contains few if any “to be” verbs (these are only descriptive, not analytic)? Am I concise, formal, and compelling, emulating the tone of the academic sources I have been using?
Overall Respect of Instructions	Did I respect all instructions on this page? Am I submitting a Word document, using the template provided, and saved as instructed? Did I respect the word count by 10% under or over 2000 words? Did I answer the “Writer’s Letter” questions at the end of the template? Am I on time for the due date? If not, did I request an extension at least 48 hours prior to the due date?

I would appreciate any feedback on this assignment draft. Do you think it’s manageable? What do you think of grading with percentages, as opposed to ungrading (giving only feedback and asking them to self-assess at the end of the semester to determine a letter grade)? Also, I know the provisional title is lousy… I’m just not inspired at this stage fo the semester…

My teaching artifact is guidelines for the implementation of Slack as as class discussion and community building platform. In the past I’ve used Blogs@Baruch discussion boards and other forums to try to encourage my students to interact, but it hasn’t taken well- they mostly write to me. It also ends up being a lot for me to read and keep track of. The plan below will hopefully allow students to interact more with each other, as well as puts the onus on them to read and engage with the material and each other on their own, first, before discussing it as a class.

My biggest lingering questions are about how to encourage students to actually do this- how to grade them or assess them or convince them it’s important. I really want this to take off and feel fulfilling for them, and not just another box they have to tick. Also, logistically, I want to figure out the right number of channels, because I tend to go overboard and want a channel for everything but I don’t want to overwhelm the students. And, finally, I’ve never done semester-long study groups before, so I’d like to think through that a bit more and make sure I know what to do if, say, some groups are not gelling or don’t get along, etc.

Artifact:

For the purposes of my course, I’d like to set up the following prior to the start of the semester:

1. Study groups of 3-4 students, with a dedicated channel for each
2. Channels for each of the following:
   1. General questions
   2. Fun stuff unrelated to class
   3. Each week of class
   4. Each major assignment (Question: is this too many channels? I don’t want it to be confusing!)

The first week of class, I’ll assign each student to answer a few Getting to Know You questions in the Fun Stuff section and have each student reply to at least two other students, in a bid to encourage discussion and camaraderie.

For each week of class, I’ll encourage students to post questions and comments on the readings to their study group thread and challenge the groups to answer each other’s questions. I’ll monitor to make sure the students are posting as required but I won’t read them closely or grade the quality. I’ll also answer any big serious questions that come up.
Also for each week of class, I’ll assign one or two students to lead a Slack discussion thread that will be hosted on the weekly channels (number 3 above). The leader will be asked to prepare discussion questions regarding the readings for that week (maybe prepare five?) and moderate a discussion, which the other students will be asked to contribute two at least twice over the week. That student will also present a short report on the discussion in the next synchronous class.

I will also encourage use of the assignment-specific channels for questions and comments regarding the assignments, and maybe assign peer editing using these, too, but I have to think through the functionality of that.

This assignment is a revision of the research project assignment from my Writing I class that I’ve adapted to be the final assignment for Writing II—a “creative remix” of a research argument. At first, I wanted to make this assignment more open-ended—to let students do basically whatever they wanted for the remix—but, after talking to Seth during our one-on-one meeting for this class, I decided to give students two clear options of ways they might take the assignment: a documentary trailer or a podcast. I’ve still included an option for them to suggest something different, but I do think that having some clear suggestions is helpful. My meeting with Seth also encouraged me to turn the project into a group project—something that I’ve been struggling with is how to have students do more collaborative work in groups, which I think really helps with student engagement, while also trying to avoid a situation where one student does all the work. By having students write individual research papers on related topics first, and then work together to present their research, and by giving them a lot of time in class to work together on the final project, I hope to avoid this issue.

My scaffolding for this project is basically as follows:

I’m going to have my students watch two documentaries on the same subject, from opposing perspectives, early in the class (I would love recommendations!). They’ll also be listening to and discussing podcasts, really thinking about how these texts make medium-specific arguments, and how they appeal to different audiences. Students will work together in groups to create basic analyses of the documentaries that we watch, in class. I will put students in groups early, and each group will choose a broad topic to focus on (criminal law reform, climate change, the education system, social media, etc). Then, for Assignment I, each student will write an individual analysis essay about a documentary or podcast related to the topic that their group chose. Assignment II will have students write an argumentative research paper on some aspect of this topic (so one group might have a students writing about police reform, one writing about the death penalty, and one writing about drug laws). This will all led to the Creative Remix assignment, in which students will combine their research into a short, multimedia project.

The below is still very drafty, so I’d love any feedback that people might have!

Major Project 3 / Creative Remix of Research-Based Argument

The creative remix or assignment engages one of the five major course goals for ENG 2150(T):

Use a variety of media to compose in multiple rhetorical situations: Apply rhetorical knowledge in your own composing using the means of persuasion appropriate for each rhetorical context (alphabetic text, still and moving images, and sound), including academic writing and composing for a broader, public audience using digital platforms. As you work on this assignment think about the following questions: How do different media offer different affordances? Does the medium change the message? How can remediation be used as a lens to see an argument in new ways?

For this assignment, students will work in their writing groups to create a podcast or documentary trailer using the research that you conducted for you individual research papers. Think about the way that the documentaries that we watched/podcasts we listened to in class[*] use rhetorical strategies to present their arguments. How do these strategies work differently than they might in a traditional research paper? Think about how you might need to present your evidence differently in this new medium.

This is a creative project, and I encourage you to take it in any direction that you like—if you have an idea for a way to present your research that is not a podcast or documentary trailer, please run it by me!

In addition to the multimedia project, each student will turn in a written reflection (about 3-4 double-spaced pages). In addition to thinking through the questions listed in the first paragraph of this assignment sheet, use this as a space to reflect on your role in the project. How did your individual research fit into the larger argument? What was your role in creating and editing the final product?

Projects will be graded based on:

• Argument: Is the thesis clear and compelling? Is it backed up with evidence? Are the stakes of the argument clear? (25%)
• Structure: Does the argument flow clearly? Is the project the correct length (about 2-3 minutes for a trailer, 3-5 for a podcast)? (10%)
• Sources: Are sources clearly cited? Are sources that support your argument peer-reviewed, or otherwise from trusted sources? You might include a credits scene, where you list credits for music/clips that you used in your trailer (or where you read these credits in your podcast). (15%)
• Creativity: Does the piece use creative strategies to engage its intended audience? Do the authors tell a compelling story using images, audio, and rhetorical appeals (appeals to logos, pathos, etc)? This is a creative remix, and so you should have fun with it! (25%)
• Revision: How does the piece revise its authors’ original research papers to fit a new medium/audience? Are the authors clearly thinking about creating for a new medium, or are they merely restating their arguments in the same way they might in an essay? (15%)
• Individual author’s written reflection (10%)

Your grade on the remix project makes up 30% of your course grade.

---

[*] I will name them in the actual assignment sheet; I’m planning to have us watch two documentaries on the same topic from sort of opposing points of view, but I haven’t decided what these will be yet—I’d love suggestions! They’ll also listen to some episodes of This American Life.

*Note: Below I added an attachment of the grading rubric I created for this assignment since I am still working on the language I’m going to revise for the Spring 22 version of the course syllabus.

What was it? What is it now? What changed? What’s left to do?

Prior to the seminar, my teaching artifact was very ambiguous in the way it was described and presented. The assignment itself asks students to lead the class discussion (in teams of 2-3). Each class discussion topic and it is assigned by asking students their preferences at the start of the semester. New components of the assignment include: having students provide peer feedback, a structured rubric, and more scaffolding opportunities.

For example, I’ve identified three scaffolding activities that I can engage students with prior to their facilitations. The scaffolding steps below represent new aspects to the project:

Step 1: in-class I will provide students with a mini workshop on how to write effective discussion questions, which they will have to do for their facilitation assignment. The workshop will provide them with examples of close-ended questions (what they should avoid) and open-ended questions (which they should use). I will also put students into teams where I will give them a short article to read, and then they will come up with 2-3 open ended questions.

Step 2: I will provide a mock demonstration of what the class facilitation should look like

Step 3: will consist of a mini workshop that will help students with providing feedback. I find this important because many students may be in a position where they have never had to give feedback. So, the purpose of this to show them what constructive feedback should look like. I will provide examples of non-constructive and constructive feedback. I will have students get into teams of 3-4 and ask them to provide anonymous feedback about the mock presentation that I gave. Then as a class we will look at provided feedback and talk through the strengths and areas of improvement.

Step 4: I will put students into teams of 3-4 where they will have to give a “blitz” presentation on a I/O topic. Afterwards I will give students the opportunity to practice giving constructive feedback here as well. I will have them post it on the discussion board where I will then be able to provide feedback for them.

How does it facilitate student engagement?

The entire assignment is centered around student engagement because it helps students take an active role that helps them reinforce their public speaking skills and encourages them to find ways to engage their audience. I think the engagement aspect is critical for students, regardless if they decide to pursue a career in I/O psychology or not. The assignment requires students to draw on media that covers the topic of the week, create critical thinking discussion questions, and encourages them to incorporate an activity for the week.

How has the seminar influenced your decision-making process for revising your artifact?

It has made me more aware about the importance of scaffolding and has made me realize how intimidating this assignment might come off without easing students into it.

Are there any lingering questions or concerns you want to return to?

Not any that I can think of at the moment!

Attached you will find an attachment of my structured rubric. If anyone has any feedback on how I could make this stronger, I would love to hear it.

Dear fellow seminaristianites,

I ask students to give peer feedback on short arguments submitted by their fellow students, in which they score them from 1 to 5 on four different aspects, and then explain their score and make suggestions. The rubric I developed for this describes what should be expected for each score. Typically what happens is that students mostly give each other fours and fives, with threes being reserved for the barely coherent.

In the fall, I plan to ask students to collaborate to develop their own rubric. I will ask them what sorts of things they think would be important to evaluate for a good bit of argumentative writing, and what would qualify something as below, above, or at average for each of those criteria. I would probably do this as a think/pair/share, before opening it up to a class-wide discussion in which I would write down and organize their suggestions.

The fact that students have a personal interest in what standard they will be judged by, as well as it being a low-stakes situation for sharing their ideas, should lead to a high level of participation, and I hope a greater commitment to the resulting assignments that the rubric will be applied to.

I am unlikely to have decided to try this without the example and feedback from Kyllikki Rytov in my group, who has successfully used this approach in her own classes.

The remaining issues I need to decide before implementing this are:

• How much guidance to give the students:
  • e.g.
    • Should I decree that the rubric scale will be 1-5, or let them decide?
    • Should I tell them the four characteristics/dimensions I have used before (rational persuasiveness, accuracy, writing mechanics, and originality), or let them come up with their own?
• How much time to allot to each step of this in class.
• Whether to break it up into more steps or fewer.
• How to make the instructions as clear and unintimidating and potentially fun as possible.

If anyone has advice or suggestions, I’d love to hear it!

The Artifact in Progress:

Instructions

For four weeks of the term, you will be asked to submit a short argument in which you take and defend a position regarding an issue covered in recent class readings and discussion. In the week after submitting an argument, you will also be asked to read and evaluate some of your fellow students’ arguments. Today’s task is to create the rubric for how you will score (or be scored) for these arguments.

[Give quick example of a basic rubric, e.g. “Handwriting” – 1=completely illegible, 2=can only be read with effort, 3=legible, 4=easy to read, 5=easy to read and beautiful to look at]

[Three minutes]

Take a few minutes now and think about what is needed, generally, in a good piece of argumentative writing.

Write these down.

If you have time, see if you can identify broad categories that could organize the items in your list. Draw lines, mark with colors, or put a symbol to mark things that you think belong to the same category.

[10 minutes]

Next, get together with a classmate or two and compare lists. Establish which of you will share them with the class.

See if you can identify and agree on four or five broad categories that cover the items in your lists (e.g. ‘good grammar,’ ‘correct spelling,’ ‘enjoyable to read,’ and so on might all fall under a category like “clear writing” or “good communication of ideas”).  These would be the ‘Dimensions’ in the left-hand column of the rubric. Write these down.

Discuss what you believe should count as a 1 (lowest), 2, 3, 4, and 5 (highest) for each of these dimensions on the rubric. Take notes on what you think the criteria should be for each score that could be given on the rubric. That is, if a “3” is given for a particular Dimension, what specifically does that mean, in terms of that Dimension? If you were given a 4, how should you understand it, or if you give a 2, how should the student receiving that score understand it?

[15 minutes]

Get together as a class and share your ideas. I will write down all of the suggestions, then consolidate and edit them to make the rubric you will be using for the Evaluations portion of this assignment.

Short Argument Evaluation Rubric

Dimensions	1	2	3	4	5

After meeting with the ever-sagacious Tamara, who provided excellent counsel that I stop trying to use everything but the kitchen sink, technically speaking, to engage students (okay, I’m paraphrasing), I’d like to focus on VOCAT for (1) students to annotate my asynchronous lectures and (2) enduring group work. But, I was unaware of the whole mobile-phone heavy aspect of VOCAT until last week, which has me a bit concerned. I don’t want to record my lectures into my phone and am not feeling too keen on students typing substantive annotations to one another’s work (or my lectures) over their phone (I could get over it, I guess), so, while still reeling from the positive effects of turkey tryptophan, I sent an email to the amazing CTL crew hoping for good news about a desktop computer-friendly modality. Pending that, here’s my artifact proposal for (2) enduring group work over VOCAT.

For the first two weeks, we’ll have some VOCAT warm-up exercises (self-introduction, thoughts about what might make an interesting research topic, annotate my pre-recorded lectures). In week 3, I’ll assign students to VOCAT groups based on thematic overlap in students’ research topics (= about 7 groups of 3 students each). VOCAT assignments will be hyperlinked (I hope) in our course homeroom, which is a B@B page.

Here are key parts of their research papers that I’ll be taking them through and their VOCAT analogues. I created a few of the assignments in the VOCAT course shell and will hopefully ask Christopher tomorrow how to properly set up group projects (individual and group?), enroll students to the course, and which project configuration boxes I should (not) be marking.

I guess I’m just not sure whether I’m scaffolding. I mean, I’m scaffolding the final paper because it’s broken into discrete parts…

1. Week 1: Having introduced yourselves over VOCAT, we’re all VOCAT experts now, right? (Not!) Here’s your next VOCAT assignment, and it’s CLASS-WIDE and always interesting. Conjure two ideas or questions about human existence and/or social life: anything you’ve every wanted to know more about but never had the time to pursue. These are called me-search ideas. Post a video of no more than two minutes (set that timer!) describing human experiences that interest you and that you might like to research. Only constraint? You kinda need to be able to access people who have experienced X, Y, or Z. Comment on at least one peer’s me-search idea by viewing others’ videos.
2. Week 2: CLASS-WIDE VOCAT: After viewing and annotating my pre-recorded lectures, you should know a bit more about the heart and soul, and mechanics, of qualitative research. So, select one of these me-search ideas and develop a research question. In a video of no more than 2 minutes, let us know what it is and how you plan on pulling it off. Comment on at least one peer’s research question by viewing others’ videos.
3. Week 4: GROUP VOCAT: Do background research through intensive use of library resources (academic journals, census databases, etc.). Post a video of no more than (you guessed it) 2 minutes, tellings us what articles you’ve found or frustrations you’re facing finding anything! Comment on both your peers’ video reports.
4. Week 5: No VOCAT. Write a 5-8 page (1.5 space) literature review summarizing other scholars’ research on your topic.
5. Weeks 6-8: CLASS-WIDE VOCAT. Design your research instruments: interview schedules and surveys. Tell the class how it’s going! What article that I’ve assigned about research instruments has been most helpful–why?
6. Weeks 9-10: GROUP VOCAT: Collect data: conduct your interviews and run your surveys. How’s it going? This is the most fun/frustrating part of qualitative research. Comment on both your peers’ video reports.
7. Weeks 11-12: GROUP VOCAT: Analyze your gorgeous data: this is called thematic coding. Comment on both your peers’ video reports.
8. Weeks 13-14: CLASS-WIDE VOCAT. Write and present a final paper that includes all of these elements = ~ 40 pages.