*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.
One reply on “Blog #3: Teaching Artifact”
Hi Winston,
I really like how this assignment models each step for students through workshops–I want to steal your idea for the discussion question workshop, in particular. I also like the idea of not just modeling constructive vs. non-constructive feedback, but giving students feedback on the anonymous feedback that provide. I often have issues getting students to provide really constructive feedback, even after doing peer review workshops, and I feel like this would really help them see what they’re doing well, and what they can do better.