Hello. I have just signed up for this course so now playing ‘catch up’ by reading through the Forum posts and the recommended texts. Interesting and inspiring.
And quite a relief!
Why? Well, the syllabus format of the LCL course is something I have been implementing for some time in my university undergraduate course (entitled Media Architecture Communication). The students are expected to create an image of their futures based upon specific themes; so far topics have included house 2030, energy 2050, computer 2050, employment 2050. The technology use has included Scratch, SketchUp, iMovie, OpenSim. I am happy with the way the syllabus evolves over the 15 weeks, and the project outcomes are mostly quite creative. The student feedback (n=80) is mostly positive with, roughly speaking, 85% of the feedback being supportive. Though there are those 15% negative comments.
I now wish to implement this ‘creative’ approach in the other Communication classes by other academic colleagues. The issues though are specifically ‘learning outcomes’ and ‘assessment’.
How does one pass or fail a student?
Is it fair to let the enthusiastic, tech-capable, creative students do ‘most of the work’ while some students hide from their responsibilities as learners and team participants?
What constitutes a grade A –B –C ?
What are the specific ‘learning objectives’ and how do I know my students have acquired them?
Although I feel I am developing a creative course, I still have to work within a traditional education framework with often traditionally thinking academics.
The questions asked of me are valid and the challenge is to provide convincing answers.
I am currently framing my assessment criteria and learning objectives based upon Anderson et al.’s revised Bloom’s Taxonomy , and offering rubrics as a means of ‘scoring’ students’ work.
My question to the community here is: If your course leader and university administrators required, how would you assess (evaluate, score, grade) 40 individual students on this LCL course?
 L. W. Anderson, D.R. Krathwohl, P. W. Airasian, K. A. Cruicshank, R. E. Mayer, P. R. Pintrich, J. Raths, J. and M. C. Wittrock. A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, Longman, 2001.