Group items tagged

the survey collects a score and qualitative feedback for the student’s work. We are imagining the survey engine is centrally hosted so that all the data is compiled into a single location and therefore is accessible to the academic program

the instructor can combine the rubric score of an assignment with the student performance on the assignment to improve the assignment. Instructors might also present this comparison data in a portfolio for more authentic teaching evaluations.

They can also learn from giving rubric-based reviews to peers and by comparing themselves to aggregates of peer data.

Students can review the data for self-reflection and can use the data as evidence in a learning portfolio.

Instructors can use the data (probably presented in the student’s course portfolio) for “grading” in a course.

We have imagined a model where the students (in conjunction with their sponsoring country), and interested NGOs, bring problem statements to the program and the program designs itself so that students are working on aspects of their problem while studying.

input from stakeholders would be more prominent than in the traditional university course

Review of the assignments, and decisions about the rubric, would be done within this wider community (two universities, national sponsors and NGOs)

following Downes, learners would present aspects of their work to be evaluated with the program’s rubric, and the institution would credential the work based on its (and the community’s) judging of the problem/solution with the rubric.