PRESENTATION OUTLINE
MAnage student expectations
...about interaction
- affective issues (Crisp, 2007, p. 185)
- inter-cultural ways of working (Durkin, 2008; Tian & Lowe, 2012)
- group roles and responsibilities (Fitch, 2011)
- is explicit guidance needed? (Good et al, 2008; Weldy & Turnipseed, 2010)
- fellow students as resources (Jabbar & Hardaker, 2012)
…about project structure
- will there be a social space? (Welikala & Watkins, 2008)
- will the requirements/rules be fluid? (Seyed-Abbassi et al, 2007)
- …or will details be prepared in advance? (Lopez & Lee, 2005)
- …as well as specific project milestones? (Liu & Olson, 2011)
- …or would the latter two decrease realism? (Govekar & Rishi, 2007)
…about their role
- need to be 'agentic learners' (Fitch, 2011, p. 501)
- individuals are accountable to their teams (Good et al, 2008)
- aims and application of project are clear (Leedham, 2009)
- project will be challenging (Lopez & Lee, 2005)
- as intercultural learner, not 'native' or 'immigrant' (Tian & Lowe, 2012)
prepare students for the task
By introducing theory first (Good et al, 2008)
By giving students experience of applying theory to case studies (Liu & Olson, 2011)
By critiquing examples of previous student work (Larson & Drexler, 2010; Carless, 2007)
Among students, instructors & clients
...for best practice
- sharing expectations (Addams, et al, 2010)
- online/offline comms carefully chosen (Good et al, 2008)
- process visible to everyone (Good et al, 2008)
- clients supply real projects (Kock et al, 2003)
- social interaction built in (Welikala & Watkins, 2008)
...For formative feedforward
- from instructors & within teams (Lopez & Lee, 2005)
- from clients (Liu & Olson, 2011)
- will you adopt a JIT approach? (Robinson et al, 2010)
...for robust project work
- Ashford-Rowe et al, 2014; Liu & Olson, 2011
- ...if collaboration is the norm in the field (Crisp, 2007)
- ...and with individual & group reflection (Fitch, 2011)
- ...plus facilitation from instructors (Good et al, 2008)
- carefully consider how blended comms will work
...of assessment and learning
- assessment is part of curriculum (Birenbaum et al, 2006)
- assessment is directly beneficial to learning (Boud, 1995)
- will students connect theory learning with practice? (Fitch, 2011)
- are students continuously engaged? (Seyed-Abbassi et al, 2007)
Who?
- instructor, students and/or client? (Helle et al, 2006)
- input from client? (Kock et al, 2003; Kreth, 2005)
- students assess self and team members? (Kreth, 2005)
- ...and how should these marks be weighted?
assignment about assessment?
- contracts and project logs? (Govekar & Rishi, 2007)
- clients' reports? (Kock et al, 2003)
- attendance and soft skills? (Kreth, 2005)
- project's monetary success? (Larson & Drexler, 2010)
- exams? (Larson & Drexler, 2010; Liu & Olson, 2011)
Reflection is a well supported
form of assessment output...
(Clements & Cord, 2013; Govekar & Rishi, 2007; Jabbar & Hardaker, 2012; McCrea, 2010; Robinson et al, 2010; Welikala & Watkins, 2008; Young & Hawes, 2013)
...but opinion differs as to how much of the summative mark it should be, from 100% to none
how can process be assessed?
- no details... (Good et al, 2008; Birenbaum et al 2006)
- ongoing journals & logs (Govekar & Rishi, 2007)
- using web 2.0 as project workspace (Good et al, 2008)
Assessing the product itself is advocated by several of the studies reviewed (Crews & Stitt-Gohdes, 2012; Kreth, 2005; Larson & Dexler, 2010; Liu & Olson, 2011; Robinson et al, 2010; Weldy & Turnipseed, 2010)
...but there are different opinions on how to assess the product, depending on the context.
key considerations: summary
- Scaffolding and preparation
- Communication
- Integration
- Who assesses?
- What is assessed?