In pairs, you will create a video role-playing a debate with one of your peers and then host a live panel discussing it – much like a “Meet the Filmmakers” discussion. As asked for at the beginning of Unit 2, please use this google doc to connect with a partner.

This assignment has two halves that work together:

1. The pre-recorded video is where you make the argument and have the debate.
   • The role-play should focus on a myth or debate in the field. You and your partner will take the pro and con sides of the argument, present a convincing, lively, and interesting debate, and you will conclude by making the case for the side of the argument with the most substantive evidence. Imagine that the audience for the video is a curious individual who is not an expert in the field and is somewhat curious about the topic. Your goal is to present to this person both sides of the debate clearly and convincingly. You may choose to frame it as a debate that is unresolved (if that is indeed the case!) or you may chose to present it as a debate which has crossed over into the myth territory. To give you an example of the latter, consider the following prompt: “Designing instruction according to students’ learning styles leads to better learning outcomes.” A video debunking this myth (and therefore an example that you can draw inspiration from) appears below
2. The “Meet the Filmmakers” live panel discussion is where you step out of the role you took in the video debate and into a conversation about the debate topic itself.

The topic of your debate has to be pre-approved by the instructor. Request approval by posting it in the relevant Moodle discussion board.

Whatever debate you chose, there is a layer underneath it: a disagreement about where learning happens and what role tools play in it. The media debate we read in Unit 2 is an example of this. Clark’s position rests on a claim that instructional effect resides in method. Kozma’s position claims that representational capability participates in cognition. Your debate should make explicit which theory or learning theories each side relies on, whether or not your sources name them.

Deliverables:

There are three components to this assignment:

1. The pre-recorded video, (see Schedule for due date) which should include:
   • A 5-7 minute debate-style video, posted on a video-sharing site such as YouTube or Vimeo. You do not need to make your video public, but you should post it on the relevant discussion board to facilitate the peer-review portion of the assignment. You can post it as an unlisted video, which will only be visible to those with whom you share a link.
   • A list of 4-6 APA-formatted citations of the most significant research papers, essays, articles, and so on that you consulted in creating your video. To make this available to others, include the citations in the description of your video as well. Include your generative AI plan and reflection here as well.
   • The deadline is firm so that everyone can watch the video prior to your live discussion.
2. The “Meet the Film Makers” live panel discussion (see Schedule for due date) – team
   • Each pair will host a 5 min session on their own video followed by 5 min of questions from the rest of the class. You should be ready to:
     • say what you actually think on the debate topic now that the role-play is over;
     • speak to what changed in your thinking (if anything) while you were researching the debate topic;
     • point to specific sources re: which provided strong evidence and which was weak and why;
     • name the theory(ies) each side were relying on
     • respond to questions from the class.
3. The peer review (post live discussion) – individual
   • Before the live sessions, you are asked to watch each video so you are prepared. You will be randomly assigned by the course instructor one video to review in depth. Be prepared to raise two questions in the live session for the video you have been assigned.
   • Complete the peer review for the videos (and their film makers) you were assigned and submit to Moodle. See rubric below.

The possibilities for this assignment are endless. Though I provide some suggested myths or debates below, please don’t hesitate to modify these or propose completely different ones of your own:

• Technology rewires people’s brains and changes the ways they learn.
• Digital natives learn differently.
• The blockchain will transform education
• Face-to-face learning is better than online learning.
• MOOCs have democratized education.
• Using AI makes learners dumber.
• Online learning will never work for my discipline! (“my discipline” may include: engineering, philosophy, art, etc.).
• Public-private partnerships are good for higher education
• Personalized learning is good for all students
• Algorithms can be effective teachers (or Artificial Intelligence will replace teachers, or something to that effect).
• Compassionate robots can substitute caring teachers
• Corporations do not need training departments
• Instructional designers are unnecessary
• Digital Badges render degrees obsolete
• Video games are inappropriate for education
• The Learning Management System should be replaced by a Social Networking Site

Generative AI:

Remember, “the appearance of confidence is not proof of accuracy” (Dingle, 2026). If you use an AI when working on this assignment, you are bound by the RRU guidelines on AI use which are built from the assumption that students will behave ethically and comply with the University Policy on Academic Integrity and Misconduct.

In addition, you will need to include a paragraph in your first deliverable (separate from the assignment word count) that outlines how you plan to use AI in this assignment. The plan should include details of how you might use AI tools in your research and should include details regarding how you will review and critically examine the information you generate with AI including where your guardrails are and how you can authenticate your work. It will include a transparency statement that also acknowledges what you did with the response that AI provided back. As AI does tend to hallucinate and make things up (like articles that do not exist it is important to ensure that you have done a critical assessment of what comes back from your AI queries and that you outline that in your transparency statement. You will also need to include a short reflection after following your plan on your experience of using AI in this assignment as stated in your plan. Some reflection prompts may include: What did it afford? What did it limit? How did it impact your thinking and why? What concerns did it raise and what did you do about them?

Formatting Requirements:

A gentle reminder, as with all LRNT courses, you are expected to incorporate APA standards for citations, formatting, and references and to back up your writing with evidence and appropriate academic literature as necessary.

Don’t forget all that you have read to date in the program that you may be able to draw upon to support your position. You are required to pay attention to grammar and clarity and to avoid colloquialisms.

References are not included in the assignment word count. Also, don’t forget the numerous resources available to you as you build your competence and fluency with APA formatting and writing style. In particular, check out the RRU APA 7 formatting checklists as well as RRU WriteAnswers where you can ask your APA questions.

Value:

35% (video & live presentation “Meet the Film Makers” = 25%; peer-assessment = 10%)

Submission:

Submit two documents to the instructor.

1. The first document is the team portion of this assignment and it should include the link to your video and the references. This document should be submitted to Assignment 2 – deliverable 1 dropbox in Moodle. Once you are done with your video, post it in this discussion forum by the due date in the Course Schedule to facilitate your classmates being prepared for your live discussion.
2. The second document is the individual portion of this assignment. This document should include your peer-review of one of the videos created by your peers. Use this template to provide your assessment. Submit your peer-assessment in the Assignment 2 – deliverable 2 dropbox in Moodle and send it via email to the creators of the video you reviewed.

Below are the rubrics that I will use to grade your deliverable:

Rubric (deliverable 1 & 2)

Rubric used to evaluate the team deliverables (deliverable 1 & 2)

Criteria	Excellent (A+ to A)	Proficient (A- to B+)	Satisfactory (B to B-)	Unsatisfactory (F)
Citations	All citations and APA format are correct	Most citations and APA formatting are correct	Some citations and APA formatting are correct	Few citations and APA formatting are correct
Style, Grammar, Spelling	All grammar and spelling are correct	Most grammar and spelling are correct	Some grammar and spelling are correct	Significant spelling and grammar errors
Learning Theor(ies)	The theoretical underpinnings underlying each side of the debate are accurately identified and their implications for the technology in question are explained.	The theoretical underpinnings are mostly identified and their implications partly explained.	The theoretical underpinnings are named but their implications are asserted rather than explained.	Theoretical underpinnings are not identified or are misattributed.
Debate/Myth	A debate/myth is identified and stated succinctly	A debate/myth is mostly identified and stated succinctly	A debate/myth is somewhat identified and stated succinctly	The debate/myth is misidentified or misstated
Evaluation of relevant literature	The identified literature is relevant and is accurately evaluated in detail.	The identified literature is mostly relevant and mostly evaluated in detail.	The identified literature is somewhat relevant and somewhat evaluated in detail.	The identified literature is of cursory relevance and is neither evaluated, nor examined in detail.
Live discussion of claims and evidence	Responds substantively to questions; clearly distinguishes the position argued from the position held; locates specific claims in the literature consulted; adapts explanation to a non-expert audience.	Responds substantively to most questions; mostly distinguishes the position argued from the position held; locates most claims in the literature consulted; mostly provides explanation to a non-expert audience.	Responds  to questions but relies largely on restating the video; minimal attempts to distinguish the position argued from the position held; connection to the literature is general rather than specific; minimal attempts to adapt explanation to a non-expert audience.	Does not respond substantively to questions; cannot distinguish position argued from position held; cannot locate the claims in the literature; does not attempt to adapt explanations to a non-expert audience.
Video Mechanics and Timelines	The video is appropriate for the intended audience, posted on a sharable site, is appropriate length, accessible with no issues, and is posted by the advanced viewing deadline.	The video meets requirements but is posted late and reduces the preparation viewing time of others.	The video is somewhat appropriate for the intended audience, is posted in a way that can be shared with others but is posted too late for meaningful advanced viewing.	The video is not submitted or is of very short length, is not appropriate for the intended audience, has accessibility issues and/or is not available before the live session.
Synthesis	The video synthesizes information in an organized, logical, succinct, and integrative way.	The video summarizes information, and does so in an organized, logical, succinct, and integrative way.	The video presents information with little evidence of summarization, but still does so in an organized, logical, succinct, and integrative way.	The information in the video is disjointed, and is neither summarized nor synthesized well.

 

Rubric (deliverable 2)

Rubric used to evaluate the individual peer-review you will submit (deliverable 2)

Criteria	Excellent (A+ to A)	Proficient (A- to B+)	Satisfactory (B to B-)	Unsatisfactory (F)
Use of Rubric	The rubric provided is accurately used for feedback and grading.	The rubric provided is mostly used for feedback and grading.	The rubric provided is somewhat used for feedback and grading.	The rubric provided is not used for feedback and grading.
Style, Grammar, Spelling	All grammar and spelling are correct	Most grammar and spelling are correct	Some grammar and spelling are correct	Significant spelling and grammar errors
Feedback	Thoughtful and extensive feedback is provided. Areas of strength and improvement are identified with examples provided.	Most feedback provided is thoughtful and extensive. Areas of strength and improvement are mostly identified with some examples provided.	Some feedback provided is thoughtful and extensive. Some areas of strength and improvement are identified and examples may/may not be provided.	Sparse, inconsistent, or poor feedback is provided. Few areas of strength or improvement are mentioned.
Grading	An overall grade is provided according to the rubric, and an explanation of the final grade is provided	An overall grade is provided based mostly on the rubric, and an explanation of the final grade is mostly provided	An overall grade is provided based somewhat on the rubric, and an explanation of the final grade is somewhat provided	An overall grade is not provided, no explanation is provided, or the grade is not based on the rubric.