Assignment 1 | Critical Inquiry Part 3 – Peer Assessment of Team Presentation (Individual)

 

The presentations will be assessed by peers according to the rubric provided in the course; this is formative feedback designed to help the team learn from everyone’s feedback. The peer assessments do not contribute to the team’s grades, but rather the quality of the feedback will be assigned a grade to the students providing the feedback. Each student is expected to provide feedback on all presentations other than the presentation by their own team. Either the live presentation may be reviewed or the recording of it.

All feedback forms will remain open for one week after each team presentation; they will then be closed and feedback will no longer be accepted resulting in a zero grade for this part of the assignment. The reason is so that each team’s presentation has an equal amount of time to receive feedback; otherwise earlier presentations would provide more time than later ones. Team members do not provide feedback on their own team presentations. To submit the assignment: The instructor will obtain your feedback on team presentations from the survey online forms that will be provided at the appropriate time; there is no need to submit these to the Moodle assignment box. However, once all the presentations and feedback submissions are complete, each student should upload a note into the Moodle Assignment 1 Part 3 dropbox listing which teams they provided feedback on. Note this is only an individual assignment; teams do not provide feedback in this assignment.

Here are links to the team presentation recordings and feedback forms.

 

Team 1

Team 2

Team 3

Team 4

Team 5

 

 

Assessment

  • CLO C – Critically reflect on your learning experience as outlined in your learning plan.

Value: 5%

Submit: to the Assignment 1 Part 3 dropbox in Moodle.

Rubrics:  The 5% grade for this individual part of the assignment will be based on a range between fully completed, partly completed or not received. The following rubric will be provided in the feedback form, which is the same one used by the instructor to grade the team presentations.

 

Course Learning Outcome/Assessment Criteria Excellent (A+ to A) Proficient (A- to B+) Satisfactory (B to B-) Unsatisfactory (F)
Rationale Rationale for choice of technology for study is compelling and clearly explained. Rationale for choice of technology is reasonable. Substantial elements of rationale are weak or missing. Little or no rationale provided.
Modality and instance description Well-researched, in-depth representation of the team’s chosen technology and learning event. Clear examples given. Generally good representation of the team’s chosen technology and learning event. Minimal examples or lack of relevance. Focus on either the technology or learning event but not both. Examples nonexistent. Weak and unclear representation of the technology and/or learning event
Individual perspectives Includes clear and holistic description of how individual team members’ learning plans perspectives connect to the technology and learning event. Provides some connection to individual team members’ individual learning plans. Individual learning plan perspectives identified but not connected to. Discussion of individual learning plan perspectives lacking or largely incomplete.
Production Compelling visual and audio quality. Creative, clear and to the point. Competent use of visual and audio tools. Clear and to the point. Some flaws in presentation; not always clear or on target. Poorly produced; difficult to follow or understand.
Critical analysis, summary and infographic. Statements are backed by evidence and argumentation, and information is discussed, not just stated. Supporting information is summarized but not synthesized/connected with other perspectives. Synthesis is minimal or lacking. Supporting information is stated and not summarized or backed by supporting evidence. Information is stated but lacks relevance and connection to the position statement. Statements are not backed by evidence and argumentation.