Assignment 5 | Theory-to-practice reflective paper (Individual)

Individually, you will write a paper that identifies your learning about online facilitation throughout the course and empowers you to reflect upon how you put into practice the theories you have been learning not only in this course, but throughout the entire program.

In this paper, you will examine your stance towards learning and facilitation, and explore how your own beliefs about facilitation and learning are reflected in your design.

In the paper, consider answering some of the following questions. Note that you do not have to answer ALL of these questions. These are prompts to help guide your reflection for your final paper.

  • What learning theories guided your co-facilitation and how?
  • What did you do in your facilitation week that addressed each of the domains in the Community of Inquiry framework?
  • What were your goals with your facilitation approach?
  • What issues did you confront in your facilitation week that were not expected, how did you address it, and what did you learn about facilitation because of it?
  • What decisions did you and your facilitation team make planning your facilitation week, and what was the rationale behind the design and facilitation decision your team made.
  • What do you think worked well in your facilitation week? Why?
  • What did not work as well as you hoped? Why?
  • What was the most important lesson you learned about facilitation, and your own facilitation style? Why do you feel that way?
  • Thinking back to Bull’s Eight Roles, which of the roles do you think were reflected by you or your team members?

Additionally, your paper should include references back to the learner assessment feedback you received from your peers, and what you learned from their feedback. Did someone make a very good point about your facilitation week that you had not considered, or did a learner include feedback that makes you rethink your design process? I would expect to see your learners voice reflected in your final paper.

Note that these are sample questions. You can choose to answer all of them or some of them. A good paper will address at least 4-6 of them, and demonstrate your own reflection about the entire process.

You should not submit a paper that is simply a list of answers to the sample questions provided above. Your paper should follow a clear narrative. This type of paper is often called reflective or personal. Some information and support on this type of paper is provided by the RRU writing centre’s Introduction to Academic Writing.

This paper should be between 2,000 – 2,250 words.

You are expected to adhere to APA standards for citations and references and to back up your statements with appropriate academic literature.

Value: 30%

Submit: to the Assignment 5 dropbox in Moodle.

Rubric

Assessment Criteria Excellent Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Citation and APA format All citations and APA format are correct. Most citations and APA formatting are correct. Few citations and APA formatting are correct.
Style, Grammar, Spelling All aspects of grammar and spelling are correct. Most aspects of grammar and spelling are correct. Significant spelling and grammar errors.
Reflective Connections Paper shows exhaustive connections between course readings, course objectives, learning theories, and personal experience as facilitator.

Paper integrates thoughtful, honest & meaningful analysis of peer assessment, and clearly describes the rationale behind all design decisions.

Paper shows numerous  connections between course readings, course objectives, learning theories, and personal experience as facilitator.

Paper integrates thoughtful, honest & meaningful analysis of peer assessment, and clearly describes the rationale behind most design decisions.

Paper shows little to no connection between course readings, course objectives, learning theories, and personal experience as facilitator.

Paper fails to integrate and thoughtfully analyze peer assessment, and fails to clearly describes the rationale behind design decisions.

Organisation and flow Document flows seamlessly using section transitions as needed.

Paper is clearly structured and is well organized to support understanding and follow main points and sequence of ideas.

Introduction, body, and conclusion are clearly evident and identified.

Document flows using section transitions as needed with minor interruptions.

Paper is structured and organized to support understanding and follow main points and sequence of ideas. Introduction, body, and conclusion are evident and identified.

Paper is poorly organized in multiple ways and inhibits reader to such an extent that the structure signifigantly detracts from the thesis of the paper.

Reader may not make sense of the author’s position or arguments.

Reflective statement Multiple key reflective lessons (ie what did you learn) are clearly and concisely stated. Multiple key reflective lessons (what did you learn) are clearly stated. A reflective lesson learned is not evident, or is not clearly articulated.
Content and Analysis Reflection is thoughtful and original, and demonstrates excellent development of each idea, focusing on relevant details and excellent synthesis/connection to pertinent research, both from recommended course readings and readings outside the recommended course readings.

Most statements are backed by evidence from the literature and information is discussed, not just stated.

Facilitation strategies are compared and contrasted and connected to learning theories.

Reflection is thoughtful and original, and demonstrates good development of each idea, focusing on some relevant details and adequate synthesis of pertinent research from course readings.

Many statements are backed by evidence from the literature.

Facilitation strategies are compared and contrasted and connected to learning theories.

The reflection needs more details on every level, and lacks relevance and originality.

There is little to no synthesis of course readings, and reflection is limited to only descriptive narrative (ie this happened, then this happened, then this happened).

Statements are not supported by evidence from the literature.

Facilitation strategies are not compared and contrasted or do not clearly connect to learning theories.