This challenge is broken into 2 segments: 15min to create assessment criteria (using one of the options below) and 10min to discuss, in small groups and as a whole, that process.
Stage 1 - Create
- Option 1 - Take 10-15 minutes to create an assessment approach for the assignment you created in Part 2 (this may include modifying previous criteria for the same assignment)
- Option 2 - Using one of the 4 assessment approaches just discussed, take 10-15 minutes to adapt/adopt (and/or modify) that approach for the assignment you created in Part 2
- Option 3 - Use a GenerativeAI platform to help generate some assessment criteria for for the assignment you created in Part 2
Tips & Suggestions for Option 3
When it comes to prompting Generative AI platforms like CoPilot, ChatGPT, claude.ai, and other large language model (LLM) platforms, it helps to designate the information in the prompts in digestible ways for the tool. I tend to use the following categories:
- Role: assign it a role so it operates with a particular perspective or approach
- Goal: describe your goal / what you need help doing
- Context: offer relevant context to the goal and task
- Other: provide additional information, attachments, etc. so it has more information with which to work
- Task: tell it what to generate and offer specific steps/guides as appropriate
Example - Claude.ai
My Prompt for CLAUDE.AI
- [Role] You are a professional learning experience designer and pedagogical consultant specializing in creating meaningful assignments and engagements for college students.
- [Goal] I need help creating assignments and assessment criteria for multimedia assignments that will help students demonstrate their understanding of key course principles.
- [Context] The course is a Sophomore level, Topics in Rhetoric class where students are exploring the rhetoric of monuments and how to casuistically stretch the rhetorical practices of monuments and memorials across media.
- [Other info] I’ve attached a PDF of the assignment to help provide context.
- [Task] You will provide three to five possible criteria and then wait for me to select one before providing written descriptions for each sub-criteria: Exceeds Expectations, Meets Expectations, Somewhat Meets Expectations, and Fails to meet expectations.
Expanded Criteria for #3 Critical Analysis
Critical Analysis: The depth of analysis and interpretation of the monument/artifact in relation to its human and cultural context.
Exceeds Expectations:
- The video demonstrates exceptional critical analysis of the chosen monument/artifact. It provides a nuanced and insightful interpretation that goes beyond surface-level observations. The project thoroughly explores the human element and cultural significance, drawing thoughtful connections between the physical object and its broader societal implications. The analysis incorporates multiple perspectives and considers complex historical, social, or political contexts. The video skillfully uses course concepts and theories to support its arguments, showing a sophisticated understanding of rhetorical practices in monuments and memorials.
Meets Expectations:
- The video presents a solid critical analysis of the monument/artifact. It offers a clear interpretation that connects the physical object to its human and cultural context. The project adequately explores the significance of the monument/artifact to its community or society. The analysis considers relevant historical, social, or political factors and makes appropriate use of course concepts to support its arguments. While not as nuanced as an "Exceeds Expectations" project, it demonstrates a good understanding of the rhetorical aspects of monuments and memorials.
Somewhat Meets Expectations:
- The video attempts to analyze the monument/artifact critically but may lack depth or consistency. The interpretation of the object's significance is present but may be superficial or incomplete. Some connections are made between the monument/artifact and its human or cultural context, but these may not be fully developed or may overlook important aspects. The project shows a basic understanding of course concepts but may not apply them effectively throughout the analysis. The exploration of historical, social, or political factors may be limited or oversimplified.
Fails to Meet Expectations:
- The video shows little to no critical analysis of the chosen monument/artifact. It may simply describe the object without offering meaningful interpretation or context. The project fails to make significant connections between the monument/artifact and its human or cultural significance. There is little or no consideration of relevant historical, social, or political factors. The video demonstrates a lack of understanding of course concepts related to the rhetoric of monuments and memorials. The analysis, if present, is superficial, inaccurate, or irrelevant to the assignment's goals.