This is the continuing saga of my current iteration of a gamified course (#21).

In a previous post I said I would send out personal emails to all my students, telling them how they are doing and what they need to do to pass this course. Here’s how it went.

I currently have 47 students in my class.

Of those, 1/2 are doing fine. One already has an A.

13 of my students are failing. The mail I sent out told them what their score was and whether or not I though they were doing OK. Those who are failing were told they were seriously behind. I have heard from quite a few of them, promising to submit more quests, but we’ll see who actually does. Most seem quite appreciative that I reached out to them.

This kind of structure is very challenging for some. With no hard deadlines, many students tend to leave the work in this course in favor of other courses that do have deadlines. I do understand that, but I also think it is important for them to learn to get work done when there is no clear deadline.

I’ll let you know in a week or two how many students have ‘pulled up their socks’.

If you are interested in following my course journal, watch for the “Gamification 101” heading.

Also, for more information on gamification, check out my website here.

Be the first to like.

Like

Unlike

The continuing saga of my current iteration of a gamified course.

Hang on to your hats, this one is radical…..

First, some context.

Theory is nothing without practice. I learn new things with each iteration of the course as I teach it. One of the things I’ve been giving a lot of thought to is the notion of criterion-referenced (CRA) or performance-based assessment (PBA). For me criterion-referenced assessment sounds a little broader in scope. Something that is performance based implies that students must actually do something whereas criterion-referenced includes more of those things we would normally categorize as higher-order thinking (i.e. stuff from the 5th and 6th ‘petals’ of Bloom’s Rose below).

Here’s the smack on the side of your head.

If we really intend to assess people according to described criteria and if we really want to let go of the simpler time-referenced assessment, then we should be willing to accept ALL relevant evidence created by our students, right?

I know some of you are simply thinking, “Well, sure.” but hold on. Think about this. Are you really prepared to accept bona fide evidence, without regard to when, where, or why it was produced? 

I’ve given this a lot of thought over the last few years and my answer is YES. If we say that showing evidence of competence is the most important thing, then so long as we are confident that the work done is that of the student submitting it, then why should it matter when that work was done? Or where? Or even why?

Now let’s look at the ramifications of this as they constitute a sea change in traditional educational assessment.

What if it is work the student did in the past? What if it is work that was produced for another course? Should we accept it?
….. I say yes.

What if the student is repeating a course? Should we accept work they submitted to the course from the last time they took it?
….. I still say yes.

If we decide that the thing that really counts is that the student be able to show evidence that they have mastered the material we have assigned to them, it shouldn’t matter if they mastered it elsewhere. Why are we so often stuck on this notion that students must produce “fresh evidence”? Does mastery expire?

Mostly not, but I’m willing to bet that the thought of accepting work produced in the past would make many educators squirm. The idea of accepting work in one course that has also been submitted for assessment in another course is a time-honored taboo in formal education. But why? Think carefully now. Our students are not submitting papers for publication to some learned periodical. Unless they are PhD candidates and as long as the work submitted is genuinely their own, then there really is no requirement that the work they submit be new.

There are exceptions to the idea that we should accept prior work, of course. Anything that includes formal regulations, laws, or other guidelines that are subject to renewal can indeed have expiry dates. Work that incorporates these must be current and so may legitimately be required to be “fresh”. Similarly things like peer review, and work that connects with current events or other activities that must occur in the present (such as discussions) must also be produced at the time they are required. There is a lot of work that does not fall into one of these categories, however.

What are the benefits of accepting prior work?

For the instructor, none, really. It may actually result in marginally more work because we may now have to assess work that is not the ‘cookie-cutter’ solution we are used to marking. To these instructors I have something to say. If you don’t want to do the work of your profession – then go do something else.

For the student the benefits are potentially great. Additionally, the potential effect on student engagement and motivation is considerable. If they know ahead of time that a particular piece of work could be used in more than one course, then, assuming they actually care about their grades, they could be motivated to work harder on that assignment. They could even end up learning more than they would by doing a more superficial job on two similar assignments. If we are honest about the realities of student life, then we should also recognize that students occasionally have to make choices about which course work they are going to concentrate on and which ones they are going to try and coast on, or even ignore. If they already have evidence that they have mastered something we need them to master, then what’s the benefit of making them do it again? Aren’t we just making them jump additional hoops? Why not let them submit something they’ve already done and let them spend more time on the things that challenge and/or interest them? Isn’t that what we keep saying we care about?

Here’s the other big plus for students. If we decouple their required work from our calendar, then that gives them choices. If they already have evidence of competence in something we are requiring, then they should be able to submit it right away. They could then get that work off their to-do list and go on to spend time on something that they need to spend more time on. Why should they have to wait until we have ‘released’ our assignment that goes with that unit? And, further, why should they have to wait for feedback until we get around to marking that batch? What is our justification for making them wait, aside from our own convenience, that is?

OK, so what about cheating, you ask? Well, that is always a risk, especially when students have very little contact with their instructors, as is the case at so many large institutions. But cheating is always a risk, and let’s be honest here. If you are teaching a first year class, chances are it’s going to be nearly impossible for you to come up with an assignment that hasn’t been done before. There are going to be some students who will cheat no matter WHAT you do. Wouldn’t it be better to free up your time and energy by letting up on largely pointless anti-cheating efforts so you could spend that time actually helping students? My experience over the years has been that the more I trust my students, the more trust-worthy they actually become. Most people will live up (or down) to meet your expectations, so why not set them high rather than low?

If you are interested in following my course journal, watch for the “Gamification 101” heading.

Also, for more information on gamification, check out my website here.

Be the first to like.

Like

Unlike