Volume Two - Academic Conferences

Rowena Santiago et al.
it pointed out the good points and strengths of the classmate’s project, and second, it gave
suggestions for improvement and explained how to make the projects better. These critiques were
used to help one’s peers refine their final projects.
After receiving the critiques given to one’s own project, each student responded to his/her reviewers’
critiques, first by thanking them for their critiques, and then letting them know if their suggestions were
to be accepted and included in the revision with appropriate explanations. This Level 2 Response had
to be within 200-400 words and supported by literature source(s). Each response consisted of two
parts: first, it pointed out which critique(s) from the reviewer were accepted and why, and second,
which critique(s) were not accepted and why.
To eliminate the possibility of instructor’s influence on the online discussion, instructor feedback was
given directly via individual email within two business days after the posting deadline. Students were
asked to follow netiquette rules and were allowed to continue the discussion with their peers beyond
what was required in the assignment. However, all discussions were ended by midnight of the
deadline date, during which time, the online forum was locked.
For assessment, grades for the “Online Discussion” activity were based on a rubric for: critical thinking
(Level I responses and Level II responses), organization, relevance of responses to course content,
timeliness and logistics, and writing mechanics.
6.2.3 Applying the FLC guidelines
As a result of the faculty learning community discussions, peer review, and the FLC guidelines
generated collectively on designing assignments for online group discussions that promote high-level
thinking skills, the strengths and weaknesses of the original assignment were identified, and changes
for improvement were made.
Strengths of the original assignment:
The assignment met the FLC guidelines: the learning objectives (critique individual plans and
materials when designing a “good start” for e-instruction) were clearly stated, the assignment
included a rubric, and clear explanation were given for the levels and length of responses,
timetable, netiquette and civility (saying thanks, addressing good points first).
The learning goals and the learning activity were aligned, i.e., the goal was for the students to
engage in critical thinking as applied to the subject matter to be learned for the session, and the
critique activity provided the means to carry out this learning goal.
Changes for improvement:
Rubric – There was a need for minor revisions to customize the rubric and align it better with the
learning goals and activity. One of the revisions was in the original criteria for evaluating the
quality of Critical Thinking Level I and II responses, which were as follows:
Outstanding (3 points): Presents the most important arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con.
Proficient (2 points): Presents relevant arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con.
Basic (1 point): Presents some arguments without reasons.
Below Expectation (0 point): Fails to present or hastily dismisses strong, relevant counter-arguments.
The text “presents the most important arguments (reasons and claims) pro and con” was revised to
read as “presents the most important strengths and good points, and provides clear suggestions for
improvement.” in order to align it better to the assigned learning activity (“provide critiques that
consisted of identifying the good points and strengths of the classmate’s project, and then giving
suggestions for improvement”).
Another revision to the rubric was the addition of criteria that would explicitly evaluate whether or not
the students posted the required Levels I and II responses. The range of the point system that was
added to the rubric was: from 3 points for “Provided both level I and II responses” to 0 points for “Did
not provide any Level I or Level II responses”.
Formatting for Readability – The original assignment was presented in a continuous text format,
and there was a need for improved formatting for better readability. One of the revisions made to
735