CWL Course Design Retreat - Collaborative Course (Re)Design for the Comparative World Literature Concentration, 21-22 February 2014 and 13-14 May 2014
Course Design Retreat Collaborative Course (Re)Design for the CWL Concentration The following report reflects the final project and schedule based on the CIP Essentials Pilot Project Grant submitted in September 2013 that followed the Comparative World Literature Retreat offered in August 2013 and coordinated by Travis Landry (MLL). This project aims to continue the process of developing a curriculum that will help further foster the collaboration between the English and MLL Departments in order to create or redesign courses that will be offered as part of the Comparative World Literature Concentration. There were two steps in the project: I. Presentation (open primarily to English and MLL faculty) on Friday the 21st of February and Workshop (12 persons maximum) on Saturday the 22nd of February 2014 to plan the CWL Course Design Retreat II. The CWL Course Design Retreat itself (Monday 13th – Tuesday 14th of May 2014).
1
CWL Course Design Retreat - Collaborative Course (Re)Design for the Comparative World Literature Concentration, 21-22 February 2014 and 13-14 May 2014
Index I. Pr. Barnett’s Presentation and Workshop (Friday 21st - Saturday 22nd of February) Handouts provided by Pr. Barnett Overview of talk How the CDI began Core elements and structure of the CDI The concept of Backward Design: Creating Significant Learning Experiences Structure of the CDI—one reason for its success Some evidence of the success of the CDI—and some reasons why Challenges associated with the CDI How can I help you design your own? Asking “big questions”
2 2 2 2 3 4 5 5 6
II. The CWL Course Design Retreat itself (Monday 13th – Tuesday 14th of May 2014) 7 Participants 7 Goals 7 Prereadings 7 General Schedule (see the Detailed Schedule in ANNEX 11) 8 Discussions Outputs 8 * Defining CWL and our pedagogical approach 8 * Comparative World Literature specificities as a discipline 9 * Branding Arguments 9 * CWL Courses and Curriculum (100, 220, 333, 391/392, 400) 10 * Staffing Issues 11 * Collaboration 11 * “Backward Design” Approach 12 * Assessing the “Knower” level/profile 12 *Articulating the assignments and the readings 13 * Activities/Assignments - Meaningful Discussions 14 * Activities/Assignments – Presentations: How CWL “bid ideas” shape the presentations? 14 * Activities/Assignments – Papers 14 * Activities/Assignments – Other ideas 15 * Learning outcomes 16
I. Pr. Barnett’s Presentation and Workshop (Friday 21st - Saturday 22nd of February) The first step of the project involved a public presentation (Friday 21st of February) by a keynote speaker, Pr. Marva Barnett, Founder and Director of the Teaching Resource Center at the University of Virginia, who presented different collaborative and pedagogical projects she has developed with the TRC including the Course Design Institute. Pr. Barnett then facilitated a discussion organized during a half-day workshop (Saturday 22nd of February), which allowed us to plan the Course Design Retreat that took place at the end of the semester. The following report is based on notes provided by Pr. Barnett and notes taken during the presentation & workshop.
2
CWL Course Design Retreat - Collaborative Course (Re)Design for the Comparative World Literature Concentration, 21-22 February 2014 and 13-14 May 2014
Course Design Organization Retreat Workshop 22 February 2014, Kenyon College, Cheever Room (Finn House) Marva A. Barnett, Founding Director, Teaching Resource Center
[email protected] / http://trc.virginia.edu/ Handouts provided by Pr. Barnett • Annex 2: CDI 2014 Flyer • Annex 3: Significant Learning Goals Questions, a Day 1 handout • Annex 4: At-a-Glance Schedule • Annex 5: Summary • Annex 6: CDI Daily Overview • Annex 7: CDI Participant Overview • Annex 8: CDI Facilitator Overview • Annex 9: Testimonials (from TRC site) • Annex 10: Selected References Overview of talk: • How the CDI began • Core elements and structure of the CDI • Some evidence of the success of the CDI—and some reasons why • Challenges associated with the CDI • How can I help you design your own? How the CDI began: • About 7-8 years ago, the Teaching Portfolio Workshop organized by the Teaching Ressource Center (TRC) at the University of Virginia seemed to have run its course after nearly a decade. • The TRC realized years ago that course design is at the heart of engaged student learning. As Pr. Barnett’s colleague Michael Palmer explains it: “If you have solid, integrated course design focused on students’ learning, everything else will logically follow. “ Here’s how the TRC present it to Course Design Institute participants: Course design is the single most important activity we can engage in to improve student learning. • •
•
It began pretty small, with about 20 faculty from various departments Faculty leaders at the UVa School of Medicine brought a team of 4-5 faculty who worked on redesigning their entire curriculum toward problem-based learning. They were pleased with what they learned, but the TRC decided that mixing individual course design and wider curricular design in the same institute was not the best scenario. The Course Design Institute is more and more becoming a cornerstone of the TRC activities. Faculty who participate in year-long learning communities or fellowship programs begin that year with the CDI.
3
CWL Course Design Retreat - Collaborative Course (Re)Design for the Comparative World Literature Concentration, 21-22 February 2014 and 13-14 May 2014
Core elements & structure of the CDI Based on the work of Dee Fink, Ken Bain, and others 5 core elements that we typical work through in this order: 1. situational factors 2. goals 3. Ss and T knowing to what extent the goals have been met 4. activities through which students aim to accomplish the goals 5. the feedback that helps them make progress 1) What are the situational factors? • Every class is different: size, classroom, time of day, majors/non-majors, students’ year in college and level in the discipline, work load… 2) What are your goals for students’ learning? • “What do I want and hope my students will be able to do 3-5 years after taking my course?” BECAUSE they have taken my course? • Absolutely key to solid course design because everything needs to integrate with these goals, which must be meaningful to you and to the students. • The strongest courses have goals that relate to most of the students 3) How do Ss and T knowing to what extent the goals have been met? • What will students know, be able to do, and care about? How will the course help integrate or connect various understandings and help them be lifelong learners? 4) What activities will help students accomplish the goals? 5) How and through what kinds of feedback will you help students make progress? • What kinds of practice will they get? • How will they have chances to learn and try again? An integrated course design implies that all these aspects work together. The concept of Backwards Design—Begin with the situational factors and goals and end up by writing the syllabus (Fink and Wiggins and McTeague) The first year, the TRC pretty much organized the CDI around Dee Fink’s book, Creating Significant Learning Experiences—and they still highlight Fink’s taxonomy of significant learning—six arenas in which we can learn: HAND OUT HO NOW! Fink’s Taxonomy in colors - HO: Day 1- Significant Learning Goals Questions – HO (ANNEX 3) • Foundational Knowledge knowledge about the phenomena associated with the subject and the conceptual ideas associated with those phenomena
4
CWL Course Design Retreat - Collaborative Course (Re)Design for the Comparative World Literature Concentration, 21-22 February 2014 and 13-14 May 2014
•
•
• • •
Application the ability to use and think about new knowledge in multiple ways, as well as the opportunity to develop important skills Integration the ability to connect one body of knowledge with other ideas and bodies of knowledge Human Dimension the ability and willingness to interact more effectively with oneself and others Caring the development of new or enhanced interests, ideas, and values Learning How To Learn the development of knowledge, skills, and strategies for continuing to learn after the course is over
Now the CDI is much enriched with other research and perspectives from other specialists, and our CDI leaders focus more and more on evidence-based teaching. According to Pr. Barnett, a few other elements of CDI are most essential (see information about them on the Selected References HO – ANNEX 8): Ken Bain’s What the Best College Teachers Do and his idea of having one or just a few “big questions” on which the course focuses. Examples of three “big questions” Pr. Barnett asked for her Les Misérables course in one of the first sentences on her syllabus: “In a class that will depend primarily on your ideas and questions, we will embark on a wide-ranging conversation about big issues such as these: • why this novel is considered “great” • what ethical dilemmas and social issues Hugo explores and how relevant they are for us today • what “great literature” can do for us personally” Student motivation—Participants learn about the different types of motivation and how to promote the most productive ones. Structure of the CDI—one reason for its success • Models the learning-centered course design it proposes o interactive workshops on each topic o lots of time for participants to apply new ideas to their course design o facilitators who interact individually with participants • Interdisciplinary group o rich conversations o lots of questions—perhaps more openness because working with colleagues you don’t see every day o lots of sharing • Learning teams built around shared interests— o usually built on shared disciplines, e.g., literature courses / introductory science courses
5
CWL Course Design Retreat - Collaborative Course (Re)Design for the Comparative World Literature Concentration, 21-22 February 2014 and 13-14 May 2014
• • •
• •
o but sometimes focused on common interest in a particular way of teaching, e.g., contemplative pedagogy / hybrid or flipped courses o 5-6 participants in a learning team Trained and now experienced facilitators who work individually with their team Pre-Institute preparation and homework on which the facilitators give daily feedback Best syllabus competition---Criteria: o Written in promising, inviting language o Learner-focused o Goals, assessments, activities are well-aligned Limited to 42 participants, nearly all of them faculty, and including about 5 faculty from other colleges and universities Pr. Barnett offered a space to a Kenyon colleague in this June’s CDI, if someone is interested in experiencing the full institute. $975 for all materials, one-on-one consultations with Institute leaders and facilitators (including Dee Fink this year), lunches and serious refreshments. M-F, June 2-6. 9 am – 4 pm. [NOTE: Nobody from the CWL group could attend the CDI this June, but Pierre Dairon already asked if he could join the CDI next June 2015. This would give a concrete opportunity to experience the TRC project and see if we could apply some ideas at Kenyon]
Some evidence of the success of the CDI—and other reasons why • Data (which is on the HO Testimonials— ANNEX 7): Overall, participants rated the past five CDIs over 4.75 on a 5-point scale, and 100% of all participants since the beginning have said they would recommend CDI to a colleague. Representative comments are on the HO, for example: o Intense, demanding, but extremely productive. I worked harder and faster than I would have on my own. I also loved the environment—being surrounded by people who care about and love teaching was inspiring. (2012) o I really enjoyed engaging in this intensive, intellectual endeavor of thinking about learning and how to actually create learning experiences, in this diverse community of academicians. (2013) • interdisciplinary group • collaborative work environment • intensive nature of the experience • community building among the participants and with the facilitators • frequent, supportive feedback from multiple colleagues • optional additional sessions on relevant instructional technologies HOs: overview of the CDI in the following documents: • Annex 4: At-a-Glance Schedule • Annex 5: Summary • Annex 6: CDI Daily Overview • Annex 7: CDI Participant Overview • Annex 8: CDI Facilitator Overview
6
CWL Course Design Retreat - Collaborative Course (Re)Design for the Comparative World Literature Concentration, 21-22 February 2014 and 13-14 May 2014
Challenges of the CDI • Very intensive to prepare and lead it • The TRC is still working to find the best funding model. Conclusion In the end, the CDI aims to accomplish what we aim to have our courses accomplish: “For learning to occur, there has to be some kind of change in the learner. No change, no learning.” -- L. Dee Fink, Creating a Significant Learning Environment
II. CWL Course Design Retreat (Tuesday 13th – Wednesday 14th of May 2014) Before the retreat, each participant will ideally have a syllabus she/he wants to redesign or a draft of a syllabus she/he wants to develop. Readings will be assigned to prepare for the retreat (a $520 line for buying a book is part of the budget). Participants (9 registered in alphabetical order, 7 could attend): • Jane Cowles (MLL, French) – Could not attend the retreat • Pierre Dairon (MLL, French) • Kate Elkins (CWL) • Mortimer Guiney (MLL, French) • Thomas Hawks (English) • Kate Hedeen (MLL, Spanish) • Travis Landry (MLL, Spanish) • Jesse Matz (English)
7
CWL Course Design Retreat - Collaborative Course (Re)Design for the Comparative World Literature Concentration, 21-22 February 2014 and 13-14 May 2014
•
Marta Sierra (MLL, Spanish) – Could not attend the retreat
On both mornings, Associate Provost Jan Thomas joined the group and actively participated in our discussion. Goals • Defining our learning goals for the students for each course and/or for the CWL concentration • Discuss CWL approaches (not necessarily specific or limited to CWL), i.e. "Backward Design" • Discuss the CWL courses 220 and 333 (and others?) • Discuss sample syllabi and create or redesign drafts Prereading • Bain, Ken. What the Best College Teachers Do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004, 207p. (Jesse Matz and Marva Barnett's suggestions): chapters 1-5 • Hansen, Edmund. Idea-based Learning: A Course Design Process to Promote Conceptual Understanding. Sterling, VA: Stylus, 2011, 226p.: chapters 1-9
General Schedule (see the Detailed Schedule in ANNEX 11) DAY 1 : Tuesday 13th of May - Hayes Hall Seminar Room (Room RBH215) 0845: Registration. Light Breakfast (AVI) 0900-1000: Introduction and presentation of the participants. 1000-1200: Discussion about the readings. • "What the Best College Teachers Do" • Backward Design Approach 1200-1300: Lunch (AVI) 1300-1400: Discussing the CWL220 course. 1400-1600: Discussing the CWL333 course. 1600-1700: Full group discussion and conclusion. 1715: Dinner at the VI with faculty participating in the CWL220 course DAY 2: Wednesday 14th of May - Hayes Hall Seminar Room (Room RBH215) 0845: Light Breakfast (Deli)
8
CWL Course Design Retreat - Collaborative Course (Re)Design for the Comparative World Literature Concentration, 21-22 February 2014 and 13-14 May 2014
0900-1000: Presentation of the syllabi of CWL courses already taught and discussion about the issues encountered. 1000-1200: Smaller group discussions about the other syllabi we brought. 1200-1300: Lunch (Deli) 1300-1700: Alternate individual work and small group discussions to concretely prepare sample syllabi. 1600-1630: Conclusion -----------------------Discussions Outputs Below are some of the conclusions, outputs and core questions we addressed during the Retreat. The participants had been asked to read the two books and bring some sample syllabi they wanted to share and discuss with their peers. We eventually did not have much time to discuss our syllabi, but the discussions were always very animated, going back-and-forth between abstract concepts regarding the discipline and very concrete ideas. * Defining CWL and our pedagogical approach Although we had previously discussed the CWL format and goals, the Retreat has allowed us to go further and more precisely define the CWL Concentration. The choice of organizing the Retreat at the end of the Spring Semester 2014 offered us the chance to discuss the course CWL 220 Pr. Elkins had just taught. The CWL 220 course had been designed and planned during the August 2013 CWL Faculty Retreat, and Pr. Elkins had invited one faculty each week of the semester to present on a topic based on their interest and specialty. This broadly collaborative course was a success and as most of the participants also taught in the course, the Retreat allowed us to reflect on our practice, on the outcomes and on the comments from the students who took the class. * Comparative World Literature specificities as a discipline While trying to define the discipline, we raised a few core questions: “What does CWL/Comparative Literature do?” “What is foundational to the concentration/discipline?” “Why is it important?” Following are some of the characteristics we decided were foundational to the CWL Concentration. These characteristics were continuously discussed and updated during the two days. • Comparing remains a key concept, which is also at the core of the controversy and identity crisis of the traditional “Comparative Literature” discipline • Transnational (several times we discussed the issues of including or excluding certain literatures such as the “Western” ones that are already taught in other
9
CWL Course Design Retreat - Collaborative Course (Re)Design for the Comparative World Literature Concentration, 21-22 February 2014 and 13-14 May 2014
•
• • • •
departments, but we concluded that the decision of excluding some discourses was not ours to make) Multilingual (this is quite a problematic question as we are aware of the difficulties of having an homogenous group of students proficient enough in languages other than English to read the original texts) Understanding of genres and importance of historical and cultural contexts Connecting the Theory (Narrative, Translation, Psychoanalytic, Comparative…) and the Text and make the students aware of the different steps Relationship to other disciplines (Art, Music, Film, Philosophy… We wondered which third area should join the English-MLL axis?) Exposure (to texts, discourses and approaches; we decided not to only include “Non-Western” texts)
Then we asked “how” CWL would lead our student to become “deep learners”. Again, the means and formats were discussed regularly during the two days. • Limiting the texts and periods; • Choosing appropriate and specific assignments and tasks: i.e. modeling reading and eventually sharing competencies; • Choosing appropriate content/readings. * Branding Arguments While discussing the specificities of the CWL Concentration, we also developed a few branding arguments that would benefit the students and Kenyon by fostering collaboration and input from diverse experts. We often discussed about concretely involving the CIP. • Complement English and MLL • World Literature collaboration (Ohio 5, GLCA): Travis Landry talked about the proposal he developed for the new GLCA/Mellon Grant) • Global: Small College “Glowing Glocal” by promoting global citizenship, study abroad, attracting/recruiting international students • Team-teaching, innovative/cutting edge pedagogy • Workshops with experts. * CWL Courses and Curriculum (100, 220, 333, 391/392, 400) During the two days retreat, we discussed several times the formats of the CWL courses. 100: We discussed the opportunity of offering an introductory course that would give some exposure to the discipline. 220: Same format as the course taught in the Spring 2014 with—maybe—a different title. This course aims to: • offer a broad exposure to texts and theories
10
CWL Course Design Retreat - Collaborative Course (Re)Design for the Comparative World Literature Concentration, 21-22 February 2014 and 13-14 May 2014
• make the students aware of different genres and compare them The class would be taught only twice a week to have longer time for the guest faculty to present and engage in a discussion with the course (the 50 minutes format was too short). An 80 minutes long course every Monday/Tuesday with an outside visit every two weeks was suggested (that would also allow Pr. Elkins to look for a less important number of guest faculty to visit the class). One major difficulty would be to determine the targeted student profile (expectations? Prerequisite?) to be able to recruit a more “homogenous” group of students (not in terms of diversity but in terms of competency). It was suggested that the students could send questions to the guest before class. In return, the guest could send guided questions before the class (questions connected to the “big” questions we would ask as suggested by Pr. Barnett – a set of three bullet points/”big questions” would define the “learning outcomes” of the class). Ideas for the first week of class: Invite 2 faculty and have an introductory course with problematic text(s). 333 (possibly divided into several courses: for example 333.1 Translation; 333.2 Interdisciplinary; 333.3 Transnationalism…) No general title was given to that course. It led us to discuss the definition of a “new” Comparative Literature/CWL and how it offers a specific way of reading. This advanced course aims to lead the students towards a deeper questioning and understanding of the discipline and its approaches. For example: • Week 1: Discuss issues of Comparative Literature (comparing, genre, context). • Week 2: Discuss issues of Translation… We also discussed the next CWL333 course we could offer (below is a short list of ideas): • Realism • Novel • Travel (easy to connect with International Studies and Study Abroad) • World/Global Modernism • Comparative Romanticism (Jane) Pr. Landry and Matz already team-taught the CWL333 once and are going to teach it again in the Spring 2015, and Pr. Landry also team-taught the course with Pr. Murphy. 391/392: Elective courses. These courses could be offered every year and cross-listed (the recruitment would primarily be done in the English and MLL Departements). Each participant shared an idea of a course she/he would like to include: • Translation (Theory and Creative) – Kate (could be offered as a CWL333) • Post-War French Culture - Mort • World Poetry – Tom (could be offered as a CWL333) • Cosmopolitism
11
CWL Course Design Retreat - Collaborative Course (Re)Design for the Comparative World Literature Concentration, 21-22 February 2014 and 13-14 May 2014
Contemporary Novel and Global Circulation – Jesse (could be offered as a CWL333) • Graphic Novels – Pierre (could be offered as a CWL333) 400: We also discussed the possibility of creating an advanced level capstone course, which could include an undergraduate Conference (such as the Symposium on Africa organized in the Spring 2014 by Pr. Murphy). •
* Staffing Issues Whether we were discussing the invited guests for the course CWL220 or the CWL333, the question of staffing was always an issue. Pr. Elkins has to find faculty who are willing and available to teach the courses or participate as guest speakers. So far the faculty have been recruited within the English and MLL departments but we would like to open it and develop the collaboration with other departments. We gathered a quick list of faculty from both departments who are explicitly or potentially interested: • English: Jesse, Pashmina, Janet, Tom, Kathleen, Ted • MLL: Chengjuan, Jane, Jennifer, Kate, Marta, Mort, Patricia, Natasha, Paul, Pierre, Travis, Victor We also discussed the opportunity of recruiting students (for example International students If more regular courses are added, we might have to discuss the opportunity of opening a new teaching line, if a significant number of students interested. * Collaboration Following the staffing discussion, some new options of collaboration were discussed such as: • Using a Dissertation Fellow; for example the Japanese Fellow who is a Comparative Literature specialist and could collaborate with CWL for 2 years;\ • Collaborating with the Film Program (temporary hire; a film historian could be a good profile) * “Backward Design” Approach After discussing our personal goals and expectations regarding the Retreat, we discussed the two prereading books we had selected based on Pr. Barnett’s suggestions. Although we did not fully embrace Hansen’s approach from his Idea-based Learning: A Course Design Process to Promote Conceptual Understanding (2011), both his essay and Bain’s What the Best College Teachers Do? (2004) guided us in framing our discussions and reflections. Hansen, in his “Idea-based learning” approach, suggests six steps to follow before choosing the content of a course.
12
CWL Course Design Retreat - Collaborative Course (Re)Design for the Comparative World Literature Concentration, 21-22 February 2014 and 13-14 May 2014
1. Ask the “big, essential” questions of the course; Here are some of the “essentials” we decided were relevant to the CWL: • Language/Translation • Theories • Literariness • Representation • Comparing (How? Why?) • Transcultural 2. Determine the “Enduring Understanding”; i.e. what we expect our students to be able to understand and retain (which implies to be aware of the barriers the students might encounter); 3. What “Learning Outcomes” (skills, competencies – i.e. close reading…) are expected? 4. Organize a set of “Performance tasks” 5. Assessment (1): choose relevant assignments and activities 6. Assessment (2): Determine the steps/reflection for each assignment/activity 7. Content: this is the final step as the content is determined by the goals of the class, not the opposite. Which material (“voices”) we want to include? Following these steps comes the anticipation of the targeted audience (Who are they in terms of: Skills? Difficulties? Prejudice? Competency? Fixed approaches?) * Assessing the “Knower” level/profile Both Bain (pp. 42-43) and Hansen (pp. 55-56) underline the importance of understanding and assessing the “knowers” profile of our students. They both roughly four types of “knowers”: 1. Received (Dualism): the knower believes there is a right and wrong answer and accepts that the correct answer comes the teacher. 2. Subjective (Multiplicity): the knower believes that knowledge is a construction and therefore that the teacher does not necessarily provides the correct answer, which is perceived as subjective. 3. Procedural (Contextual Relativism): the knower has a pragmatic approach and tries to find the best way of presenting the knowledge in order the achieve the best academic success (without questioning the origin and form of that knowledge; the question is: “What does the professor expect that will all me to get the best grade?”). 4. Separate/Connected (Commitment in relativism): the knower believes that building knowledge is a never-ending process; she/he is critical and compares different sources and approaches. We discussed activities and assignments that could help us to (self)assess these profiles • Make the students aware that they cannot master every approach and context;
13
CWL Course Design Retreat - Collaborative Course (Re)Design for the Comparative World Literature Concentration, 21-22 February 2014 and 13-14 May 2014
• •
•
Chose texts more or less open-ended; Discuss the ethics of CWL students: what makes a good learner/knower? (i.e. tolerate other people’s view) o Example: chose a non-Western text, a very old text, a problematic topic (ex: text by Li Yu about a relationship between three woman and a man)… and divide the class into three groups. Each group will react on Moodle giving § Group 1: Their own interpretation of the text § Group 2: Another/Different interpretation § Group 3: Play the Devil’s advocate Student assessment: they classify their papers and the ones by their classmates based on the different profiles of knowers.
*Articulating the assignments and the readings Below are a few examples of the ideas we discussed to better integrate the CWL specificities, the assignments and the readings. Assignment * reflective paper * debate big CWL issues *Response paper every 2/3 weeks about background readings * Final reflection on one of the “big” topics in relation with a reading
Primary and Secondary Sources Octavio Paz (Kate’s suggestion)
Background meatreadings/sources David Damrosch (Director of the Institute of World Litrature at Harvard, his books would be appropriate for the CWL333 course) Susan Bassnett, Comparative Literature: a Critical Introduction
* Activities/Assignments - Meaningful Discussions Oral production is an important aspect of the learning process and the group discussed activities successfully developed by some faculty to make them as meaningful as possible. • Autonomous discussion (Pr. Landry organizes such activity everyday in his advanced courses). The students are let alone at the beginning of the course and have to discuss about their reading (the faculty should have no problem with silence as the students o rubrics: either mechanical comments or analytical ones that imply to rephrase
14
CWL Course Design Retreat - Collaborative Course (Re)Design for the Comparative World Literature Concentration, 21-22 February 2014 and 13-14 May 2014
• •
o prompts, open themes, always connected to the readings Student facilitated discussions (one or more students) Small group
* Activities/Assignments – Presentations: How CWL “bid ideas” shape the presentations? Following are some of the ideas we shared that aim to improve the quality of the students’ presentations as we were all regularly disappointed by their quality: • Teaching how to give presentations • Displaying (Powerpoint) the source text and the English translation • Rubrics: the audience fills a form that is shared with the presenter(s) • Prepare questions for the presenters • Quiz just after the presentation (ask the presenters to do it) • List of questions in advance (to facilitate the class discussion) • Bring an essay/article/artifact in class • Watch examples of good presentations • Present meaningful facts • Forum (online, Moodle): “Name three things you did not know about the presentation/you need to find” • Facilitate a discussion * Activities/Assignments - Papers • Papers: different steps (idea; introduction; drat; presentation; final) and present it to practice o Early paper to asses the “knower/student” profile/level and grade the following papers accordingly (we tried to find an answer to the heterogeneity of the students in our classroom and an answer to our wish to grade them fairly based on their initial knowledge and competency) o Critical/analytical bibliography: in order to evaluate good secondary sources (using rubrics) Example: organization of the papers for a CWL333 semester For each paper, the students should: • Receive clear description/expectation for each step of the writing process • Have a list of rubrics • Be told “How to start?” 1) 6 response papers (500 words) every week at the beginning of the semester that are based on theoretical texts and primary texts: the students read each other and rate the papers using rubrics 2) 3 larger papers (with a first, second and final draft) • one on theoretical texts
15
CWL Course Design Retreat - Collaborative Course (Re)Design for the Comparative World Literature Concentration, 21-22 February 2014 and 13-14 May 2014
• •
one on primary texts one abstract with a bibliography (this one involves a personal meeting with each students) The students could then decide which one they want to develop as a final paper (of at least 3000 words)
* Activities/Assignments – Other ideas • Translation: work on the drafts in class and then publish it • Historical/Contextual Research • Letter to a publisher • “Small Talk”: create a virtual environment where the students can discuss • Map the space • Choose texts from different plays, introduce them and play them • Undergraduate Conference (Capstone)/Class Journal • Pair Readings outside and inside the syllabus * Learning outcomes • Understand texts in circulation and literary work in a global context • Facilitate a discussion • Active listening • Reflective Critical Thinking • Increase autonomy and confidence • Making connections and meaningful comparisons • Understand Competing Universalisms • Share and collaborate • Develop different ways of reading • Self reflection
Information added (July, 19th 2014) The discussions we had during the retreat widely reflect the “Faculty Planning and Curricular Coherence: A Framework for Strengthening Integrated Learning.”
16
