Hey all,

I'm back. Later than I had hoped, but these things happen. This time, I'd
like to talk about online group discussions.

Philosophy

You may recall that I have moved around in my career, starting my current
information management life only five years ago. That career started with
graduate school. There I encountered online academic discussions for the
first time (my prior schooling predated online academics, although I was
fully familiar with online forums), both in hybrid and one fully online
course.

In two words: they sucked. The general assignment pattern was (1) respond
to instructor's question, and (2) respond to a responding student. The
theory was that students would read through all the posts, get various
views on the question, and then share their thoughts. The first posters
were the good students and they covered the subject fairly well. The
remaining students gave stock, vague, or otherwise worthless answers. The
responses to the responders were even more uneven. Lots of make-work in my
view.

As a student, I would post early. A couple days later, I would read (maybe)
a half dozen other responses and try to find one that I could fashion a
non-trivial response to. I tried to pick one that I could disagree with (I
was an attorney in another life, after all). Whenever I decided to look a
bit deeper, I was disappointed. It was like reading forums on the internet
-- lots of noise/chaff.

I decided to use the discussion forums to handle what I used to fill FTF
classes with -- module exercises. I wanted to limit the discussion
threads/posts that any one student had to read, and make the ones they did
read much more meaningful.

But first, I need to explain a bit about my FTF class module activity
approach.

Class Activities

I discussed class activities pretty thoroughly a year or so ago in my blog
Adventures in Learning (
http://ccistudentcenterblog.wordpress.com/tag/adventuresinlearning/). The
bulk of the review is contained in Parts 9-13 (with a brief tangent in Part
11), for those who want the gory details.

In sum, I find two activity approaches work in my
more-practical-than-theoretical field: directed, sharp decision points and
brainstorming. The former creates a clean conflict among the answers
allowing for robust discussion. The latter muddles that conflict and thus
undermines discussion, but can provide a useful set-up for decision-point
questions (investing the students in the exercise through their own
creative inputs).

Before I get to an example of the decision-point question, allow me to bore
you with some background information. Databases aren't much use unless you
can get information into and out of them. Data administrators have devised
a lovely acronym to cover the task that any database must be able to
perform -- CRUD -- Create (input), Read (query), Update (modify), and
Delete. The vehicle by which CRUD operations takes place in the most common
type of database (relational) is Structured Query Language, or SQL. The
vast majority of database users never move beyond Read (querying) and
that's where I spend the bulk of my course time. Still, CUD (create,
update, delete) deserve some coverage. So here's one of the early
question/activities in this section of the course (also useful as a
multi-correct answer RAT question, although a bit limited for that):



Staff


staffNo

sName

position

salary

branchNo

bAddress

SL21

John White

Manager

30000

B005

22 Deer Rd., London

SG37

Ann Beech

Assistant

12000

B003

163 Main St., Glasgow

SG14

David Ford

Supervisor

18000

B003

163 Main St., Glasgow

SA9

Mary Howe

Assistant

9000

B007

16 Argyll St., Aberdeen

SG5

Susan Brand

Manager

24000

B003

163 Main St., Glasgow

SL41

Julie Lee

Assistant

9000

B005

22 Deer Rd., London

Question 2: Which SQL statement adds one employee record to the table above?
A. INSERT INTO Staff VALUES (“SA4”, “Alan”, “Brown”, “Assistant”, 8300,
“B007”, “16 Argyll St., Aberdeen”);
B. INSERT INTO Staff (staffNo, sName, branchNo) VALUES (“SA4”, “Alan
Brown”, “B007”);
C. INSERT INTO Staff VALUES (“SA4”, “Alan Brown”, “Assistant”, NULL,
“B007”, “16 Argyl Rd., Aberdeen”);

The above question/activity presents a database table, then asks which
statement inserts one record. First off, you'll notice that SQL is sort of
like English. Even someone who has no background in it can make some
guesses about what it does. That means the students who didn't do the
reading can still participate in class (or online in the activity).
Further, because it's an application exercise, those who have done the
reading aren't home free. They still have to apply their new-found
knowledge in a novel context.

To the answers: Answer A will return an error message, the two employee
names are separated and will be put in two different fields, leaving one
extra piece of data (in the quotes) at the end with no place to go. Answer
B will not create an error. It also does not completely fill a line of data
(leaving NULL for three of the table's fields). Answer C will work
completely -- all fields will fill with data in the correct order. However,
C has a problem -- "Argyl" is spelled wrong (or at least it's not spelled
the same as the "Argyll" in the table). No error will occur, but the data
in the table will be inconsistent. That problem arises because this table
is not "normalized" . . . thus leading into another lesson.

So I present three activities in this manner, one for Create, one for
Update, and one for Delete. Each of them follows the same pattern: more
than one answer is correct; all answers have some problem. The students
quickly catch on to my tricks (as they are supposed to) and begin to
question each part of the answers. All the problems that arise in the
various questions have one solution (imagine that?) -- normalization. So we
then move into a series of normalization activities/questions.

In this way, the activities require short bursts of thinking about clearly
distinguishable decision points. Answers must be justified by the groups
who pick them, and can create clean conflicts which highlight the lessons
to be learned. Each one also leads to the next activity, providing a piece
of the puzzle that builds to the next lesson (even for those who don't
prepare for class). Harkening back to my game design days, each activity is
an encounter which advances the plotline leading (hopefully) to a
satisfying climax and denouement.

I've done a bunch of tweaking on my questions and in-class "plotlines." I'm
fairly satisfied with how they work both within one class and over the
course of several classes. But how to make this work online . . . how can I
capture the give-and-take of the post-group-response discussion so that the
lessons to be learned can be highlighted? Unfortunately, I have only a
partial answer.

Online Discussions

I provide two weeks for each discussion. That allows enough time for the
process to be completed asynchronously. For each of those time periods, I
create a presentation to be viewed. For the CUD/Normalization lesson, the
presentation can be found at:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1VQxHJniuQqxNC47THQk_sAhgRdm_2PzLloMg8fduAAE/edit?usp=sharing

Then, I create a forum in Blackboard entitled " Discussion 4
Normalization-SQL C_UD". I create a number of threads in that forum equal
to the number of teams in the class (which were formed early on). Each
thread bears a group name, such as "Average Joes Discussion 4." I also
create an additional thread called "Full Class Discussion 4". More on that
later.

In each of the threads, I create the first posting. It runs something like
this:

"For this discussion, please review the following presentation:

Section 2.2 Normalization (link to presentation above embedded here)

Each team member should respond to the following questions or instructions.
Provide both an answer and a rationale for your answer.

Remember that, for multiple choice questions, extra credit is awarded if
you list the answers that were given previously by your teammates (or
indicate that you are the first poster), and vary your responses from those
answers.

Question 1 (slide 9): Name a foreign key (other than that noted in slide
8), the table/class it comes from, and the table/class it serves.

Question 2 (slide 15): Which SQL statement adds one employee record to the
table above?

Question 3 (slide 16): Based on a close reading of the answers in Question
2, name one anomaly (mistake) that could arise when inserting records?

Question 4 (slide 18): Which SQL statement properly adjusts an address in
the table above?

Question 5 (slide 19): Based on a close reading of the answers in Question
4, name one anomaly (mistake) that could arise when updating records?

Question 6 (slide 21): Which SQL statement properly deletes a staff record?

Question 7 (slide 22): Based on a close reading of the answers in Question
6, name one anomaly (mistake) that could arise when deleting records?

Question 8 (slide 48): The data model above contains a warning sign -- a
many-to-many relationship. Normalize this data model by creating the
appropriate associative table. Also, list possible attributes in the
associative table that could not fit in the data model previously.

Question 9. Do you mind speaking for your team in the full-class thread for
Discussion 4, or would you rather someone else did it?"

That covers the process for the content and answers. A larger process is
presented in the forum's instructions, setting up due dates the first
Thursday of the two-week period, the second Tuesday, and the second
Thursday:

"This forum contains a number of discussion threads covering the Create
(Insert), Update, and Delete aspects of SQL (C_UD), and normalization of
relational databases. In total, quality participation in this discussion is
worth 1 point (1%) of your final course grade.

This discussion covers the period from March 1, 2014 to March 15, 2014. The
following due dates apply:

March 6, 2014: Each member of the team must post an individual response to
each of the questions/instructions listed in his or her team thread.
Participation in this discussion is worth 0.4 point. Further, for any posts
addressing a multiple choice question, extra credit is awarded if the
poster lists prior responses, then addresses an answer covered least often
previously. Initial posts after the due date receive no points.

March 11, 2014: The team must decide what their "team answers" will be for
each of the questions in the discussion thread. The team must also decide
who will speak for the group in the class discussion thread (the caller) --
only one team member may be chosen for this role. The caller should act as
discussion facilitator and consensus builder so a single answer for each
question can be stated. Note that this discussion will fail (and no points
will be awarded) if team members wait until the last minute to post. A true
discussion requires regular posting and responses. Participating and
helping the group reach consensus is worth 0.6 points. Taking on the caller
role is worth 0.2 extra-credit points. (Your Peer Evaluation grade is
heavily influenced by your peers' evaluations of your contributions to this
discussion.)

March 13, 2014: The team caller must post each of the team answers in the
Full-Class Discussion thread. If the team caller fails to post the team's
answers, no team member receives any credit for this discussion. I will
post my thoughts after all teams have posted theirs. Other team members are
welcome to post thoughts after all team callers have posted."

Results

The first reaction to this scheme is "whoa, that's complicated". I DID warn
you about my process mania in my last post. Still, in practice, the
students quickly "get it." Particularly after they get their first set of
grades/feedback. Also, the first "go-round" (Discussion 1) completely
removes the content challenges -- it's a get to know each other and the
process of discussions. The teams name themselves and talk a bit about what
they hope to get out of the course. That gets them familiar with the
process so when the content challenges hit in Discussions 2-8, they are
able to focus on content and not so much on process. As you can imagine, I
don't vary the discussion format throughout the semester. The process is
continually reinforced.

So what happens? The students spend the first week doing the background
reading/review and taking some guesses at answers. They have an incentive
to post first (no need to review other group members' answers). Those who
wait to post have an incentive (extra credit) to review their mates answers
so they can vary their choices, covering different aspects of the lesson.
At most, they have to review 6 other people's work (not the entire class).
This part (varying your answers from prior posts) is the most difficult to
gronk. If you actually disagree with the prior posts, it's easy -- post
your BETTER answer and justify it. Even if you agree with one or more of
your teammates' answers (posted earlier), by picking a different answer and
posting a rationale for it being WRONG, you extra credit. That takes some
time for students to grasp, and frankly some students never get it. Not a
problem; it helps separate the A students from the rest.

Once the first Thursday passes, the students need to work in their group's
discussion thread to come to a single answer and rationale for each
question. First issue: who's going to speak for the group? Two outcomes can
occur here: one person monopolizes the role because he or she is most
comfortable doing that and the other team members accede. The incentives
(extra credit for caller), however, encourage rotation of that role. By
doing so, each group member can gain at least one extra credit award.
Still, being group call/consensus building takes some extra work. (That
it's excellent training for real work team collaboration is purely a happy
byproduct, I assure you.)

The back-and-forth when settling on an answer varies widely. Some
contribute a great deal; some much less or not at all. No matter -- by
Tuesday of the second week, the caller posts something in the individual
group thread, creating some consensus answers for the group. The caller
then has two days to transport those answers from the individual group
thread to the Full Class Thread, where all the other groups also post.

That next weekend, I post my take on things and make some comments about
the various group responses.

All this worked nicely throughout the semester, with one exception I'll
cover shortly. My favorite result, however, was the grading process. I
could filter the Grade Center to look at only the Discussion 4 (or
whatever) responses "assignments". I would leaf through each student's
contributions all combined into a series of posts (with the other student's
stripped out). It was easy to see if the student posted by the first
Thursday (and if their post was comprehensive -- covered each question).
That was worth 0.4 points. If he or she discussed prior answers and
justified (either positively or negatively) different ones, I awarded an
additional 0.2-0.4 points.

It was also easy to see how much a student engaged with the group (number
of posts and debate points made). Some phoned it in -- "yeah, I agree" was
the extent of their contribution. That participation earned 0.2 points in
the beginning of the course (gave them benefit of the doubt on the process
complexity) and 0 thereafter. At the other extreme was the group caller who
gathered the consensus answers, highlighted the conflict answers, and
mediated the discussion of conflicts. That participation earned up to 1
additional point (on top of the 0.4 for initial answers) depending on how
impressive the group leadership was. The participation that fell somewhere
in between those extremes was easy enough to quantify with a number between
0 and 1.

In the end, I noted the student's total score (from 0-1.4 points) in the
Blackboard grade box and provided some comments in the feedback area
explaining my grade ("only first posting," "little discussion
participation," "good/excellent group participation," "great group
leadership," etc.). I then moved onto the next student. All in all, I could
grade an entire two-week discussion by 40+ students in about an hour, and
provide meaningful feedback. Good stuff.

The Downside

The defect in this scheme was the post-group-answer discussion. That
give-and-take was the highlight on the FTF class and it fell flat online. I
can't be sure that any student reviewed the answers of the other groups or
my take on things. I believe that's because I didn't take the exercise far
enough.

Next time, I'll set the first deadline on the first Tuesday. I'll then give
the student's to the first Friday to come to consensus and post their group
answers in the Full Class Discussion thread. I would then post a series of
challenges to various group answers in the Full Class Discussion by the
second Tuesday. I would ask for group responses by the second Thursday. I
would then post my final feedback over the next weekend as the groups began
work on the next discussion. Not sure whether to limit the responses to my
challenges to the group callers -- if so, I would emphasize the need for
other team mates to help the caller and require that caller role's be
rotated. (Caller/non-caller participation can, once again, be accounted for
in the peer evaluation process.)

Again, there's no guarantee that the students will look at or think about
the culminating discussion points, but that's the case in class as well.
Easy enough to tune out as the instructor engages with other students on a
debriefing after the activities, or as the instructor launches into a mini
lecture wrapping up the lessons learned. My job is to provide opportunities
for learning, not to guarantee learning occurs.

Once again, I appreciate your patience as I rambled on.

Hopefully this is of some use to some of you,

M Alexander Jurkat
INF 202 Team Lead
Information Department
University at Albany

On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 6:04 PM, M Alexander Jurkat <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> Over the last couple of years, I've taught an Introduction to Data and
> Databases course. For the first two semesters, I taught face-to-face using
> team-based learning methodology. Over the next two semesters, I revised the
> teaching methodology for hybrid-online and fully online. I was pleasantly
> surprised by how well TBL adapted to the online environment. I'd like to
> share some of my approaches and experiences. I'll start with the Reading
> Assessment Process (RAP).
>
> Background
>
> I am a part-time instructor in the Informatics Department at the
> University at Albany (SUNY). I spent 10 years as a lawyer, 15 more years as
> a game designer, and have been working in process improvement and business
> intelligence in the manufacturing sector for the last 4 years. As you can
> imagine, I'm fairly process oriented -- forgive my obsession with "rules".
>
> Philosophy
>
> In designing any process, the objectives and purposes are the best
> starting point. My thinking about the RAP has evolved over the years. The
> online processes that I developed are hugely dependent on my take about the
> goals of the RAP.
>
> When I started, I viewed the RATs as pure and simple tests. The students
> were to read (or view) the materials, take the tests, and be graded. That
> way I would know if they had done the reading well or poorly, and would
> have something to add to their cumm grade. I designed questions by focusing
> heavily on the materials. One answer was the "correct" one (often quoted
> directly from the source materials) and the others were not. To make the
> questions more challenging, I spent a fair amount of time devising
> plausible, but incorrect answers. When it came time to review the answers,
> the students simply accepted my "correct" answer or were annoyed at the way
> the other answers were tricky or vague.
>
> I realized I was putting a lot of effort into deceiving (or confusing) the
> students. The better I got at creating plausible but incorrect answers, the
> greater the deception. That didn't sit well with me. I know the material
> far better than they do. The fact that I could deceive one or more of them
> each test accomplished nothing . . . and was downright mean.
>
> I also found that the few questions that I seeded with more than one
> correct answer (in an effort to create "appealable" issues) produced the
> best discussions and the most meaningful appeals. In those cases, the
> "correct" answer, as indicated by the answer key, was merely a starting
> point for a larger discussion. The more questions that had multiple correct
> answers, I more I encouraged the students to "buck the system", discount
> the "correct" answer, stick to their guns, and support their answer.
> Capping the exercise and reinforcing the point, I gave them full credit as
> long they could give me a reasonable argument for their answer. It was a
> tough road, however. Students are used to seeing tests has
> teacher-controlled exercises with one right answer and a bunch of wrong
> answers.
>
> Fairly quickly, I started eliminating questions with plausible but
> incorrect answers. I started using, as a general course, questions with at
> least two correct answers (or at least two justifiable answers). The more I
> shared appeals presenting alternative answers, drew out explanations,
> balanced them against the "correct" answer, and liberally awarded full
> points to the appealing groups, the more the student realized that RAT
> questions were a starting point for discussion, not a black-and-white
> evaluation of their preparation. The more correct answers I seeded the
> questions with, the more robust the discussion. The RAP became a process to
> engage the students with the materials, not an end-point testing the
> students' mastery of the materials.
>
> In devising multiple correct answer questions, I found myself naturally
> pulling back from the materials. I could cover more material in one
> question if more than one answer was correct. I found it easier to create
> application-, implementation-, synthesis-, or analysis-oriented questions,
> using the materials as a starting point for novel situations. That too
> created more robust discussions. There were fewer and fewer easy questions
> and lots and lots of justifiable answers.
>
> A happy side-effect was that I could draw in the students who did not do
> the reading. As long as they read the question carefully during either the
> iRAT or tRAT, listened to their team members during the tRAT, and
> contributed (as part of the group) to the appeal discussion, they were
> exploring the ideas and could achieve a decent grade.
>
> Looked at as engagement and discussion seeds, the components of the RAP
> needed to be re-weighed. The iRAT is least important. It's primary purpose
> is to introduce the students to the questions. Whether they get the answer
> right is far less important than their review of the possible answers. The
> tRAT is more important but not much. It's an opportunity for the students
> to share their ideas, take a stab at a correct answer, and discuss possible
> rationales. The most important, by far, aspect of the RAP is the appeal
> process. That's where the students justify their answers and receive
> feedback.
>
> With a grading structure of 25% for the iRAT and 75% for the tRAT, as
> modified by the appeals rationales, the purpose is reinforced. Also, I make
> at least one appeal mandatory for all teams. This reinforces the notions
> that (1) questions have more than one potential "correct" answer, and (2)
> only if the team probes the alternative answers through the appeal process
> can they benefit from these correct answers. As the semester goes on, more
> and more teams appeal more and more questions. Some teams catch on quickly
> and create an appeal from every question, because . . . you never know.
>
> Process
>
> My process relies on tools available in Blackboard. Frankly, I've never
> used another CMS so I can't say if similar tools exist elsewhere.
>
> First, I create a pool of 10 RAT questions, each with five different
> answers. I use "all of the above" and "none of the above" liberally. I also
> use "some of the above" to further encourage thinking about alternative
> correct answers.
>
> Using that pool of questions, I create the iRAT using the test tool in
> Blackboard. I set the question order to be random and the answer order
> (within that question) to be random. I allow the students to take the iRAT
> as many times as they like with two conditions: (1) they don't know their
> iRAT results until after the tRAT answer sheet (see below) has been
> submitted, and (2) they cannot start the iRAT after a certain deadline. I'm
> perfectly happy to have the students review the test more than once. That
> furthers engagement with the materials.
>
> Here are the iRAT assignment instructions:
>
> "The following test has 10 questions, each worth 10 points. Choose the
> best answer for each.
>
> Make a note on the full text of your answers (or enough of it to remind
> you which one you choose) so you have a record of your choices to reference
> during the tRAT. Noting down just the letter (A., B., C., etc.) of your
> answer will not be sufficient as answers are scrambled for each test.
>
> You have 30 minutes to submit your answers. The test will time out after
> that period of time and auto-submit.
>
> You will not be notified of your score on this test until after submission
> of the tRAT for your team.
>
> You can retake the test as often as you like (prior to the due date), but
> your final iRAT score will be based on your latest submission."
>
> Once the deadline for the iRAT passes, I open up the tRAT assignment in
> Blackboard. The tRAT has two parts: the test and the answer sheet
> assignment. Unlike the iRAT, the tRAT has a set order for the questions and
> a set order for the answers to ease grading. I ask that the students gather
> in some synchronous environment (chat, Skype, Google Hangout, etc.) and
> take the tRAT together. Again, the students can open and run through the
> test as often as they like. No results are provided for the test so repeat
> review is not a problem.
>
> Once the students have had a chance to review and discuss the iRAT, one of
> them submits an answer sheet to me. That sheet lists the questions in order
> with a first, second, and third best answer to each question. The answer
> sheet submission is open to any member of the group, but only one member
> can submit the sheet and it can only be submitted once.
>
> Here are the tRAT assignment instructions:
>
> "Complete this test and the RAT Team Answers assignment at the same time.
> The RAT Team Answers assignment can be found listed in your group area. Do
> the following:
>
> Schedule, then gather your team at one time, communicating in person, via
> chat, using Google Hangouts, Facetime, Skype, or another means.
>
> Once your team has gathered, discuss each question and choose the best
> answer for each.
>
> One (or more) team members should take notes on which answers the team
> favors. Pick a first, second, and third choice for each question.
>
> Once your team has decided its 3 choices per question, one person should
> submit the RAT Team Answers assignment, listing the three choices per
> question, as well as the names of the team members who participated in the
> team test (team mates who don’t participate get a 0 on the tRAT). List the
> text of the answers as well as the letter choices, to make sure your grade
> is accurately calculated.
>
> The following test has 10 questions. Getting the correct answer on the
> first choice is worth 10 points; getting the correct answer on the second
> choice is worth 5 points; getting the correct answer on the third choice is
> worth 3 points; getting none of the choices correct is worth 0 points.
>
> You have 40 minutes to submit your answers. The test will time out after
> that period of time and auto-submit.
>
> You can view the test as many times as you like. You can submit your RAT 2
> Team Answers assignment only once.
>
> You will be notified of your score on this test shortly after you submit
> the RAT 2 Team Answers assignment.
>
> Your team's appeal assignment is based on the results of the team RAT (see
> separate RAT Team Appeal assignment)."
>
> I then grade the tRAT answer sheet. This is a relatively quick and easy
> process because the question order is always the same and the correct
> answer key (a, b, c, d, or e) is always the same. If the team gets a
> question "wrong", I provide the correct answer key when I respond to their
> iRAT answer sheet assignment in Blackboard. Because the tRAT answer sheet
> is a team assignment in Blackboard, I can input one grade result and it
> flows down to each member of the team. I then simply have to modify the
> grade for those team member who didn’t participate to 0.
>
> Once I've finished grading the tRAT answer sheets, I open the appeals
> process. Again, the students gather to discuss their answers, create
> rationales for them, and write up the appeal document. Again, any of them
> can submit the appeal document but only one of them can submit it and only
> once.
>
> Here are the RAT Appeals instructions:
>
> "Once you receive your grade on the RAT Team Answers assignments, you have
> the opportunity to appeal the results. You must discuss and appeal as a
> team. Follow this process:
>
> As a team, discuss, either at the same time (as you did for your team
> test) or using your team RAT Appeals discussion forum (appeals discussed on
> the full-class discussion boards will result in 0 points on the appeal),
> any incorrect answers that you believe were as good as the correct ones.
> You can appeal as many question results as you wish, but must appeal at
> least one question.
>
> Draft and agree on a statement for each appealed result specifically
> explaining the ground for your appeal and citing any support from the
> readings or from other sources.
>
> Submit all appeal statements using this assignment. This assignment can be
> submitted only once.
>
> If any of your appeals are approved, you will gain points on both your
> team test and any individual tests that picked the appealed answers
> (instead of the "correct" one). Note that you can take an appeal from a RAT
> question that you got right on the tRAT, but one or more team members got
> wrong on the iRAT. You just have to get your team to agree to submit the
> RAT Appeal."
>
> In my last class, I responded directly to the groups on their appeals,
> replying to any questions or points made through Blackboard. A better
> method would have me setting up a discussion forum for the entire class
> labeled RAT Appeals. I would create a new thread in that discussion area
> for each RAP. In that thread, I would present a long entry setting out each
> question and its answers, the various appeals taken from that question, my
> response to the appeal arguments, then an grant/rejection of the appeal.
> Students could review that thread to discover which appeals were made, how
> they were argued, and which of those were granted and which were denied.
> Also, students could reply to the thread, furthering the discussion if they
> like.
>
> Finally, at the end of the semester, I create a fifth, final RAP which has
> only an individual test. That test is made up of a random assortment of the
> questions from the prior four RAPs, in a random order with the answers
> randomized. That encourages the students to re-engage with all their prior
> RATs at the end of the semester.
>
> One result I found occurring quickly in the RAP process. The students
> would skip the simultaneous gathering portion and simply exchange their
> answers and rationales asynchronously via email or IM. That does undermine
> the give and take of the group discussion, but I decided that, if that's
> how the group wanted to handle their work, that's fine. They are still
> engaging with the materials.
>
> Another repercussion (not unique to this process) was that some student
> contributed more and some less, particularly if they dropped into an
> asynchronous communication pattern. So be it. Absent an in-class
> environment, I can't control how much they participate in their learning.
> Even with in-class activities, a student can always mail it in or sleep
> through it.
>
> The solution to that problem is not a better RAP. The solution to this and
> all other group contribution issues is the peer evaluations. As long as
> peer evaluations are worth a large portion of their grades (20-25%), and
> are conducted regularly throughout the semester so the non-participants
> have notice, active group participation is incentivized nicely. I'll
> discuss more about that later.
>
> I appreciate your patience as I rambled on. Hopefully this is of some use
> to some of you,
>
> M Alexander Jurkat
>
> INF 202 Team Lead
>
> Informatics Department
> University at Albany
>