Tuesday, April 2, 2013

My plan for a collaborative assignment using a Web 2.0 space...

The Question: How will you connect two communities of students in a learning activity through the use of a web 2.0 platform? 

My plan at this time is to connect two sections of my HUC 106 Public Speaking course through Box.com.  Both courses are already a part of the communal Box.com Public Speaking group.

In terms of the work, it will be through peer review where students will be providing perspectives, idea generation, evaluation of logical argumentation and speech structure.  This will be for their final speech, the persuasive speech.

Students will be grouped in fours, two from each class.  Both students from Class 1 will read the speeches of Class 2 and vice versa.  They will then provide feedback and comments for change.  Criteria for appropriate feedback will be determined at a later date.

The goal of this exercise is that by evaluating another student's speech, they will be able to put into practice what they've learned about speech development and be flexible in their knowledge by working on someone else's work, not just their own.  Also, by collaborating in this way, new ideas and perspectives might be shared peer to peer.


  1. Sounds good! I agree that students can benefit greatly from responding to someone else's work. Moreover, I'm intrigued by how students will respond to speeches-in-progress from another class. In my experience, students can be 1) too nice to give meaningful feedback, or 2) a LOT tougher on their peers than I would ever be. I'm looking forward to seeing how everything turns out.

  2. I like the idea of the students approaching what will actually be a speech as a printed text, and look forward to hearing how it works! Do you find (think that you will find) that students are more helpfully critical of students who are NOT their classmates? (I'm hoping this is the case myself!)

  3. I like the idea of students evaluating eacher others' work. I mean they already draw ideas from watching the speeches of their peers. This just takes it a critical step futher and perhaps makes them more receptive to constructive criticism themselves.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. This sounds really interesting, Mark. Are you having students critique the speeches in written form as a conscientious choice? If so, why? Or is it because of using box.com which as I understand it is primarily useful for document sharing? I'm asking because sometimes tools can shape the activity. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but something to think about.

    Related to that I was wondering if a way for students to give each other input via responding to a video of the other student's speech would be useful.

    Also it might be interesting to get students to help form a rubric, so you would be asking them to think more deeply about what criteria they use to evaluate a speech.

    Looking forward to hearing more about it as the activity unfolds.

  6. My focus is on speech development, as this is the most often difficult step for students to work through. Having another student provide a perspective that is in line and consistent with the lectures and structures provided might instill more confidence when they go on to deliver their speech. They're no longer developing alone but able to use both myself and a peer as a sounding board.

    It's always nice to hear someone say how great something is prior to delivery :) Post delivery feedback would be somewhat late as, while they speak many times, there are only two critical speeches at the end of the course structure.

    I did select Box after giving thought to particular tools that would be useful, not the other way around. It's limited but clean in what it does.

    The rubric idea is a solid one, to help them apply their knowledge, so I'll certain pursue that and appreciate your insight as the task might be too murky otherwise. :)

  7. Irwin, Leah, and Robert - my hope is that responding to another student in a different class will help the issues of being too nice/too critical and the addition of a rubric will help hone that feedback appropriately.

    I consider it almost like a blind peer review process, not in terms of outcomes, but benefits of the process.