STATEMENT EVIDENCE
Statement Evidence Appendices
Artefact 1. NYU Sydney mid-term student evaluations (comments only)
Artefact 2. NYU Sydney sample lecture slides (including student-centred learning activity)
Artefact 3. UNDA peer review of Capstone C: Research Project (reviewed by Head of Program)
Artefact 4. UNDA Capstone D: Research Project assessment design
Artefact 5. Example of technology enhanced learning and teaching in creative writing
Statement Evidence Appendices
Artefact 1. NYU Sydney mid-term student evaluations (comments only)
Artefact 2. NYU Sydney sample lecture slides (including student-centred learning activity)
Artefact 3. UNDA peer review of Capstone C: Research Project (reviewed by Head of Program)
Artefact 4. UNDA Capstone D: Research Project assessment design
Artefact 5. Example of technology enhanced learning and teaching in creative writing
Artefact 1: NYU Sydney mid-term student evaluations (comments only)
Artefact 2: NYU Sydney sample lecture slides (including student-centred learning activity)
Artefact 3: UNDA peer review of Capstone C: Research Project (reviewed by Head of Program)
Artefact 4: UNDA Capstone D: Research Project assessment design
Capstone D Assessment Information
Assessment Structure
Assessment Structure
Item No |
Assessment Type & Description |
Weighting % |
Due Date |
Related to Learning Outcome No(s) |
Related to Graduate Attribute No (s) |
1. |
Chapter 1 (revised) 1500wd |
NGP |
Week 2 / 7 Aug |
1, 2, 4, 5 |
1, 2, 3, 4 |
2. |
Chapter (new writing) 1500wd |
NGP |
Week 4 / 21 Aug |
4, 5 |
1, 2, 3, 4 |
3. |
Chapter (student selection) 2000wd |
NGP |
Week 10, 9 Oct |
1, 2, 4, 5 |
1, 2, 3, 4 |
4. |
MA thesis: comprising creative work 10-12,000wd plus exegesis 5,000wd |
100% |
6 November |
1 - 5 |
1, 2, 3, 4 |
Assessment 1: Chapter 1 (revised)
Weight: NGP
Length: 1500 words (10% +/-)
Due date: 11.59pm Wednesday, August 7.
This assessment task requires you to re-submit Chapter 1 as a Word document showing in track changes how you have edited it and responded to Capstone C class workshop feedback and formal feedback. This does not mean you must accept all suggested edits or changes, but that your reworked chapter should demonstrate that you have had a process of working through the feedback and deciding how to respond to it. Students are required to note a minimum of 2-3 comments as annotations (comments) speaking to why you did or did not decide to rework in light of feedback following critical reflection. Edits made should also be visible in track changes.
Assessment 2: Chapter (new writing)
Weight: NGP
Length: 1500 words (10% +/-)
Due date: 11.59pm Wednesday, August 21
This assessment task requires you to submit new writing on your project. This must be writing that continues developing your project and has not been workshopped to date or previously submitted. It can be from any part of your project, e.g. you can work on your last chapter here even if you haven't written the penultimate chapter. If you are working in poetry, multimodally, or in other non-prose modes, please consult with your lecturer regarding possible word count reduction.
Assessment 3: Chapter (student selection)
Weight: NGP
Length: 2000 (10% +/-)
Due date: 11.59pm Wednesday, October 9
You can submit any portion of your project up to the word count for this task. Both new work and previously workshopped work is permitted, but the latter comes with caveats. Chapter 1 cannot be re-submitted. And if writing previously presented in Capstone C or D is submitted, the author must explain both how they have considered and responded to previous feedback and why it is being presented again. In other words, re-submission of previously submitted work is only acceptable if it can be justified, e.g. the author is grappling with a particular aspect of the text and seeks more detailed feedback on it. Primarily, this task is an opportunity to draft a section of the project that the author anticipates being especially challenging. It is a chance to bring concerns to the class for discussion and troubleshooting. Students are encouraged to take risks here in tackling new work that may not be on solid ground.
Assessment 4: MA thesis (creative work + exegesis)
Weight: 100%
Length: Creative work – 10-12,000 words and Exegesis – 5,000 words
Due date: 11.59pm Wednesday, November 6
This is the final submission in Capstone D and in the MA Writing program. Students are required to submit the project they have developed throughout Capstones C (ARTS5060) and D along with the exegesis that was developed in ARTS6005 Special Projects: Research Methods (Writing). The exegesis is a critical reflection on, and engagement with, the creative project and together both the creative work and exegesis address a research question and/or explore territory identified for research.
Course Schedule (for reference)
Weight: NGP
Length: 1500 words (10% +/-)
Due date: 11.59pm Wednesday, August 7.
This assessment task requires you to re-submit Chapter 1 as a Word document showing in track changes how you have edited it and responded to Capstone C class workshop feedback and formal feedback. This does not mean you must accept all suggested edits or changes, but that your reworked chapter should demonstrate that you have had a process of working through the feedback and deciding how to respond to it. Students are required to note a minimum of 2-3 comments as annotations (comments) speaking to why you did or did not decide to rework in light of feedback following critical reflection. Edits made should also be visible in track changes.
Assessment 2: Chapter (new writing)
Weight: NGP
Length: 1500 words (10% +/-)
Due date: 11.59pm Wednesday, August 21
This assessment task requires you to submit new writing on your project. This must be writing that continues developing your project and has not been workshopped to date or previously submitted. It can be from any part of your project, e.g. you can work on your last chapter here even if you haven't written the penultimate chapter. If you are working in poetry, multimodally, or in other non-prose modes, please consult with your lecturer regarding possible word count reduction.
Assessment 3: Chapter (student selection)
Weight: NGP
Length: 2000 (10% +/-)
Due date: 11.59pm Wednesday, October 9
You can submit any portion of your project up to the word count for this task. Both new work and previously workshopped work is permitted, but the latter comes with caveats. Chapter 1 cannot be re-submitted. And if writing previously presented in Capstone C or D is submitted, the author must explain both how they have considered and responded to previous feedback and why it is being presented again. In other words, re-submission of previously submitted work is only acceptable if it can be justified, e.g. the author is grappling with a particular aspect of the text and seeks more detailed feedback on it. Primarily, this task is an opportunity to draft a section of the project that the author anticipates being especially challenging. It is a chance to bring concerns to the class for discussion and troubleshooting. Students are encouraged to take risks here in tackling new work that may not be on solid ground.
Assessment 4: MA thesis (creative work + exegesis)
Weight: 100%
Length: Creative work – 10-12,000 words and Exegesis – 5,000 words
Due date: 11.59pm Wednesday, November 6
This is the final submission in Capstone D and in the MA Writing program. Students are required to submit the project they have developed throughout Capstones C (ARTS5060) and D along with the exegesis that was developed in ARTS6005 Special Projects: Research Methods (Writing). The exegesis is a critical reflection on, and engagement with, the creative project and together both the creative work and exegesis address a research question and/or explore territory identified for research.
Course Schedule (for reference)
Seminar 1 Week 1 / Wed 31 July |
Introduction: Troubleshooting and Revisiting the Vision Re-grouping and a hearty taking stock and reflection on the drafting, revision, and planning process to date. |
|
Meeting 1 Week 3 / As arranged |
Individual Supervision |
|
Seminar 2 Week 5 / Wed 28 August |
Pro Productivity Secrets Offerings of pro strategies. |
|
Meeting 2 Week 7 / As arranged |
Individual Supervision |
|
Seminar 3 Week 8 / Wed 18 Sept |
Writing Process Part 2 On effective reviewing, close editing, killing darlings, and proofing. |
|
Meeting 3 Week 11 / As arranged |
Individual Supervision |
NOTE: Self-assessment homework task between Workshops 3 and 4 in which students self-assess project (including exegesis) against the criteria and note their gradings on the rubric provided. The assessment will then be shared in Workshop 4 and strategies for addressing any criterion areas that need attention will be discussed. Students are encouraged to keep the self-assessed rubric on file and compare it with the expert examiner rubric down the track. This may provide useful information on the progress of the project between the self- assessment point and the examination stage and/or on how students assess themselves in comparison to an industry expert. |
Seminar 4 Week 12 / 23 October |
Final Stages Proposing, publishing, and the public life of writing. |
|
November 6 11.59pm |
Submit thesis via Blackboard |
Research Project Due |
Artefact 5: Example of technology enhanced learning and teaching in creative writing
Creative Writing TEL: A Vision
“Digital Poetics Hybrid Experiment”
3000-4000 words (1000 per student)
Weighted 35%
“Digital Poetics Hybrid Experiment’ is both a formative and a summative TEL assessment task in “Literary Trauma Testimony”, an undergraduate 3rd-year creative writing course. The group work takes place in a “flipped classroom” where “events that have traditionally taken place inside the classroom now take place outside the classroom and vice versa” (Lage et al., 2000, p. 32). Students read the weekly set readings at home and respond to one reading in an online Reading Journal (the “Reading Response’ is another summative task, weighted at 20%) and participate in an online interactive lecture. The lecture is delivered in 15 min pods; in between each pods students are encouraged to note questions and talking points to bring to class or to write a passage in an online Reflective Journal (this is not an assessable task, but students are asked to share reflections on lecture content in class). The flipped learning enables focus on discussion, student-centred learning activities, and workshopping of student work in progress during class time.
In groups of three or four, students’ work on the “Digital Poetics Hybrid Experiment” in class over the period of several weeks source “found” material online (reportage, archival, literary etc.) and create an online text about or responding to a traumatic 21st-century historic event (of their own choosing). Students will create a multi-authored, intertextual, multimodal, and referenced (acknowledging texts engaged with) creative work including sections of (colour coded) individual writing. Students intervene in or build on, texts to generate original work on a shared Medium page.
My envisioned TEL environment also promotes the evidence-based practice of summative self and peer-assessment. Time in the first two weeks of the semester is devoted to developing grading criteria in collaboration with students well in advance of summative task commencement. This is evidenced good practice as it encourages students to take ownership of their learning, increases student motivation and engagement, enhances student focus on understanding criteria and standards, and creates a sense of scholarly community (Nulty, n.d. p. 3). It also supports the development of self-assessment and critical skills crucial to success in the creative writing context.
TEQSA defines TEL as “any learning that occurs through the application of electronic communications and computer-based educational technology, combined with pedagogical principles and practices that are applicable to and tailored for this purpose” (2017, p. 1). Significant adoption of TEL beyond online assessment submission and blog-based tasks is uncommon in creative writing, and the onus is on the development of individual writing practice. Jodi Nicotra (2009) states that “habituated ways of thinking about and teaching writing” (p. W274) fail to encompass the dynamic and multi-authored writing appearing in the digital realm. One of the main goals of this task is to redress that. Technology shapes new modes of writing rather than merely mediating it, presenting new opportunities and challenges for both creative writing and creative writing pedagogy. The task targets “Does”: the highest level of Miller’s Pyramid in the original model (Mrozek, 2014) in requiring performance integrated into practice. “Does” corresponds to “Creating” and “Evaluating” as the highest levels in Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy (TeachThought Staff 2017), requiring higher-order skills such as experimenting, collaborating, and constructing. In my adaptation of Miller’s Pyramid to the creative writing context, the “Does” pyramid apex represents the achievement of a degree of mastery.
This task design addresses all of Chickering’s seven vectors of identity development (Chickering, 1969), including the highest vector, “Developing Integrity” due to its heightened stakes regarding academic integrity (I address this further below). It relates to several of Knowles’ six principles of adult learning (Knowles et al., 2014). The self-directed nature of the task supports existing learner self-concept, and it is problem-centred as advocated by Knowles for adult learning (requiring students to find a creative way of writing trauma through engagement with existing representations). The task involves all three of the essential elements for learning in the Community of Inquiry Model: cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence (Garrison et al., 2000).
Academic integrity is a limitation and significant concern with a task of this nature. The challenge is facilitating student exploration and practice of intertextual writing, an established modernist and postmodernist literary mode, in a 21st-century TEL context, while maintaining adherence to academic and artistic integrity and institutional policy. The standard use of Turnitin would not prove useful in this case because the task involves working with “found” text sourced online in the creation of a new and potentially multimodal Medium digital-born text. Thorough instruction and supervision is, therefore, crucial.
I facilitate learning around intertextuality in such a way as to highlight that while all writing is intertextual in that new writing is always informed by existing writing, intellectual property is subject to copyright law and to referencing requirements and furthermore that students are working within a tertiary context guided by academic integrity policy. Correct academic and artistic conduct is defined, and misconduct is addressed as part of a detailed task brief, both in the course Outline and in class, with expectations regarding referencing stated. Academic integrity is included as a non-negotiable grading criterion for peer assessment, which means students would be holding each other accountable (which in turn reinforces their accountability). Students working in groups during class enables instructor supervision of the production process via direct observation and engagements with students as they work.
This item of evidence features assessment task design that shows leadership in recognising the value of including options for instructor-student negotiation regarding assessment tasks (Morris & Stommel 2017: Stommel 2017). It takes into account research supporting summative peer assessment (Boud 1995; Nulty n.d.), which relates to my TPS claim to attentiveness regarding the affective and social and relational aspects of learning and teaching informed by Kolb’s experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984). Continued teacher support of the student peer-assessment process, as recommended (Nulty, n.d. pp. 10-11), is vital throughout in this scenario, and it is achievable since criteria development and group work takes place in the context of the classroom. I final mark (confirming or adjusting) peer review efforts and also cross-mark with a peer instructor.
“Digital Poetics Hybrid Experiment”
3000-4000 words (1000 per student)
Weighted 35%
“Digital Poetics Hybrid Experiment’ is both a formative and a summative TEL assessment task in “Literary Trauma Testimony”, an undergraduate 3rd-year creative writing course. The group work takes place in a “flipped classroom” where “events that have traditionally taken place inside the classroom now take place outside the classroom and vice versa” (Lage et al., 2000, p. 32). Students read the weekly set readings at home and respond to one reading in an online Reading Journal (the “Reading Response’ is another summative task, weighted at 20%) and participate in an online interactive lecture. The lecture is delivered in 15 min pods; in between each pods students are encouraged to note questions and talking points to bring to class or to write a passage in an online Reflective Journal (this is not an assessable task, but students are asked to share reflections on lecture content in class). The flipped learning enables focus on discussion, student-centred learning activities, and workshopping of student work in progress during class time.
In groups of three or four, students’ work on the “Digital Poetics Hybrid Experiment” in class over the period of several weeks source “found” material online (reportage, archival, literary etc.) and create an online text about or responding to a traumatic 21st-century historic event (of their own choosing). Students will create a multi-authored, intertextual, multimodal, and referenced (acknowledging texts engaged with) creative work including sections of (colour coded) individual writing. Students intervene in or build on, texts to generate original work on a shared Medium page.
My envisioned TEL environment also promotes the evidence-based practice of summative self and peer-assessment. Time in the first two weeks of the semester is devoted to developing grading criteria in collaboration with students well in advance of summative task commencement. This is evidenced good practice as it encourages students to take ownership of their learning, increases student motivation and engagement, enhances student focus on understanding criteria and standards, and creates a sense of scholarly community (Nulty, n.d. p. 3). It also supports the development of self-assessment and critical skills crucial to success in the creative writing context.
TEQSA defines TEL as “any learning that occurs through the application of electronic communications and computer-based educational technology, combined with pedagogical principles and practices that are applicable to and tailored for this purpose” (2017, p. 1). Significant adoption of TEL beyond online assessment submission and blog-based tasks is uncommon in creative writing, and the onus is on the development of individual writing practice. Jodi Nicotra (2009) states that “habituated ways of thinking about and teaching writing” (p. W274) fail to encompass the dynamic and multi-authored writing appearing in the digital realm. One of the main goals of this task is to redress that. Technology shapes new modes of writing rather than merely mediating it, presenting new opportunities and challenges for both creative writing and creative writing pedagogy. The task targets “Does”: the highest level of Miller’s Pyramid in the original model (Mrozek, 2014) in requiring performance integrated into practice. “Does” corresponds to “Creating” and “Evaluating” as the highest levels in Bloom’s Digital Taxonomy (TeachThought Staff 2017), requiring higher-order skills such as experimenting, collaborating, and constructing. In my adaptation of Miller’s Pyramid to the creative writing context, the “Does” pyramid apex represents the achievement of a degree of mastery.
This task design addresses all of Chickering’s seven vectors of identity development (Chickering, 1969), including the highest vector, “Developing Integrity” due to its heightened stakes regarding academic integrity (I address this further below). It relates to several of Knowles’ six principles of adult learning (Knowles et al., 2014). The self-directed nature of the task supports existing learner self-concept, and it is problem-centred as advocated by Knowles for adult learning (requiring students to find a creative way of writing trauma through engagement with existing representations). The task involves all three of the essential elements for learning in the Community of Inquiry Model: cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence (Garrison et al., 2000).
Academic integrity is a limitation and significant concern with a task of this nature. The challenge is facilitating student exploration and practice of intertextual writing, an established modernist and postmodernist literary mode, in a 21st-century TEL context, while maintaining adherence to academic and artistic integrity and institutional policy. The standard use of Turnitin would not prove useful in this case because the task involves working with “found” text sourced online in the creation of a new and potentially multimodal Medium digital-born text. Thorough instruction and supervision is, therefore, crucial.
I facilitate learning around intertextuality in such a way as to highlight that while all writing is intertextual in that new writing is always informed by existing writing, intellectual property is subject to copyright law and to referencing requirements and furthermore that students are working within a tertiary context guided by academic integrity policy. Correct academic and artistic conduct is defined, and misconduct is addressed as part of a detailed task brief, both in the course Outline and in class, with expectations regarding referencing stated. Academic integrity is included as a non-negotiable grading criterion for peer assessment, which means students would be holding each other accountable (which in turn reinforces their accountability). Students working in groups during class enables instructor supervision of the production process via direct observation and engagements with students as they work.
This item of evidence features assessment task design that shows leadership in recognising the value of including options for instructor-student negotiation regarding assessment tasks (Morris & Stommel 2017: Stommel 2017). It takes into account research supporting summative peer assessment (Boud 1995; Nulty n.d.), which relates to my TPS claim to attentiveness regarding the affective and social and relational aspects of learning and teaching informed by Kolb’s experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984). Continued teacher support of the student peer-assessment process, as recommended (Nulty, n.d. pp. 10-11), is vital throughout in this scenario, and it is achievable since criteria development and group work takes place in the context of the classroom. I final mark (confirming or adjusting) peer review efforts and also cross-mark with a peer instructor.