This is a collaborative class which means that it becomes exceptionally hard to assign individual grades. As you can see from the syllabus, 50% of the grade is attendance – showing up is important when others depend on you to do the research that becomes the case studies which prompt group discussion. The other 50% is participation. If you don’t do the work or communicate to others in your group, the discussion is not a rich, interesting experience.
For your weekly work, you are expected to keep a log of your research, and make a case for one performance that you nominate. Others depend on your to forward that to them in advance (see the directions on the syllabus) and remain engaged in the work. That is true for the group work as well.
Debra will review all written submissions (individual and group) weekly and assign them the following “grades”
EAG – Exceptionally Awesome Glowing. Thoughtful, careful research, writing and critical analysis. Deals with the two major criteria of the class (formal innovation and social engagement). The keyword designators allow us to see how innovation and engagement function within the work. This is what all work should look like!
GWWP – Good Work Well-Played. Meets all the elements of the assignment and demonstrates a clear understanding of the class criteria but not quite fully polished or considered.
GTNW – Getting There, Needs Work. Is getting the basic idea, but is not engaging with complexity or the ideas offered through the readings. Needs at least one element of the assignment to be improved. Come see me to discuss.
NSWGK – Needs Significant Work Keep Going – Submitted the work but its not fulfilling the terms of the assignment; needs multiple elements to be improved. Come see me to discuss.
WIT – Where is it? Did not turn it in. Note the flexible submission policy (in the syllabus), but that flexibility is subject to communication in advance with both the professor and one’s class collaborators.