Peggy Rosario
Abstract
A capstone assignment is an effective strategy for demonstrating the use of knowledge. In a course I teach, research-based strategies included to support students’ success are: chunking the capstone into building blocks; and using feedback, self-reflection, and revision to build upon prior learning and finalize the capstone project.
In a graduate education class I teach, Learning Models and Instructional Design, the students’ major assignment is known as the course’s Capstone. For their Capstone, course participants design curriculum for a course of their choosing. Required sections of the course participants’ newly planned course are Course Topic, Course Description, Course Outcomes, Assessment, Instruction, and Evaluating Effectiveness. Students arrive at the end of the course with a collection of the Capstone sections, which I refer to as chunks.
Students draft the chunks throughout the course and submit each chunk for instructor feedback. All but the last chunk, Evaluating Success, are graded, prior to the Capstone. For two of the chunks, Course Description and Evaluating Success students give and receive peer feedback. Topics within additional chunks, also are discussed on our class Discussion Board. Eventually, the students re-work the chunks into a cohesive Capstone that demonstrates reflection, refinement, and synthesis of their learning.
One of the things I love about this approach are the levels of critical thinking required by students.
The Capstone is one of my favorite learning strategies because it enables students to apply what they learned throughout the course, to confirm their understanding. If the course participants, who are busy teachers pursuing a doctoral degree, wait until the last week of the course to complete their Capstone, their retention of prior learning and the ability to apply that learning suffers.To avoid that problem, I provide the chunking process, which is built upon instructional strategies relating to Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro, Lovett, and Norman’s (2010) seven principles of learning and Vygotsky’s (1978) Social Development Theory.
Our course begins with an orientation via Zoom. After that, the course is held asynchronously, using Blackboard as the platform. Each week, in addition to other assignments, the course participants respond to a prompt I post on the class Discussion Board. One of the weeks, after relevant instruction is provided, the prompt instructs the students to post the Course Description chunk of their Capstone. Another week, students post the Evaluating Success chunk. For these two chunks students receive feedback from peers and me, on the Discussion Board. In other weeks, among other topics, Discussion posts focus on information and concepts that later students will include in their Assessment chunk and Instructional Strategies chunk.
The chunking strategy is aligned with Ambrose et al.’s (2010) first two principles of learning, that “students’ prior knowledge can help or hinder learning” (p. 4) and “how students organize knowledge influences how they learn and apply what they know” (p. 4). By designing a course structure that allows students to use their newly-acquired knowledge to create a chunk of the Capstone at the time, they learn the content, and prior knowledge and organization work to their advantage in creating the final Capstone paper.
Breaking the Capstone into chunks also illustrates the scaffolding component of Vygotsky’s (1978) Social Development Theory, since one piece of learning sets the stage for the next. I find that my students build confidence in their learning as they complete a new chunk each week.
Ongoing Feedback
For the Course Description and Evaluating Success chunks, students receive feedback from peers and me, in response to students’ chunk posting on our Discussion Board. For all the other chunks, each week students receive feedback from me in response to the chunk they submit as a graded assignment. As Ambrose et al write: “…goal-directed practice coupled with targeted feedback enhances the quality of students’ learning” (p. 5).
Peer Feedback. For the weeks that students post a chunk on our Discussion Board they post their chunk on Thursday. Students are required to share feedback to peers, on the Discussion Board, before or by Sunday. To make it easier to get helpful peer feedback, students post a question indicating what kind of help the student wants from peers. For example, “I am unsure about X; do you think I need more details?” I also reply to posted chunks, giving peers a chance to weigh in first.
To make it easier to get helpful peer feedback, students post a question, indicating what kind of help the student wants from peers.
Originally, the students self-selected two-three peers to whom they would like to give feedback. In an updated iteration, I put the students in groups of four, so they become more familiar with each other’s work and how it develops. I integrate people with more teaching experience with those who have less experience, to ensure a better balance. I feel this is important due to the wide disparity of relevant experience of course participants. Though Blackboard has a discussion groups feature where groups of students are with just their small group, I prefer to keep all the students on one Discussion Board so students can see what students in other groups are doing and learn from all the others, if they wish. I give students a group number and ask them to use that in their post name so they can connect with others in their group.
Students must articulate their understanding of the assignment when providing relevant peer feedback. This type of discussion also allows students to learn how their peers are approaching their assignment and thereby get additional ideas for enhancing their own chunk. Since these are graduate students, most have educational and work experience that provides them with a strong frame of reference to reflect on each other’s and their own work. However, some students find that providing peer feedback is challenging when they are unsure of their own work. This mucking about in uncertainty can provide more clarity, as they get more feedback and reflect on their work. As Vygotsky (1978) asserts, learning occurs through social experiences.
Posting chunks and related work on our Discussion Board allows students to gain feedback, not only from me but from their peers, and, if applicable, make refinements before revising and submitting their chunk as an assignment. Vygotsky’s (1978) contention that learning is enhanced when supported by someone with more knowledge, explicitly relates to instructor feedback and, in some cases, to peer feedback if peers have expertise in the assignment topic, as is often the case in my graduate courses. The social environment of learning is one of the key principles of Vygotsky’s (1978) theory, and it relates to Ambrose et al.’s (2010) principle “…students’ current level of development interacts with the social, emotional, and intellectual climate of the course to impact learning” (p. 6). Peer feedback has been helpful for the Topic and Course Description chunks of classmates’ drafted course design, but I haven’t assigned peer feedback for the other Capstone sections, due to the other sections’ complexity. Using peer feedback where it makes sense and not when it doesn’t make sense, creates a stronger process.
Reflection Assignment
The Reflection assignment allows students to share their perceived successes and failures and identify needs for assistance from me.
Though reflection is encouraged throughout the process, a formal Reflection assignment is required after each chunk receives instructor feedback or, in the case of Topic and Course Description, peer and instructor feedback. Upon completion of each chunk of their Capstone, students are required to reflect on their progress in their journal and share their reflection with me as a graded Reflection assignment. Students have the option to submit the Reflection journal entry in writing or orally with an audio or video recording. The Reflection assignment allows students to share their perceived successes and failures and identify needs for assistance from me. As Ambrose et al state: “To become self-directed learners, students must learn to monitor and adjust their approaches to learning” (2010, p. 6).
I find it helpful to read student reflections related to each chunk, so I can help them with any issues they identify, along the way. In response to journal entries, I can validate their frustrations and share strategies that other students have used to overcome similar challenges. This type of feedback is almost as important as indicating what is correct and where errors are made because it helps students become more effective learners. Sometimes, it is just reassurance, but other times students have a substantive problem that I can help them address. I coach students through the challenges to help them continue to refine their work for inclusion in their Capstone.
Figure 1
Preparation of Capstone Assignment Chunks
| Draft Discussion | ⇨ | Peer & Instructor Feedback | ⇨ | Submission | ⇨ | Reflection | ⇨ | Capstone Submission |
Growth and Refinement
Our Capstone process relates to Ambrose et al.’s (2010) principle, “to develop mastery, students must acquire component skills, practice integrating them, and know when to apply what they have learned” (p. 5). Figure 1, above, illustrates steps I provide for each component of the Capstone assignment that enable my students to submit a well-developed Capstone by the end of the course.
The collaborative feedback approach I use in my courses creates a positive learning environment, where the expectation is not perfection but rather growth and refinement. Emotionally, students find that this approach to learning provides a safe space to work. Intellectually, this approach emphasizes problem solving and continued improvement. Some of my students struggle with not being perfect at the first attempt when they post a draft on the Discussion Board, but I encourage them to use the feedback to make refinements, and their sense of accomplishment when they “get it” is profound.
Motivation is enhanced in this approach because students are repeatedly engaged with their learning, rather than just demonstrating they got it once before moving on to the next topic. Having encouragement from peers can be a motivating factor, which relates to Ambrose et al.’s (2010) principle that “students’ motivation determines, directs, and sustains what they do to learn” (p. 5). Receiving feedback from me in class discussions and grading can also motivate students to work toward perfecting the chunks as they are synthesized into the Capstone.
Critical Thinking
One of the things I love about this approach are the levels of critical thinking required by students. First, they need to think critically about their own design, in gathering information and making decisions about how to design their course in creating the draft discussion post and draft chunk submission.
Second, they need to think critically about their peers’ work, making judgments and offering assistance so their peers can refine their drafts. Third, they need to think critically about their learning process in their journal Reflection – what did they learn from their peers and the instructor feedback and what challenges do they need to figure out how to overcome?
Finally, the students need to be able to refine and synthesize all the chunks into a final project, taking into account the feedback they received, to create a synthesized whole. I emphasize to students the iterative nature of the process, that each step taken can re-inform what was done in the past, and they need to be open to making refinements based upon each step. Our Capstone process has great parallels to my doctoral students’ dissertation process, so helping students understand the need for critical thinking to re-evaluate past work as an important part of the learning, rather than a frustrating barrier, is critical.
I emphasize to students the iterative nature of the process, that each step taken can re-inform what was done in the past, and they need to be open to making refinements
based upon each step.
I find the process that includes chunking and peer feedback works well to actualize my learner-centered philosophy that I am a guide by my students’ side, supporting their work. Observational evidence confirms this process’ effectiveness. Students write in their Discussion replies that they got an idea about how to integrate something into their project from seeing what another student has done. Students discuss in their Reflection how they will integrate peer feedback. I observe, after peer and/or my feedback, the improvement from one iteration of the chunk to the next. On course feedback, students write that they left the course having accomplished a significant Capstone project and they felt well-supported along the way.
On our Discussion Board, I am careful to provide feedback replies to all students before their next assignment submission is due so they can benefit from my feedback. But I am also careful not to weigh in too early, to provide their peers with the opportunity to share their thoughts before seeing mine. As I teach an accelerated course, which is a course compacted into seven weeks, and a chunk of the Capstone is added each week, I am also conscientious about providing prompt grading feedback so students can benefit from having it as they work on the next component of their Capstone. The size of my class for this course, approximately 10 students, allows me to provide detailed, frequent feedback.
Since giving peer feedback can be difficult for students who do not feel confident enough about what they know to help their peers, some coaching or skill-building could be beneficial. Encouraging students to ask questions or identify what they thought was effective can be just as helpful as constructive criticism. One of the modifications I am trying this semester is “ungrading” the peer feedback discussions, with students getting full credit for their Discussion Board posting, so students can focus solely on their draft and the feedback, without worrying about a grade. I am hoping this reduces student stress but provides the same benefit as a graded assignment.
… think of yourself as a coach and remember that every step in the model is to assist students in further refining their work.
Someone who wants to implement this approach for a large assignment may want to just break the assignment in two to see how it could work before dividing it into smaller chunks. Another modification to my approach would be to select a few of the components rather than all of them. In my opinion, a preliminary graded submission of a chunk followed by the Reflection assignment, before the final Capstone submission can be very helpful in improving the Capstone since the student would have received feedback from the instructor twice on each component. This can be an effective way to provide feedback in larger classes where commenting on each individual discussion post would not be possible.
The best advice I can provide to someone who wants to try this approach is to think of yourself as a coach and remember that every step in the model is to assist students in further refining their work. The true reward is seeing the growth in students’ ability to apply their knowledge throughout the course, from each chunk to the Capstone.
References
Ambrose, S.A., Bridges, M.W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M.C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. Jossey-Bass.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Harvard University Press.
Dr. Peggy Rosario is Assistant Professor in the Teaching and Learning in Higher Education Doctoral Program at Gwynedd Mercy University, Department of Business and Education. She holds a doctorate in higher education administration from the University of Nebraska- Lincoln, a master’s in education in instructional design from Western Governors University, and a master’s in education in health education from the Pennsylvania State University. Dr. Rosario can be reached at Rosario.p@gmercyu.edu.