Rational of Corporating Peers Recommendations

A rationale for why you did or did not incorporate your peers’ recommendations into your final resource:

In response to Zian’s peer review.

I understand the concern of expecting excessive learning outcomes from the students in a limited session; however, This course will be taught in four consecutive days. The rationale behind multiple learning outcomes is to match a variety of learning activities.

“What’s your specific learning context?” This is a great question, and we decide to narrow our learning to highschool students only.

Both Zian’s and Yao’s group mentioned that the course teaching is very demanding for instructors, and it may be too difficult for students to follow. I would ease this concern by clarifying that conversation in the first activity is straightforward, and it does not require much effort from the instructor. For example, the instructor may pose questions like “Comment vous vous appelez? et qu’est-ce que vous aimez faire?” (What’s your name and what do you like to do?), and every student will take turns to this answer. The instructor only plays the role of a guide.

I understand Yao’s concern that students may not take the initiative in participating activities. However, we have considered it when designing the course; the rationale behind activity 1 and 2 (discussions) is to familiarize our learners with their peers and instructors. Of course, instructors will check on learners during the discussion, and it will be manageable since there are only around 15-20 students divided into 3-4 groups. We will also ensure the provided topics for discussions suit our students’ learning interest.

“Instructors should also involve in grading in activity 2 for a fair grade”. This is a good suggestion. Although we decided not to participate in the grading as instructors in activity 2, we will consider designing the grading rubric. Peer reviews only constitute 15% of the total grade, and we will make sure the provided grading rubric is constructed on an interest-oriented base to support our learners.

In activity 3, the rationale behind offering students two movies to select their parts to dub is multiple: providing an opportunity to exercise their listening skills and experience French cinema and culture, creating a more open learning environment with more options of learning resources. However, we realize time management, which Zian mentioned in his writing, could be a challenge. We will make sure that only a proper amount of dubbing choices (along with subtitles) will be provided for our students.

In activity 3 and 4, instructors will hand out scripts and instructions ahead of films and the play. I understand the difficulty concerns about these two activities, and we came up with solutions accordingly when we designed our grading rubric for activity 3 and 4. The main criteria for these two activities are students’ willingness to participate and the ability to exchange information. The detective play is not an autonomous event; students will drive the plot by inquiring and answering based on given scripts. (e.g., Comment vous vous appellez et que-est ce que vous faisiez hier soir?–What’s your name and what were you doing last night?
Je m’appelle Jane et je regardais la télé hier soir.–I’m Jean and I was watching TV last night)

To further elaborate our strategy to ease the external difficulties, I would invite Yao’s group to read our grading rubrics thoroughly because it was one of our primary concerns when we designed our learning activities.

Thank you very much for your constructive feedback!

Link to Zian’s post: https://ziandou.opened.ca/peer-review-of-learning-pod3/

In response to RUNZEYAO‘s peer review: