📚 Student View — focus on activities and learning tasks

Assessment Methods

Formative and summative assessments aligned with Social Constructivism and AI literacy goals.

Formative Assessment

Method Pedagogy Link AI Integration
Observation of group collaboration Social Constructivism Focus on co-construction of knowledge —
Real-time peer feedback during jigsaw Social Constructivism Peer assessment as a learning process —
AI criticality exit ticket — AI-Integrated Demonstrates ability to evaluate AI limitations
Instructor review of AI prompt documentation — AI-Integrated Documents critical engagement with AI

📋 Dialogue Observation Rubric Teacher Only

Use this rubric during group work to assess the quality of collaborative dialogue.

Quality Indicator1 — Minimal2 — Some3 — Clear4 — Exemplary
Evidence of co-construction One student dominates; others passive Some back-and-forth but uneven Multiple students contributing ideas Ideas clearly build on each other; negotiated meaning evident
Use of academic language Vague or colloquial throughout Some correct terminology Mostly accurate use of theory terms Precise, contextual use of theory vocabulary
Critical engagement with AI output AI output accepted without question Some hesitation but no challenge At least one error or gap identified Multiple errors identified with evidence from readings
Peer questioning No questions asked between peers 1–2 clarifying questions Regular probing questions Questions that deepen reasoning and invite justification

AI Criticality Exit Ticket

Complete this at the end of the session. Your responses are saved locally in your browser and are not submitted anywhere.

Summative Assessment: AI Critique & Revision

AI Critique & Revision Assignment

15% of module grade

Use AI as a critical thinking tool — not a shortcut. Generate content with AI, identify its flaws, correct them, and reflect on the process.

Task Steps

  1. Generate: Use an AI tool to produce a 500-word explanation of one learning theory (Behaviourism, Cognitivism, or Social Constructivism). Paste the AI output into your document.
  2. Critically evaluate: Identify at least two inaccuracies, omissions, or biases in the AI output. Support each with evidence from the assigned readings.
  3. Revise: Write a corrected version in 300–400 words that addresses every error or gap identified.
  4. Reflect: Write a 200-word reflection addressing: what changed and why; where human judgment was essential; under what future conditions you would or would not use AI for this kind of task.

Marking Rubric

CriterionWeightPedagogy LinkAI Integration Link
Accurate understanding of theory (content knowledge) 40% Applies knowledge from readings and session —
Quality of critical evaluation of AI output (errors identified + evidence provided) 30% — AI Literacy Critical evaluation of accuracy, bias, and gaps
Quality of revision (improvement over original AI output) 15% — AI Literacy Independent judgment and correction
Reflection depth (AI limitations + human judgment awareness) 15% — AI Literacy Responsible AI use decisions

AI-Supported Feedback

Turnitin Draft Coach Workflow

Students submit drafts through Turnitin Draft Coach (or a similar AI-feedback tool) before the instructor review stage.

  1. Initial AI feedback: Draft Coach reviews grammar, clarity, and similarity. It flags passive voice, long sentences, and potential plagiarism matches.
  2. Instructor oversight: The instructor reviews AI-generated comments before they reach students, adds pedagogical content feedback, and contextualises AI suggestions.
Example note from instructor: "Passive voice is acceptable and sometimes preferable when describing theoretical positions (e.g., 'learning is said to be…'). Override the AI suggestion if context warrants."

Student Reflection on Feedback

  1. Did you agree with the AI feedback? What might the AI have missed about your argument or context?
  2. Did you override any AI suggestions? Explain the reasoning behind your decision.

🗓️ Calibration Session Teacher Only

Before returning graded work, run a brief class calibration:

  • Share 2–3 anonymised examples of AI feedback from Draft Coach.
  • Class discusses: When should you trust the AI feedback? When should you push back?
  • Record consensus norms on the board for future reference.
AI Integration Principle

This ensures AI serves as a supplement, not a replacement, for human pedagogical judgment.