fshn 308: dairy foods: current issues and controversiesare complete, the pairs/triads prepare a...
TRANSCRIPT
FSHN 308: Dairy Foods: Current Issues and Controversies Credits: 3 Prerequisites: None Textbook: None
Meeting times: Tuesdays and Thursdays, 2:10 – 3:30 pm; Kildee 107
Course Objectives:
1. Increase student knowledge about dairy products.
2. Improve student ability to discern fact from opinion and understand scientific literature.
3. Enhance communication, teamwork, and critical thinking skills of college students.
Background Is milk a better source of calcium than supplements? Should I go out of my way to buy organic or non‐homogenized milk? These are important questions for consumers, who often seek answers on the internet. But in this age of instant information, how do we know what is fact, and what is fiction? Although the internet provides access to valuable peer‐reviewed literature, it is also loaded with fake news and opinions that are not necessarily grounded in fact. After taking this course, students should no longer consider any non‐credible source as a primary source. Students will be trained to seek facts, discern fact from opinion, exercise structured controversy tactics to challenge thinking, and create tools to combat fake news.
Dairy Foods: Current Issues and Controversies is designed to dispel myths about dairy foods and improve the critical thinking and communication skills of students from all majors and colleges at Iowa State University (ISU). The dynamic learning environment of the hands‐on, minds‐on course will enable students to actively develop research, written and oral communication, teamwork and critical thinking skills. Students will interact with the actual people who produce, process, regulate, recommend and/or market dairy and non‐dairy foods. Literature reviews will add to knowledge about the chemistry, microbiology, and processing of dairy foods. Hands‐on sensory evaluation experiences will enable wise personal decisions about conventional and organic milk, dairy and non‐dairy products. Further, students will delve into controversial dairy foods topics and engage in structured controversy presentations and creation of tools for people not taking the course, which will help them make sound nutritional, environmental, and social choices outside of the classroom.
Personnel
Course Instructor/Contact: Dr. Stephanie Clark
Virginia M. Gladney Endowed Professor
Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition
Mailing address: 2312 Food Sciences Building
Office: 2553 Food Sciences Building
Ph: 515‐294‐7346 Fax: 515‐294‐8181
e‐mail: [email protected]
Dr. Clark will serve as the primary course contact, administrator, panel facilitator, and student grade submitter.
2
Teaching Assistant: There is no TA for this course.
Speakers and Expert panels: One or two speakers are scheduled for at least half of all lecture periods. Speakers will present a 30‐ to 50‐minute presentation, then field questions. Expert panels are composed of 3 to 4 guest speakers, plus a facilitator. Panel members will present ~12‐minute presentations, in succession, and respond to questions as part of a panel. Your position on topics may differ from speakers who visit. Although lively debate is encouraged, be sure to always exhibit respect to speakers, regardless of their message.
Activities: Activities are built into most class periods. Through live interactions with expert panelists, recorded interviews and live video conferences, sensory evaluation, a library session, literature reviews, and various other activities, students will be challenged to discern fact from opinion and to decide where they stand on issues. On select dates noted in the course schedule, some activities will take place at a location other than the assigned classroom. Be sure to plan ahead for walking time to those different locations to ensure on‐time arrival.
Attendance Success in FSHN 308 is largely dependent upon class attendance and participation in activities. Although there are no prerequisites for FSHN 308, it is a junior‐level course. At this level, students are expected to have the discipline to attend and engage in every class and activity, maturity to critically think about material presented, and ability to communicate effectively in written and oral expression.
However, it is understood that not every student can make it to every class. It is the responsibility of students to acquire missed material from Blackboard and to speak to peers who are in the class.
Reviewing slides for material that you did not experience “live” will unlikely be enough for you to learn material and succeed on quizzes. Most instructors do not include their every word on their slides, and some guest speakers will not even use PowerPoint presentations at all.
Nonetheless, attendance will be tracked throughout the semester.
1. TopHat will be used to track attendance AND to track student understanding of material. Interactive questions will be posted on the screen to which students will be asked to respond with a cell phone, tablet or laptop computer. Attendance points will accumulate throughout the semester, meaning that not responding to TopHat questions negatively influences the attendance score.
2. Students missing the library session or sensory evaluation panel will be penalized 5 points for attendance unless a justified absence is submitted in advance.
3. Only in extenuating circumstances (documented university activity, emergency room visit or hospitalization) will make‐up quizzes be allowed. Students must notify the instructor at least one (1) week in advance for a non‐medical absence. In case of illness, students must notify the instructor (by e‐mail) at least 2 hours prior to class time on the quiz day. The student must schedule a make‐up quiz to take place within 48 hours of the missed quiz or will receive a zero.
3
Assignments Assignment due dates are included on the course schedule to assist you with turning in assignments in a timely fashion. Assignments must be turned in at the beginning of class, as indicated in the course schedule. Five points (5) will be subtracted from the total for each day late an assignment is submitted.
Quizzes There are no examinations in the course. Five 25‐point written quizzes, based upon lectures, activities and expert panels, will be distributed throughout the semester (including during finals week). Quizzes will include a variety of test question styles, including but not limited to: multiple choice, true/false, matching, and short answer. You are expected to take all quizzes at the appointed times.
Structured controversy activities Structured controversy (SC) was introduced in 1979 to helps students learn the value of working collaboratively to solve social problems.
Students will be provided and/or select controversial dairy foods issues, prepare pro and con arguments based upon course material and peer‐reviewed literature, engage in small‐group discussions to discover common values and solutions, and debate the issue formally. Several practice sessions and preparation labs will familiarize students with the SC process and to help teams develop statements and arguments. The purpose of SC is to help you gain deep understanding of all positions related to a controversial topic or issue. You will prepare arguments for AND against several issues during the semester. You may even find that your ultimate stance on an issue changes based on what is best supported by evidence.
Rules of engagement
1) Be critical of ideas, not people.
2) Focus on the best decision, not on “winning”
3) Encourage everyone’s position, even if you do not agree
4) Use paraphrasing when you are not clear about what someone said
5) Try to understand both sides of the issue
Process
Teams of two or three will be selected by the instructor. For every team, two stances (one affirmative and one negative) exist for the statement. Each pair or triad must understand the issue and the two stances well enough to create arguments for each stance, which will be presented orally.
1. Research
The first step to writing arguments is to do research to understand the issues. Second, teams must create outlines, which highlight the main features of the arguments. One outline must support one side of the issue (affirmative), and one must support the opposing side (negative) since you may have the opportunity (and must be prepared) to argue each side.
2. Create arguments
The two opposing arguments, one of which will be presented orally (according to step 3) are formulated, written and practiced by team members. Although you can prepare for your rebuttal by reading literature on both sides of the argument, rebuttals are generally prepared fresh on the spot.
4
3. Opposing arguments presented orally in class
Each pair or triad of students (opposing sides) will present ONE prepared argument (revealed on the day of the arguments‐‐so written arguments for both sides must be ready). After both arguments are complete, the pairs/triads prepare a fresh rebuttal argument, then present that rebuttal to the opposing side, according to the scheme below:
Affirmative presents argument (5 min)
Negative thanks affirmative for presentation
Negative presents argument (5 min)
Teams are given 5 minutes to prepare rebuttals
Affirmative thanks negative for presentation
Affirmative rebuttal (2 min)
Negative thanks affirmative for comments
Negative rebuttal (2 min)
4. Evaluation
All class members are required to evaluate at least one set of arguments; we all have something to learn about these topics. Every student in the class will have the opportunity to evaluate team‐mates (personal evaluation form) and team performances (presentation assessment rubric form). Only instructor grade will count towards course grade.
The evaluation form (rubric) will be discussed as a class in advance of the structured controversy so all are familiar with expectations, and all know with what standard they will be evaluated.
Summary of Structured Controversy Schedule: 1. Learn process: Jan 12 2. Topic II revealed: Feb 21 3. Prepare team arguments inside and outside of class: February 21 – 28 4. In‐class graded arguments and evaluations: Feb 28
Term Project: Combatting Pseudoscience and Fake News There is a lot of misinformation about dairy production and dairy products. Well‐meaning consumers can be confused and even scared by what they read on the internet or hear from friends who have been misled. What are we going to do about it?
For your term project, you will work together with one to three classmates to create a tool to combat pseudoscience or fake news about dairy products or the dairy industry. The activity is practical. You will create an actual tool, for dissemination to the general public. Upon successful “defense” of the message and the tool to the instructor and classmates, the tool will be publicly disseminated.
Some examples of potential tools include, but are not limited to:
Blog
Digital story
Educational event (organize an event for dissemination of factual information)
Educational flier (including method for flier distribution)
5
Extension bulletin publication
Focus groups
Literature review publication in peer‐reviewed journal
Mini mod
Public oral presentation (Kiwanis, Rotary, Toastmasters, etc.)
School demonstration or exhibit
Taste panel
Webinar (coordinated through Adobe Connect via the College of Human Sciences)
Web page
Youtube video
4‐H or FFA educational workbook
Process:
1. Select topics / message
The instructor will initially divide the class into 5 ‐ 6 groups of approximately 7 ‐ 8 students each. Groups will have ~25 minutes to talk about topics related to dairy production or dairy products that team members want to know more about and/or that are controversial. Groups must generate a list of one to three (1 – 3) topics that are of interest to team members.
The best topics will likely be those that appear to have two conflicting sides. However, selected topics must not be simply based in opinion or emotion—they must be supported by plenty of peer‐reviewed literature, and must be of interest to all members of the team.
Some controversial topic areas or messages that you may consider include, but are not limited to:
Chocolate milk and/or full fat milk in schools
Raw vs. Pasteurized milk
Conventional vs. Organic practices
Paper vs. plastic (milk quality, recycling and/or sustainability issues)
Use of rBSt vs. rBSt‐free milk
Dairy products and heart disease
Dairy production and greenhouse gases
Food waste issues
“Plant‐based products should not be legal ly labeled as ‘mi lk’”
Milk is an effective post‐exercise recovery drink
Whey protein is appropriate for body‐building
2. Finalize working groups
After the set time, topics will be listed on the board, and students will be allowed five minutes to self‐select into topics of greatest interest to them. Working groups must be composed of a minimum of 2, and a maximum of 4 students, who will work together for the remainder of the semester to create the tool that effectively combats pseudoscience or fake news about dairy products or the dairy industry.
6
3. Brainstorm target audience and tools
Within each working group, students will brain‐storm who their target audience will be, and brainstorm methods they will use to communicate with their target audience using well‐documented information. Teams must carefully consider the most appropriate tools for delivery of a clear and compelling message to the target audience.
4. Read and review literature (see literature citation/critique assignment for more details)
Working group members must acquire and read literature outside of class. Some references must support and some should refute the beliefs of students in the working groups to challenge thinking (remember, you will have to defend your message and your tool to the instructor and classmates during the “oral defense”). Students must read as much material on their selected topic as possible. Literature review is essential to fully understanding your topic. Divide up literature review tasks among group members to lighten your load.
5. Report back to working group
Each individual is expected to share findings with the working group outside of class and in select class periods during the semester. Part of your grade this semester is based upon your contribution to the working group and team aspects of the class.
6. Create tools
All working group members are expected to work outside of class to create the tool. Only four class periods have been set aside for working groups to discuss literature, work on the tool and practice oral defense presentations.
A DRAFT of the tool is due to the instructor on or before April 4. These must NOT be rough drafts. The tool should be very close to completion. The instructor will provide recommended improvements of the tool. Any public presentations, focus groups or taste panels that are proposed by teams must also be confirmed (date, contact, location) by April 4.
Some examples of what is expected in a drafts include, but are not limited to:
Digital story text and images to be included in post (next step: add the voice recording)
Extension bulletin publication draft (basically just seeking editing suggestions from instructor)
Educational event details, including draft of the oral presentation wording and/or slides
Educational flier draft and explanation of method for flier distribution (basically seeking editing)
Focus group invitation and discussion text, date and location
Literature review publication in peer‐reviewed journal draft (basically seeking editing)
Public oral presentation draft (basically just seeking editing suggestions from instructor)
School demonstration or exhibit draft (basically seeking editing)
Taste panel design, invitation message, date, location, products needed, and personnel details
If you do not know what is expected in a draft, make an appointment to speak with the instructor at
least 2 weeks before the deadline for submission to ensure that your draft is complete.
The FINAL tool is due on April 14. The tool that you and your working group create must be of high enough quality (in the opinion of working group members) to disseminate to the general public (your selected target audience) by the time of your defense. However, the ultimate decision about
7
whether dissemination is warranted will be made by the instructor and classmates. A decision to not publicly disseminate a tool will likely result in a failing grade on the assignment.
Summary of Term Project schedule: 1. Working groups select topics (March 7); 2. Work on literature review and tool outside of class (March 7 – 28); 3. Literature citation/critique due (3 hard copies; March 28); 4. Work inside and outside of class on tool draft (March 28 – April 4); 5. Draft of tool due to instructor (April 4); 6. Prepare oral “defense” presentation (April 4 – 6); 7. Revise tool based on instructor feedback (April 6 – 11); 8. Finalize tool and oral “defense” presentation (April 11 – 13); 9. Oral “defense” presentation and evaluations (April 18 – 25); 10. Term project self and team‐evaluations due (April 27).
Literature Citation/Critique This assignment is part of the term project. Each partner is required to submit a brief summary of four peer‐reviewed articles (clearly cited) related to the term project. However, you are encouraged to read and review many more than four articles in preparation for the term project to ensure a high‐quality tool. The citation/critique should be about 1 page for EACH peer‐reviewed article that you select and the articles must be different from your partner.
Specifically, every student is required to submit for each article:
1. a full citation (proper format is explained in syllabus),
2. a summary (in your own words) about the article (purpose of research, what they did, what they found), and
3. a paragraph or two about how the evidence helps support your term project message, and how it will be used in your term project tool.
Always evaluate literature with a critical eye. Be sure to select articles that are peer‐reviewed, which means that they are published in edited journals. Avoid using websites as sources. They are generally not peer‐reviewed. However, many “.gov” and “.edu” sites may be reputable.
Submit a typed hard copy of your assignment on the date specified in the course schedule.
Suggested steps for reviewing literature and writing your summary statement/critique
1) Read the abstract to get an idea of what to expect from the manuscript.
2) Read the entire article once through, highlighting or quickly taking notes about content and your first impressions.
3) Read the article a second time, with a more critical eye, considering the following questions:
Is the study purpose clear? Are the hypotheses stated?
Does the introduction clearly state a problem?
Does paper include both sides of a controversial issue?
Were these protocols appropriate to test the hypotheses?
Was there replication of experiments?
8
Were statistics employed for data analysis?
Is discussion supported by data? Are findings and interpretations sound?
Is other literature cited to support discussion?
Is there a clear bias to the discussion?
If results deviate from previous research, are sound reasons or explanations given?
Are results discussed adequately with meaning and implications included?
Are the conclusions supported by the results and discussion?
Was the research supported by a source dedicated to supporting a certain finding?
Proper reference list formatting Within each reference, list of authors must be the same as what is included in the original article as specified in the examples below. The references are listed alphabetically by the first author’s last name. When the author designation (name or names) is identical in two or more references, these references are sequenced by publication date (earliest to latest). Type references flush left as separate paragraphs. Within a citation, do not indent manually, let the text wrap.
Use the following formats in the list of references and within text:
* Journal article: Author(s). Year. Article title. Journal title. Volume number: inclusive pages.
Example:
Smith JB, Jones LB, Rackly KR. 1999. Maillard browning in apples. J Food Sci 64:512‐8.
Form of citation in text: (Smith and others 1999).
Note: There are no periods in abbreviated journal titles, there is no space before or after the colon of the citation, and issue number may or may not be included behind the volume number, but must be provided for articles from periodicals that do not number pages continuously throughout each volume.
* Electronic journal article: Author(s). Year. Title of article. Name of electronic journal [serial online]. Volume number: inclusive pages. Available from [give site]. Posted date.
Example:
Steinkraus KH. 2002. Fermentation in world food processing. Comp Rev Food Sci Food Safety [serial online]. 1:23‐32. Available from IFT (ift.org). Posted Apr 1, 2002.
Form of citation in text: (Steinkraus 2002)
Note: Because URLs are frequently discontinued, it is strongly recommended to give the URL address as it was when first cited.
* Book: Author(s) [or editor(s)]. Year. Title. Edition or volume (if relevant). Place of publication: Publisher name. Number of pages.
Example:
Spally MR, Morgan SS. 1989. Methods of food analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Elsevier. 682 p.
9
Form of citation in text: (Spally and Morgan 1989).
* Chapter in book: Author(s) of the chapter. Year. Title of the chapter. In: author(s) or editor(s). Title of the book. Edition or volume, if relevant. Place of publication: Publisher name. Inclusive pages of chapter.
Example:
Rich RQ, Ellis MT. 1998. Lipid oxidation in fish muscle. In: Moody JJ, Lasky, UV, editors. Lipid oxidation in food. 6th ed. New York: Pergamon. p 832‐55.
Form of citation in text: (Rich and Ellis 1998).
* Conference Proceedings: Editor(s). Title of publication. Number and name of conference; date of conference; place of conference. Place of publication: publisher; date. Extent. Notes.
Example:
Webb R, Steagall T, Brown A, editors. PAAPT 2008. Proceedings of the 4th National Conference on Processing Technologies; 2008 April 9‐12; Portland, OR. Chicago, IL: American Association of Processing Technology; c2008.
Form of citation in text: (Webb and others 2008).
* Patent: Name of the inventor(s) of the patented device or process; the word “inventor(s),” assignee. Date issued [year month day]. Title. Patent descriptor [name of country issuing the patent and the patent number].
Example:
Harred JF, Knight AR, McIntyre JS, inventors; Dow Chemical Co., assignee. 1972 Apr 4. Epoxidation process. U.S. patent 3,654,317.
Form of citation in text: (Harred and others 1972).
* Dissertation: Author. Date of degree. Title [type of publication, such as dissertation, DPhil thesis, MSc thesis] Place of institution: Institution granting degree. Total number of pages. Availability statement.
Example:
Smith DE. 1988. Lipid oxidation at very low water activities. [DPhil dissertation]. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. 210 p. Available from: University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI: ABD62‐83.
Form of citation in text: (Smith 1988).
* Websites and other internet material: Title or webpage or database [medium designator]. Edition (if relevant). Place of publication: Publisher; date of publication [date updated; date accessed]. Notes.
Example:
FoodSciNet: Education resources online [Internet]. Columbus, OH: Food Science Education Association; c1999‐2008 [Accessed 2008 Oct 17]. Available from: http://foodscinet.org.
Form of citation in text: (FoodSciNet 2008)
10
Policies
Plagiarism/Cheating
Intentional plagiarism (cheating) is where one knowingly appropriates the work of others and passes it off as their own. Unintentional plagiarism (misuse of sources) is the accidental appropriation of the ideas and materials of others due to lack of understanding of the conventions of citation and documentation. Any facts taken from sources that are not common knowledge or are not in the public domain shall be cited. Any quotations, even if you are quoting something that would otherwise be common knowledge (such as quoting from a dictionary or encyclopedia) should be cited. Using proprietary materials, such as pictures, sounds and videos, should be cited. If you are in doubt, cite the source of information.
Academic dishonesty will not be tolerated. Students will receive a 0 for any quiz or written assignment in which plagiarism or cheating occurs. The incident will be reported to the Dean of Students as dictated by university policy. More information on academic dishonesty is available in the ISU Bulletin (p. 40‐41).
Disability Accommodations Statement
Iowa State University complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Any student who may require an accommodation under such provisions should contact the Disability Resources (DR) office for information on appropriate policies and procedures. DR is located on the main floor of the Student Services Building, Room 1076; their phone is 515‐294‐6624. The student should provide instructors with information on needed accommodations as soon as possible and no later than the end of the first week of class or as soon as you become aware. No retroactive accommodations will be provided in this class.
FSHNDepartmentandProgramLearningOutcomesspecificallyaddressedbythiscourseinclude:
FSHNDepartmentandProgramOutcomesAssessment:
AllgraduatesfromtheFSHNDepartmentshouldbeabletodemonstratetheGeneralDepartmentOutcomes:Communication(C);CriticalThinkingandProblemSolving(P);SocialConcernsandEthics(S).Thiscoursewillcontributetoyourabilityto:
C1. Communicate effectively with others in one-on-one, small group, and large group situations.
C3. Prepare and deliver effective presentations (orally and in writing) of technical information to the general public.
P1. Successfully solve multidisciplinary problems as part of a team.
P3. Locate and accurately interpret current research literature.
P4. Summarize and accurately interpret data generated by yourself or others.
P5. Critically evaluate information on food science and nutrition issues appearing in the popular press.
S1. Conscientiously apply your profession's code of ethics in your work.
S2. Discuss the social, multicultural, and environmental dimensions of issues facing professionals in your field.
11
Grading
Final grades will be assigned based on percentage of points earned at the end of the semester, as follows. At the end of the semester, the grading scale may be adjusted so that the average grade for the class is a C+ if class scores are generally low.
A >93.0%
A‐ 90.0‐92.9%
B+ 87.0‐89.9%
B 83.0‐86.9%
B‐ 80.0‐82.9%
C+ 77.0‐79.9%
C 73.0‐76.9%
C‐ 70.0‐72.9%
D 63.0‐69.9%
F < 63.0%
Item/activity maximum points
Quizzes (5 @ 25 each) 125
Literature citations (4 * 10) 40
Structured controversy team argument 50
Structured controversy evaluation 10
Term Project Pre‐proposal Form 25
Term Project Tool draft 50
Term Project Oral Defense 100
Team Project team evaluation form (rubric) 10
Team Project team and self‐evaluation 10
Course evaluation 10
Attendance 20
Total 450
12
FSHN308–TeamTermProjectPre‐Proposal(DueMarch9)
Goal:Create a tool to combat pseudoscience or fake news about dairy products or the dairy industry.Includeasmuchdetailaspossibletomakeitcleartotheinstructorthatyouhavethoughtthrough
thetopic/messagethoroughly.Teammembers:Topic/Message:Justification:Targetaudience:Justification:Proposedtypeoftooltobedeveloped:Justification:
13
FSHN 308 Literature Critique (Due March 28)
Since your literature critique will be evaluated using this rubric, you are encouraged to use it to help you write your Literature Critique. Be sure to follow the detailed instructions, earlier in the syllabus.
308LITERATURECRITIQUEASSESSMENTName_________________________________________________________ Grade _____/40Completecitations(_____/4pt)Complete,properreferenceoffour(4)articles.
Introduction(_____/4pt)Briefpurposeforselectingthearticleandrelevancetotermproject.Body(_____/16pt)Clearsummaryofeacharticle(doesnotjustrepeattheabstract)aboutthearticletoshowunderstandingofscienceandhowithelpssupportorrefutetheselectedcontroversialtopic.Critique(_____/8pt)Summarizesthestrengthsandweaknessesofpapersinfullsentences,withjustificationsofreasoning.Conclusion(_____/4pt)Synthesizeyourcritiqueintocohesiveconclusion.Organization/Writingquality(_____/4pt)Organized,cohesive,andeasytofollow;correctgrammarusageandspelling.
14
As you work together on the term project, consider what it means to be a good team member. Evaluate yourself and team members using the rubric below. Try to improve ratings as you
continue working together in this and in other courses. Teamwork assessment
Ability Never Rarely Sometimes Moreoftenthannot
Almostalways
Always
1 2 3 4 5 6Members listened actively Understood in detail what was said; accurately paraphrased and appropriately responded to what was heard without interrupting.
Rationale/evidence for rating:
1 2 3 4 5 6Members participate actively Prepared, paid attention, trustworthy, gave clear/focused input, asked questions, solicited all viewpoints, didn’t dominate, kept accurate records, kept group momentum going.
Rationale/evidence for rating:
1 2 3 4 5 6 Members provide support Encourage participation of all, welcoming and approachable, did their share/filled assigned role, contributed consistently, gave positive feedback and constructive criticism.
Rationale/evidence for rating:
1 2 3 4 5 6Members decided collaboratively Made decisions all can live with, adaptable, open to compromises, gave reasons for views, assured equal/fair input among participants.
Rationale/evidence for rating:
1 2 3 4 5 6Members managed conflicts Cared about others, open to others’ points of view, kept communication open, diffused negative emotions, agreed to disagree.
Rationale/evidence for rating:
(Adapted from Jiles, D., Huba, M. & Others, ISU (2000))
15
FSHN 308 Structured Controversy Activity Team and Self‐Evaluation (Due April 27)
Complete the following evaluation to describe your experience with the term project activity.
1. Overall, how effectively did your working group function as a team during the term project?
Poorly Adequately Well Extremely Well
2. How well did you participate in team meetings?
Poorly Adequately Well Extremely Well
3. Give one specific example of something you learned from the team activity that you probably wouldn’t have learned by working alone.
4. Give one specific example of something other group members learned from you that they probably wouldn’t have learned otherwise.
7. Suggest one change your team could make to improve your contribution or your team’s overall performance.
16
8. Peer Assessment of Individual Contributions to the Team Evaluate the contributions of yourself and your team members in the successful completion of your team project. You have a total of 30 points to assign if you have 3 members in your team and 40 points to assign if you have 4 members in your team. If all members contributed equally, give each person 10 points. Contributions above average should receive more than 10 points and contributions below average should receive less than 10 points. 3‐Member Team
Member name (include your name) Points
Total (must equal) 30
4‐Member Team
Member name (include your name) Points
Total (must equal) 40
Additional explanation for above point allotment, if not equal:
9. Additional feedback about the term project activity is welcome, or you may share additional feedback on the online course evaluation.
17