Congrats to Dr. Warford on the courage to change, and the insights on what changes would be beneficial to the students -- and which wouldn't drive you crazy as a professor. A couple of quick comments -- when I came across the phrase "exceeds expectations" my immediate question was what are the expectations? Sounds like you also realized this. I have always had a bit of difficulty with the phrase because I think there is also real benefit in encouraging "diverges from expectations" -- that allows and encourages creative approaches that the professor may not have even considered but which can still be very valuable. My second comment concerns moving forward. I would urge you to consider a "proficiency" approach that reaches beyond the limits of your course. Human-Centered Security sounds like a fascinating concept and I applaud the way you structured it. I would venture to guess that your goal for the course was not limited to the products they produced during the term, but rather the hope that the course continue to influence them after all the course work is completed. So here's what I would suggest, feed everything you've done in the course, the syllabus, the assignments, the grading scale, your reflections, the student feedback, the course content, etc, and then ask AI (easy to do this by putting all that material in a "folder" in ChatGPT) and then ask it to produce a proficiency scale for Human-Centered Security. [Look at the ACTFL Proficiency scale for an example -- this goes from Novice Low to Distinguished with clearly delineated levels of proficiency). You could instruct it to include all the criteria you mentioned for each A-F grade at the level you think is approapriate. For instance, what you outlined here for an A, might be appropriate for an "Intermediate High" level of proficiency, and the C might be Novice High, etc. Ask the AI that you use to further define each level with descriptors and "Can Do" statements. Then at the beginning of the term, you can easily explain this to your students, and in fact, I would ask them to set their own grade goal for the term from the beginning. And treat this respectfully. For some, a "C" might really be where there goal is for understanding in the course. For others it would be the A or B. And all along the course, you are reminding them that while the products they produce will be important as evidence of their proficiency, what you are really looking at goes beyond what they turn in to you. You truly want them to always be considering the emerging technologies they encounter from your class on, in light of Human-Centered Security. And then you also continually point out to them what really advanced proficiency levels look like and what characterizes them -- and it's fine to have shared a proficiency scale where Distinguished is characterized by proficiencies that you have demonstrated (advanced degree, extensive publication in the field, etc). In other words, getting an A in your class should not be merely exceeding expectations. because that's always an option, and you have concrete examples that you've included. I hope they leave your class looking forward at what else they might do in the field if they choose to, not looking back at what they did to get a grade.
Once again, my sincere congratulations on an outstanding example of a courageous pivot. Your students and Oberlin are to be congratulated!
This is pretty interesting to read as someone who took the class in fall 2024 (EDIT: spring 2024 woops) who I do think gave some fairly harsh feedback while also having a high level of interest in the course material. (Hi Professor Noel it's Kerensa! The UXD masters is pretty cool so far) The new structure sounds very fun and engaging!
how mortifying (but mostly positive) to have one of my own students read my writing about a class they took! As I recall, you were in *spring 2024*, which I point out only so that other readers know you took the traditionally graded version of the class, rather than the collaborative one.
Great to have the reflections of a former student who helped change the course via honest feedback. And great that you had a professor who took the feedback to heart and didn't just get defensive.
Congrats to Dr. Warford on the courage to change, and the insights on what changes would be beneficial to the students -- and which wouldn't drive you crazy as a professor. A couple of quick comments -- when I came across the phrase "exceeds expectations" my immediate question was what are the expectations? Sounds like you also realized this. I have always had a bit of difficulty with the phrase because I think there is also real benefit in encouraging "diverges from expectations" -- that allows and encourages creative approaches that the professor may not have even considered but which can still be very valuable. My second comment concerns moving forward. I would urge you to consider a "proficiency" approach that reaches beyond the limits of your course. Human-Centered Security sounds like a fascinating concept and I applaud the way you structured it. I would venture to guess that your goal for the course was not limited to the products they produced during the term, but rather the hope that the course continue to influence them after all the course work is completed. So here's what I would suggest, feed everything you've done in the course, the syllabus, the assignments, the grading scale, your reflections, the student feedback, the course content, etc, and then ask AI (easy to do this by putting all that material in a "folder" in ChatGPT) and then ask it to produce a proficiency scale for Human-Centered Security. [Look at the ACTFL Proficiency scale for an example -- this goes from Novice Low to Distinguished with clearly delineated levels of proficiency). You could instruct it to include all the criteria you mentioned for each A-F grade at the level you think is approapriate. For instance, what you outlined here for an A, might be appropriate for an "Intermediate High" level of proficiency, and the C might be Novice High, etc. Ask the AI that you use to further define each level with descriptors and "Can Do" statements. Then at the beginning of the term, you can easily explain this to your students, and in fact, I would ask them to set their own grade goal for the term from the beginning. And treat this respectfully. For some, a "C" might really be where there goal is for understanding in the course. For others it would be the A or B. And all along the course, you are reminding them that while the products they produce will be important as evidence of their proficiency, what you are really looking at goes beyond what they turn in to you. You truly want them to always be considering the emerging technologies they encounter from your class on, in light of Human-Centered Security. And then you also continually point out to them what really advanced proficiency levels look like and what characterizes them -- and it's fine to have shared a proficiency scale where Distinguished is characterized by proficiencies that you have demonstrated (advanced degree, extensive publication in the field, etc). In other words, getting an A in your class should not be merely exceeding expectations. because that's always an option, and you have concrete examples that you've included. I hope they leave your class looking forward at what else they might do in the field if they choose to, not looking back at what they did to get a grade.
Once again, my sincere congratulations on an outstanding example of a courageous pivot. Your students and Oberlin are to be congratulated!
Thanks for your kind words! I think my ability to communicate expectations is definitely something on which I am still working.
This is pretty interesting to read as someone who took the class in fall 2024 (EDIT: spring 2024 woops) who I do think gave some fairly harsh feedback while also having a high level of interest in the course material. (Hi Professor Noel it's Kerensa! The UXD masters is pretty cool so far) The new structure sounds very fun and engaging!
how mortifying (but mostly positive) to have one of my own students read my writing about a class they took! As I recall, you were in *spring 2024*, which I point out only so that other readers know you took the traditionally graded version of the class, rather than the collaborative one.
Great to have the reflections of a former student who helped change the course via honest feedback. And great that you had a professor who took the feedback to heart and didn't just get defensive.