Changing a Course on Globalization, Part 6

Another update, this time in relation to the Place Making Essay discussed in Part 2  of this series —

To backtrack a bit, and provide some context I probably should have supplied in Part 1, the objectives of this course are to:

  1. Introduce students to concepts and methods used by social scientists and others to explain globalization.
  2. Develop the skills needed to understand complex problems related to global interconnectedness.

Students’ essays did, with varying degrees of success, thoughtfully respond to the assignment’s two prompts:

  • How does the process by which an object is made affect its ability to create a sense of place for people who use that object?
  • Has globalization altered the meaning of places or of the objects within them? Why? If so, how have meanings changed?

I did not see much discussion about the ways in which globalization affects communities, in the sense of “place making.” In retrospect, this is another example of me assuming, incorrectly, that students will follow ideas down the rabbit hole like I do — examining the more nebulous systemic implications of narrowly-defined events. If I use this assignment in the future, I might change the prompt to something like:

  • People assign meanings to the physical spaces they use. How do these meanings change when built environments and the objects within them are globalized? How are people’s spatial interactions affected? Do communities benefit? Why?

Despite horizons in students’ writing that were narrower than I would have liked, I think the essay unexpectedly hit my second course objective, through the interaction with students in the ART 202 course and the IYRS Digital Materials and Fabrication program. These interactions required students in my course to communicate effectively with complete strangers who had, in many cases, unfamiliar perspectives and different goals. A prerequisite for learning how to solve problems that arise from global interconnectedness is actually connecting with people who are different, and that happened in this assignment.

Links to all posts in this series:

Changing a Course on Globalization, Part 1

Changing a Course on Globalization, Part 2

Changing a Course on Globalization, Part 3

Changing a Course on Globalization, Part 4

Changing a Course on Globalization, Part 5

Changing a Course on Globalization, Part 6

Changing Course on Globalization, Part 7

 

 

Changing a Course on Globalization, Part 2

On at least two occasions over the semester, my class will be meeting with students who are enrolled in an art course. The art students will be creating objects with 3-D printers and CNC cutters at the nearby IYRS School of Technology & Trades. The interviews will form the basis for a writing assignment in my class that I hope illustrates globalization’s effects on design, production, and trade — something that I am calling the Placemaking Essay. Here are my directions for the assignment:

1. Review course readings on terroir, Irish pubs, McDonald’s, and trade.

2. Read the rubric.

3. Write an 2-3 page essay, based on your interviews with ART 202 students and observations of their work, on the following:

  • How does the process by which an object is made affect its ability to create a sense of place for people who use that object?
  • Has globalization altered the meaning of places or of the objects within them? Why? If so, how have meanings changed?

Make sure to clearly define your use of terms like “place” and “community.” Cite course readings as you would for a reading response.

This essay also connects to a reflective writing assignments my students will be completing at the end of the semester. I’ll save the details on that for later.

Changing a Course on Globalization, Part 1

The first of what promises to be a semester-long series on granular-level changes to my globalization course, in which students will be partnering with a local non-profit organization:

Historically my students have been reluctant to evaluate their performance in relation to that of their peers, whether via Monopoly money, rubrics, or anonymous online rank-order surveys. Given that team-based projects account for twenty to twenty-five percent of the final grade in several of my courses, I do think it’s important to ensure some degree of individual accountability in any formally-assessed collaboration between students. No one likes being forced to work with free riders, especially in a course like this one, where students will be conducting research outside of scheduled class time by gathering information from (gasp!) members of the local community. As I have explained to students before — without much success — I can’t be aware of how hard or how well every single one of them has worked with their teammates on a group project, because I’m not always present when the work happens.

So, I racked my brain for a new method of peer evaluation, and came up with the Project Contribution Award:

Please select four people from class, other than yourself, whom you think each deserves 40 points for their outstanding contributions to the project. I will tally the results and the individuals with the most votes will win the award.

Students will submit their choices via an ungraded survey on the Canvas LMS.

The class has only twenty students, so the Project Contribution Award translates into one-fifth of them winning an additional 40 points in a course with a 1,200 point grading scale, a three percent bonus for being perceived by classmates as having performed well on the project. Although I will be dividing students into teams that will take on different responsibilities, the quality of the final product for the community partner will be dependent in some fashion on everyone’s contribution. So I’m hoping that the one in five possibility of earning the award is a sufficient incentive. If not, I can increase the weight of the award in future semesters, or assign one award to each team instead of having multiple awards for the whole class.

A mechanical note: constructing this kind of survey on Canvas requires repeatedly copying and pasting the names of all the students on the class roster. In my case, the survey has four multiple choice questions, each with the same set of twenty names, so the process only took a few minutes. But the inability to generate multiple iterations of a survey or quiz question with a “copy” command probably reduces the utility of Canvas’s quiz feature for courses with large enrollments. No one wants to paste each student’s name over and over again for a 200-student class. In this scenario, I would probably use Google Forms, which does allow the copying of questions. However, I would not be able to just send a link to the survey to students, because responses would be anonymous (allowing students to vote for themselves). Everyone in the class would need Gmail accounts. If your university uses Gmail as its email client, that’s great, but if not, this option requires some extra work on the instructor’s part getting students to create Google accounts with easily-identifiable usernames.

Links to all posts in this series:

Changing a Course on Globalization, Part 1

Changing a Course on Globalization, Part 2

Changing a Course on Globalization, Part 3

Changing a Course on Globalization, Part 4

Changing a Course on Globalization, Part 5

Changing a Course on Globalization, Part 6

Changing Course on Globalization, Part 7

 

 

Cultural and Historic Preservation Conference

And now for something completely different . . .

The Noreen Stonor Drexel Cultural and Historic Preservation program at Salve Regina University, Newport, Rhode Island, will host its annual conference on October 13 and 14. The theme for this year is “Gentrification & Preservation: A Reappraisal.” The conference will explore the relationship between gentrification, preservation, and the community – broadly construed.

“Gentrification” is a term that carries a great deal of emotional weight. It is frequently tied to issues of class and race, and historic preservation efforts are often accused of being a handmaid to gentrifiers.

The conference’s keynote speaker is Dr. Lance Freeman, professor of Urban Planning at Columbia University. Dr. Freeman is a leading researcher in the study of gentrification, particularly the various relationships connecting race, ethnicity, socioeconomic class, and housing markets.

The conference schedule includes site visits in Newport as well as a session in the Newport Art Museum. For additional information, visit http://chpconference.salvereginablogs.com/ or email chpconference@salve.edu.