As an example of deliverables for an impact driven course, we use the Impact Space Minor. Assessment within the Impact Space Minor is structured around action-based problem orientation and portfolio development. Evaluation criteria encompass both collective group efforts and individual learning reflections.
Here's an expanded explanation of the deliverables expected from students:
- Supporting Academic Paper (group based: 40%)
- Reflection Report (individual, 30%)
- Project Portfolio (group based, 30%)
Due to the inherent nature of the minor program, which prioritizes collaboration and interdisciplinary approaches, the grading system places greater emphasis on group projects than individual assignments. This decision is a departure from the typical grading guidelines outlined by the faculty. However, special permission was granted by the examination board to align the assessment structure with the program's emphasis on collective learning and collaborative efforts. Assessment in the minor program is centered around the process of problem orientation and portfolio building, where both group work and individual reflections play integral roles. The grading breakdown reflects this focus, with group-based components, such as the Process Portfolio and Supporting Academic Documents, accounting for a significant portion of the overall grade (70%), while individual contributions, as evidenced by the Self-reflection Report, also hold weight (30%). This approach ensures that students' abilities to collaborate, communicate, and contribute effectively within a group setting are adequately recognized and evaluated, aligning with the program's overarching goals and objectives.
Learning objectives:
Learning objectives
| Success Criteria | Assessments | Feedback |
| (LO1) By the end of the course the students will be able to define their perception of their own position and biases. | Students clearly articulate their understanding of personal position and biases.
Students demonstrate awareness of how personal position and biases can influence perceptions and decision-making.
| Opening & closing thoughts: by starting and ending the session with this activity, students are encouraged to reflect on their own positions and biases, helping them develop self-awareness and understanding of their preconceptions.
Reflection journal: students are asked to maintain a reflection journal throughout the course where they can regularly write about their evolving understanding of their own positions and biases. Moreover, they provide specific examples and insights from class discussions, group process, readings, or personal experiences. On a weekly basis, students are asked to share insights from their reflection journal.
| Provide feedback that acknowledges their reflections, validates their insights, and encourages further exploration.
Engage in class discussions to address common themes, misconceptions, and offer strategies for self-reflection.
Verbal or written feedback on students' reflection journals, acknowledging their insights and highlighting areas for further exploration. |
| (LO2) By the end of the course the students will be able to assess their individual learning and group process requirements. | Students identify personal learning needs and preferences.
Students recognize individual contributions and challenges in group dynamics.
| Setting personal learning goals: students think individually about their learning goals in their notebooks. By setting their own learning goals, students can identify their individual needs in the learning and group processes, fostering self-assessment and self-directed learning. Through discussions and written reflections, students can share their learning goals with the coaches and peers, providing opportunities for feedback and guidance on how to achieve those goals effectively. | Review students' self-set learning goals and assess their alignment with the learning objectives.
Individual feedback on the clarity, specificity, and feasibility of the goals.
Schedule periodic check-ins to discuss progress towards their goals and offer guidance for achieving them. |
(LO3) By the end of the course the students will be able to conduct their multidisciplinary analyses through participatory research with fellow students and stakeholders.
| Students apply participatory research methods to gather data and insights from multiple disciplines.
Students collaborate effectively with fellow students and stakeholders in the research process.
| Visualization: students are asked to present a visualization of their ideas/process/intervention. Visualizing concepts, analysis, intervention plans, and complexity enhances understanding and helps in the multidisciplinary analysis and navigating societal impact actions.
Group case study presentation: in groups, students present their case study, showcasing their findings, methodologies used, and insights gained.
| Verbal feedback on the clarity, accuracy, and organization of their visualizations. Facilitate peer feedback for students to provide constructive feedback on one another's visual representations, emphasizing strengths and suggesting improvements. Provide feedback on their analysis approach, the integration of multiple disciplines, and the collaborative process with stakeholders, and create space for discussion and collective learning. |
| (LO4) By the end of the course the students will be able to design intervention plans that create a tangible impact on assigned cases. | Students develop intervention plans that address the identified needs of the assigned case.
Students demonstrate creativity, feasibility, and potential impact of the proposed interventions.
| [For this learning goal, the activity of ‘visualization’ can be used/applied]
Peer review of intervention plans: students exchange their intervention plans with a peer or another group. Students are asked to review and provide constructive feedback on the clarity, feasibility, and potential impact of the plans.
| The role of coaches is to encourage students to offer suggestions for improvement and highlight any areas that may require further development. At the same time, coaches emphasize the importance of providing specific and actionable feedback to enhance the quality of intervention plans. Engage in class discussions to provide immediate feedback on students' scenario analyses, highlighting strengths and areas for improvement. Encourage students to offer feedback to their peers during presentations, focusing on the analysis of interconnected factors and proposed strategies. |
| (LO5) By the end of the course the students will be able to enhance skills to navigate complexity in the process of researching, designing, and implementing societal impact action. | Students demonstrate an understanding of the complexity involved in societal impact action.
Students apply problem-solving and critical thinking skills to navigate complex challenges.
| [For this learning goal, the activity of ‘visualization’ can be used/applied]
Complexity scenario analysis: students are presented with real-life or hypothetical scenarios that involve complex challenges related to researching, designing, and implementing societal impact action. They are asked to analyse the scenarios and identify the interconnected factors, potential obstacles, and strategies to navigate that complexity. Students present their analyses, allowing for class discussion and feedback. | Engage in class discussions to provide immediate feedback on students' scenario analyses, highlighting strengths and areas for improvement. Encourage students to offer feedback to their peers during presentations, focusing on the analysis of interconnected factors and proposed strategies. |
Assessment Plan Overview:
| Assessment Method | ||||
| Learning objective | Weight objective | Process Portfolio | Supporting Academic Paper | Self Reflection Report |
| LO1 | 20% | X | ||
| LO2 | 20% | X | X | |
| LO3 | 20% | X | ||
| LO4 | 20% | X | X | |
| LO5 | 20% | X | ||
| Weight (percentage of final grade) | 30% | 40% | 30% | |
| Group work or Individual | Groupwork | Groupwork | Individual | |
Assessment Matrix:
Process Portfolio
| Bloom’s Taxonomy | |||||||
| Learning objectives | Remember | Understand | Apply | Analyze | Evaluate | Create | Total points |
| LO2 | 20 pt | 20 pt | |||||
| LO4 | 10 pt | 10 pt | |||||
| Total points | 20 pt | 10 pt | 30 pt | ||||
Supporting Academic Documents
| Bloom’s Taxonomy | |||||||
| Learning objectives | Remember | Understand | Apply | Analyze | Evaluate | Create | Total points |
| LO3 | 15 pt | 15 pt | |||||
| LO4 | 15 pt | 15 pt | |||||
| LO 5 | 10 pt | 10 pt | |||||
| Total points | 25 pt | 15 pt | 40 pt | ||||
Self-Reflection Report
| Bloom’s Taxonomy | |||||||
| Learning objectives | Remember | Understand | Apply | Analyze | Evaluate | Create | Total points |
| LO 1 | 15 pt | 15 pt | |||||
| LO 2 | 15 pt | 15 pt | |||||
| Total points | 30 pt | 30 pt | |||||
Assessment Rubrics:
Process Portfolio
| Below expectations | Acceptable | Above expectations |
| The students kept a good record of classes followed and main takeaways, though some classes/research steps are missing. | ||
| The students show starting points and discussions they have had to lead to certain outcomes, such as work division. Certain details or in-depth reasoning are omitted. | ||
| The students show most of the process required for their intervention plans. They share their literature research and their intervention ideas, though full context is missing or some steps are taking too suddenly. | ||
| 0-5,5 | 6-7,4 | 7,5-10 |
Supporting Academic Documents
| <5,5 | 5,5-8 | 8-10 | |
| Introduction & theoretical framework | It is made insufficiently clear what theories are applied to the case and why. It is unclear how the research contributes to making the intervention plan. | For the most part it is clear what theories are applied to the case and why, though some in-depth explanation is still missing. It is explained how the research contributes to making the intervention plan, but it is not convincing. | The application of the theories for the case are fully clear and provide an in-depth explanation. It is well-explained and convincing how the research contributes to the intervention plan. |
| Methodology | It is insufficiently explained which methods are used to analyze the case and why. The methods used are not logical for the case at hand. The methods only use knowledge of one discipline. The methods are familiar and somewhat simple. | It is explained which methods are used, but the reason why is not fully clear. The methods are somewhat logical, though not the most obvious/realistic for the case at hand. It is somewhat multidisciplinary. The methods are slightly more advanced. | It is well explained which methods are used, and very clear why those methods are used. The methods are very logical, and fit the case at hand perfectly. The methods are very multidisciplinary and provide renewing insights. The methods are much more advanced. |
| Results | The research outcomes are not clear and not original. The intervention plan is not suitable for the case at hand. | The research outcomes are fairly clear but not original. The intervention plan has already been applied to the case at hand and the adjustments are only minor. | The research outcomes are very clear and original. The intervention plan is innovative and creative, and addresses a blind spot. |
| Style | Very informal use of language. Language/grammar errors. | Language use is informal here and there. Some language/grammar errors | Language use is appropriately formal and academic. No language/grammar errors |
| Referencing & formatting | APA style referencing is incorrectly applied. Page numbers are missing. Table of contents is missing. Mixed fonts are used. Student names, student numbers, date, and word count are missing or incomplete. Less than a minimum of 5 academic sources is used. | APA style referencing is mostly correctly applied, with some minor mistakes. Page numbers are present. Table of content is present. Student names, student numbers, date and word count are mostly present. Minimum of 5 academic sources is used. | APA style referencing is correctly applied throughout. Page numbers are present. Table of contents is present. Student names, student numbers, date and word count are all present. The minimum of 5 academic sources is exceeded. |
Self-Reflection Report
| Below expectations | Acceptable | Above expectations |
| The student provides an overview of their reflection throughout the course, but does not properly show the pattern throughout this. | ||
| The student looked critically at themselves and where they wanted to be at the end of the course, but could have made more effort to continue this self-reflection throughout the course | ||
| The student reflects well on their role in the group work, but could have been more thorough in outlining their contributions/points of improvement | ||
| 0-5,5 | 6-7,4 | 7,5-10 |