Tony Crider, Professor of Astrophysics | Elon University Assessing Experiential Learning: Epic Finales and Roleplaying Rubrics The Reacting to the Past curriculum for higher education offers many games that are ready for adoption “as-is” into many different types of college classes. The rubrics and grading methods are templates that are easily ported. The more creative examples of roleplay (e.g. the Epic Finales from a class about extraterrestrials) are meant to be more inspirational than directly adoptable. As educators adopt more engaged teaching practices, multiple-choice and essay exams become increasingly incapable of capturing and reflecting student learning. In this talk, we will highlight engaged role-playing and experiential approaches, including Reacting to the Past games, Cultures of the Imagination, and selections from Anthony Weston’s book, Teaching as the Art of Staging. We’ll also look at examples of the implementation of these in a variety of classes ranging from first-year seminars to astrophysics. We will then review rubrics and guidelines on how to assess student learning during these activities and at the end of the semester with Epic Finales. Presented by the Serious Play Conference seriousplayconf.com at Orlando, University of Central Florida, UCF, July 24-26, 2019

1. Assessing Experiential Learning:
Epic Finales and Roleplaying Rubrics
Anthony Crider
Elon University
@acrider

4. assessment of
experiential learning
versus
“experiential assessment”

5. VALUES Rubrics
www.aacu.org/value/rubrics
Association of American Colleges & Universities

6. TEACHING
as the ART of
STAGING
A SCENARIO-BASED COLLEGE PEDAGOGY IN ACTION
ANTHONY WESTON
Foreword by [to come]

7. TEACHING
as the ART of
STAGING
A SCENARIO-BASED COLLEGE PEDAGOGY IN ACTION
ANTHONY WESTON
Foreword by [to come]
Anthony Weston

8. sage on the stage
guide on the side
impressario with a scenario

9. Interdisciplinary, Team-taught
Sophomore Honors Seminar
Life in the Universe

10. Carl Sagan’s
Contact
Frank Drake’s
Equation
Enrico Fermi’s
Paradox

12. THE KICK ASTRONAUTS (2012)

13. THE AURORANS (2012)

14. “THE MERMAZONS” (2016)

18. peerReview
A PUBLICATION OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
VOL. 13, NO. 4/ VOL. 14, NO. 1 FALL 2011/WINTER 2012
Assessing
Liberal Education
Outcomes Using
VALUERubrics
E M E RG I N G T R E N DS A N D K E Y D E BAT E S I N U N D E RG R A DUAT E E DU C AT I O N
•Civic Engagement
•Creative Thinking
•Critical Thinking
•Ethical Reasoning
•Global Learning
•Information Literacy
•Inquiry & Analysis
•Integrative Learning
•Intercultural Knowledge & Competence
•Foundations & Skills for Lifelong Learning
•Oral Communication
•Problem Solving
•Quantitative Literacy
•Reading
•Teamwork
•Written Communication
Association of American Colleges & Universities
VALUES Rubrics

21. Mark Carnes

22. REACTING PROFESSOR

23. REACTING
GAME
MASTER

24. FIRST-YEAR SEMINAR

26. Katie Salen

28. REACTING BOOKS

30. Edward
Melcer

32. In Reacting to the Past, some
students talk more…

33. …but the class as a whole engages
more with each passing day.

34. Instructors can download in-development games at
www.reactingconsortiumlibrary.org

36. SpeechesParticipation Papers

37. ASSESSMENT RUBRIC FOR REACTING SPEECHES
Logic:
1 2 3 4 5
Plan and purpose of speech
not apparent, undeveloped,
or fatally disorganized;
transitions between para-
graphs unclear or wholly
lacking. Paragraphs do not
develop logically around an
organizing idea and are
without beginning, middle,
and end; assertions seem
unconnected and supporting
evidence unrelated. “Logic
words” misused or com-
pletely absent.
Central thesis is apparent but
argument is underdeveloped
or disorganized; transitions
between paragraphs are ab-
rupt, monotonous, or even
confusing. Relationship of
supporting evidence to ar-
gument may need clarifica-
tion; some assertions not
clearly related to the organ-
izing idea of the paragraph.
Use of “logic words” is ra-
ther clumsy or unclear.
Central thesis is apparent but
argument is not consistently
developed; transitions be-
tween paragraphs abrupt,
mechanical, or monotonous.
Relationship of supporting
evidence to argument may
need clarification; not all
assertions may be clearly
related to the organizing idea
of the paragraph. Use of
“logic words” (e.g. “be-
cause,” “therefore”) may be
occasionally clumsy.
Argument is logically sound
and without fallacies. Thesis
advances by clearly ordered
and logically connected
stages. The relevance of
supporting evidence is clear-
ly explained. Paragraphs
follow a logical order, each
building on the preceding
one. Logical transitions
between sentences and para-
graphs are clear and explicit.
Argument is logically sound
and without fallacies – or
brilliantly exploits fallacies.
Thesis advances by clearly
ordered and logically con-
nected stages; the relevance
of supporting evidence is
clearly explained; para-
graphs (and within them,
sentences) are beautifully
organized; logical transi-
tions are clear and explicit.
No holes can be poked in the
argument.
Content:
1 2 3 4 5
Central idea lacking, or con-
fused, or completely unsup-
ported by historical evidence
(i.e., concrete and relevant
detail). Historical details in
speech appear made up and
are easily discredited using
basic search tools.
Central idea is more or less
clear but supporting evi-
dence is sketchy. Historical
detail is either completely
lacking, restricted to the
information in the role sheet
and pp. 1-47 of the GB, or
vague and general. Some
claims may be inaccurate.
Central idea is clear but
somewhat banal or too gen-
eral. Argument is supported
with concrete detail, mostly
drawn from Game Book.
Supporting information may
be occasionally irrelevant,
repetitious, sketchy, or mild-
ly historically inaccurate.
The central idea of the
speech is clearly defined and
developed, supported with
concrete, substantial, and
consistently relevant detail.
The historical information in
the speech goes beyond the
outline in the Game Book
and is accurate.
The central idea is clearly
defined and developed, sup-
ported with concrete, sub-
stantial, and powerfully rele-
vant detail. The historical
information in the speech is
richly detailed and shows
evidence of deep research.
Speeches
Rebecca
Stanton

38. Participation

39. Me

40. •Low Stakes
•Collaboration
•Something New
•Mystery
•Awesomeness

41. PHY 205 : Galactic Astronomy

42. PHY 313 : Modern Astrophysics

43. IGNITE Talk Rubric for COR 364
Outstanding
(5 points)
Exceeds
Expectations
(4 points)
Acceptable
(3 points)
Poor
(2 points)
Dreadful
(1 point)
The student discussed
the sources of their
material.
The student offers a critical
view of their sources, with
supporting evidence from
multiple sources.
The student offers
multiple views of the
same topic from different
sources.
The student gives an
adequate background
of their source(s).
The student makes a
minor reference to their
sources.
The student does not
discuss their sources.
You make clear
arguments to support
your side of the debate.
You give clear reasons in
support of your claim,
discuss the reasons
against your claim, and
then explain why your
claim is valid anyway.
You give reasons in
support of your claim and
discuss the reasons
against your claim.
You give reasons in
support of your claim.
You also say that there
are reasons against
your claim but don’t
describe them
adequately.
You give 1 or 2 weak
reasons attempting to
support your claim.
However these are
irrelevant and/or
confusing.
You do not give any
convincing reasons in
support of your claim.
The student related the
talk to previous material
from this class and
another Core
Curriculum class.
The student reframed an
earlier TED talk, an RTTP
game, and another Core
Curriculum in a new and
original way.
The student connected
the IGNITE topic to an
earlier TED review, an
RTTP game, and another
Core Curriculum class.
The student
successfully connected
to two of these three
but was clumsy or
failed in doing a third.
The student successfully
connected to one of these
three but was clumsy or
failed in doing a the
others.
The student did not mention
any of these.
The student
demonstrated
confidence and mastery
of the material.
The student demonstrated
a depth of understanding
the IGNITE topic well
beyond the scope of the
talk.
The student clearly
understood the material
presented.
The student
occasionally needed to
reference note cards.
The student seemed to
be reading from a script.
The student seemed
confused and/or
unprepared to give the talk.
The student completely
COR 364 : Technology and Society

44. And wear comfortable shoes!
HNR 237 : Life in the Universe

47. 30 minutes

48. 1 hour

49. 1.5 hours

50. 2 hours

52. FINAL EXAM
ANIMAL PLANET

55. How do
you grade
this?!?

56. How would you all have reacted
to this on the first day of class?

57. …and articulates a rationale for
appropriate actions by the student
LEVEL 3
…that reflects learningLEVEL 2
appropriate statement or questionLEVEL 1
LEVEL 0 inappropriate behavior or statement
…with evidence of impact
from beyond the classroom
LEVEL 4
Our Experiential Exam Rubric

58. COR 110 : Politics and Pageantry of Protest
1910s 2010s1960s

60. Chris
Dade
Julian
Radu

61. PRIMES
MARCH
OF

62. NUMERICAL
PROTEST ‘19

63. ODD
REALLY
RALLY

67. TEAMWORK VALUE RUBRIC
Facilitates the Contributions
of Team Members
CRITICAL THINKING VALUE RUBRIC Explanation of issues
INTEGRATIVE LEARNING VALUE RUBRIC Transfer

69. Garth
Jensen

71. TEACHING
as the ART of
STAGING
A SCENARIO-BASED COLLEGE PEDAGOGY IN ACTION
ANTHONY WESTON
Foreword by [to come]

72. assessment of
experiential learning
versus
“experiential assessment”

74. Assessing Experiential Learning:
Epic Finales and Roleplaying Rubrics
Anthony Crider
Elon University
@acrider