This blog post synthesizes your work and learnings done to date in the MACAL program drawing on CALS 500 as well as the MACAL 501 Unit 2 Seminar discussion and your ongoing work as a team on the 501 design challenge. As such, Assignment 4 asks you to write a 500 – 700 word reflection on how learning about climate science, impacts, and services is influencing your understanding of the challenge of supporting and empowering others (individuals, organizations, communities, governments) to take climate action. As always, the goal is to cultivate and demonstrate transdisciplinary thinking about climate action leadership, and in this specific case, about your conceptualizing of your response to the 501 Design Thinking Challenge (Ideate – Steps 4 – 5). Here are some questions to consider as you begin:
- What were some surprising ideas/information that you have encountered leading up to and including Seminar 2 in your program?
- What made them surprising?
- How does this idea/information inform your own understanding of climate action, climate communication, climate justice etc.?
- Which one idea was especially intriguing to you?
- What made this interesting?
- How do the different disciplines and theories (e.g., climate science, adaptation, leadership, Indigenous science) inform your thinking about this idea?
- Did you encounter any ideas in the previous course (CALS 500 or equivalent) that informed your thinking about climate action leadership (adaptation, mitigation, working with multiple perspectives)?
- Was this an idea/information you specifically agreed or disagreed with? Describe that idea in your own words.
- On what bases did you agree or disagree with the idea?
- Was the agreement or disagreement conceptual, philosophical, or ethical?
- What evidence would you use in supporting your agreement or disagreement with the idea?
- How does is this idea evidenced in or taken up by your ongoing work on the MACAL 501 design challenge?
- What additional knowledge or perspectives are required in order to move forward on the MACAL 501 design challenge? How and where will you gather them?
Post your reflection on your blog. Your blog posts will need to evidence of critical thinking, transdiciplinarity, and it should be research/evidence informed. Remember that these critical reflections are meant to demonstrate your ability to analyze and synthesize ideas, think critically about them, bring together ideas from multiple perspectives and disciplines.
Your blog should adhere to APA citation and referencing style. You are expected to incorporate APA standards for citations, formatting, and references and to back up your writing with evidence and appropriate academic literature as necessary. You are required to pay attention to grammar and clarity and to avoid colloquialisms. References are not included in the assignment word count.
For your reference, here is an overview of critical academic writing to get you started – no doubt you will find more resources as you go.
Think of your blog posts as critical academic reflection where you are analyzing and synthesizing as you make connections between theory and practice. Don’t forget to explore the resources on the RRU Writing Centre as well, specifically those focused on creating a detailed outline. You may also consider using creative commons licensing on your blog but that is optional. For more information on Creative Commons licensing see the resource provided on the MACAL program webpage.
Weight: 10%
Submit: to your blog
GD/MA CAL Program Blog Assessment Criteria and Marking Rubric:
Student blog posts provide critical academic reflection where you are analyzing and synthesizing as you make connections between theory and practice. Given the open learning nature of the program, you may also consider using creative commons licensing on your blog but that is optional. For more information on Creative Commons licensing see the resource posted on the MACAL program WordPress site and creativecommons.org. This program blog assessment rubric will guide the expectations of how your course blogs are crafted, however each instructor will set their specific expectations related to the content and the word count. Don’t forget to explore the resources on the RRU Writing Centre as well, specifically those focused on creating a detailed outline. o
NOTE: In order to stay connected to each other via the course blog and your own WordPress blogs – be sure to set up your Feedly (see the program website for resources on setting up Feedly and OPML files – You will need to add these for each course).
| Course Learning Outcome/Assessment Criteria | Excellent (A+ to A) | Proficient (A- to B+) | Satisfactory (B to B-) | Unsatisfactory (F) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Citation and APA format | All citations and APA format are correct. | Most citations and APA formatting are correct. | Some citations and APA formatting are correct. | Few citations and APA formatting are correct. |
| Style, Grammar, Spelling | All aspects of grammar and spelling are correct. | Most aspects of grammar and spelling are correct. | Some aspects of grammar and spelling are correct. | Significant spelling and grammar errors. |
| Transdisciplinary Thinking | Relevant terms, concepts are identified and defined; presentation/discussion of same shows evidence of transdisciplinary thinking including: drawing from multiple disciplines identifying and/or creating patterns, abstract thinking; finding the relationships between and amongst ideas/concepts; modeling (creating physical representations of ideas/concepts; playing with ideas; synthesis or transferring ideas from different domains and areas of life into new combinations; embodied thinking (e.g., empathy) | Relevant terms and concepts are mostly identified and defined and discussed but do not consistently reflect the transdisciplinary nature of the focus. | Relevant terms and concepts are somewhat identified and defined and the transdisciplinary nature of these is inconsistent or missing. | Relevant terms and concepts are not identified or defined and the transdisciplinary nature of these is missing. |
| Organisation and flow | Blog post begins with an overall summary and flows seamlessly using section transitions as needed. Blog post is clearly structured and is well organized to support understanding and follow main points and sequence of ideas. | Blog post organization is askew with sections not proceeding in an organized, logical pattern. The reader can periodically follow the main points of the argument or sequence of ideas. | Blog post organization needs significant improvement. Missing transitions lead to blocky sections. Or blog post is written as bullets or other non-prose style. It is difficult for the reader to follow the main points of the argument or sequence of ideas. | Blog post is not organized in a way that the reader can make sense of the author’s position or arguments. |
| Position statement | The author’s overall position is clearly stated in the first paragraph. | Position is unclearly stated. | Position is both unclear and confusing. | Blog post does not include a position. |
| Content | Blog post is thoughtful and original. It demonstrates excellent development of each idea and focuses on relevant details and a synthesis of pertinent research surrounding core concepts of climate action, resilience and reconciliation.
|
Blog post is somewhat thoughtful and may include some original ideas. Blog post contains adequate development of ideas, but will benefit from more research/support and from more intentional, synthesized thought around the core concepts of climate action, resilience and reconciliation. | The blog post has some development but lacks sufficient discussion or contains irrelevant details that do not yet develop a clear sense of purpose. Additional support for relevant ideas is required; as is greater evidence of synthesis of thinking around the core concepts of climate action, resilience and reconciliation. | The blog post needs more details on every level. It lacks relevance and originality and does not address the assignment requirements and/or is missing a connection to core concepts of climate action, resilience and reconciliation. |
| Analysis | Statements are backed by relevant evidence from the literature surrounding core concepts of climate action, resilience and reconciliation. Information is analyzed, discussed, summarized and applied in context, not just stated. | Supporting information is summarized but not synthesized/connected with other perspectives on the core concepts of climate action, resilience and reconciliation.
Synthesis is minimal or lacking. |
Supportive information is stated and not summarized or backed by supporting evidence from the literature examined on core concepts of climate action, resilience and reconciliation. | Information is stated but lacks relevance and connection to the position statement. Statements are not backed by evidence from the literature examined on core concepts of climate action, resilience and reconciliation. |