5 Reflect on Learning with AI: Helping Students Publish Their Projects as LinkedIn Articles

Directions

For Instructors

The assignments are described below for your understanding of their purpose and structure. Adapt these instructions to create a student-centered version that fits your specific course and project. Use AI tools to help draft these instructions in a way that is engaging and accessible for students. Adjust the grading rubrics to align with your preferred criteria and learning objectives.

Assignment 1: Drafting a LinkedIn Article Using AI (Discussion Board Activity)

Assignment 1 guides students in drafting a reflective LinkedIn article using AI tools. They will apply the CAPE guidelines (Context, Action, Persona, Exemplar) to create effective prompts, iterate on AI-generated drafts, share these drafts for peer feedback, and offer constructive feedback on others’ work. This assignment emphasizes iterative writing, effective AI use, and collaborative learning.

Step 1: Planning and Reflection

Reflect on the Project Experience: Ask students to reflect on the project they completed during the course. Provide reflection prompts to guide their thinking, such as:

What was the project about, and what role did you play?

What were your biggest challenges, and how did you overcome them?

What skills did you develop that are relevant to your future career?

What was your final outcome or achievement in the project?

How do you think this experience will impact your professional growth?

Research and Evidence: Encourage students to conduct some research to support their reflections. This can include finding relevant statistics, quotes, or articles that provide context for their project or the skills they developed. Including external evidence helps strengthen their article, making their reflections more informative, credible, and appealing to potential employers or readers.

Step 2: Crafting and Iterating with AI

Crafting the Initial Prompt
Introduce students to essential components of an effective prompt (“CAPE”):

Context: Provide specific details about the project, including challenges, results, and what you learned. The more detailed the context, the better the AI’s response will be.

Action: Clearly specify what you want the AI to do (e.g., help with drafting an introduction, organizing ideas, or editing for tone).

Persona: Identify the intended audience (e.g., potential employers, peers) and author (e.g., undergraduate marketing student wanting to get a job in digital marketing after graduation).

Exemplar: Refer to examples of LinkedIn articles that align with the style you’re aiming for to guide the AI’s output.

Step 3: Iterating on the AI Draft

Iteration Process: Encourage students to iterate on their AI-generated draft by giving feedback to refine it. Emphasize that the first response is just a starting point, and they should:

Assess the AI-Generated Content: Determine if the AI captured the main points effectively and assess if the tone is appropriate.

Request Specific Changes: Provide targeted feedback to the AI, such as, “The introduction feels too generic. Please focus on my specific role in the project,” or, “The tone is too formal. Make it more conversational, similar to this example from LinkedIn: [insert excerpt].”

Personalize Further: Add additional details, like specific achievements or challenges, and ask the AI to integrate them appropriately.

Proofread and Finalize: Ask the AI to proofread the content for clarity, grammatical correctness, and overall flow.

Document the Iteration: In their discussion board post, students must provide:

The initial prompt they used.

The first AI-generated draft.

A description of the iteration process, including the feedback they gave to the AI and how the draft changed through iterations.

The final AI-refined draft that they intend to publish (before any final manual edits).

Step 4: Discussion Board Submission and Feedback

Post the Prompt, Drafts, and Iteration Summary: Students will post their prompt, AI-generated drafts (including details on which AI was used), the iteration process, and the final draft to the class discussion board.

Provide Peer Feedback:

Each student must comment on at least two peers’ posts, focusing on:

How well the “CAPE” components were used in the prompt.

The quality of the initial draft versus the final version.

The iteration process—was it thorough, and did it significantly improve the content?

Encouraging Quality Feedback: Provide a feedback framework to help students give detailed and helpful comments. Students should address:

Strengths of the initial prompt and what could be improved.

Specific suggestions for the iteration process—was there an area that could have been better refined?

Constructive questions that prompt deeper reflection or further improvement.

Grading Rubric for Assignment 1

• Initial Post – Context (15 points): Clear and detailed description of the project, including challenges, results, and personal growth.
• Initial Post – Action (10 points): Specific and actionable request to the AI, ensuring clarity in what assistance is needed.
• Initial Post – Persona (10 points): Clear identification of the intended audience and appropriate tone for the article.
• Initial Post – Exemplar (10 points): Appropriate examples provided to guide the AI’s output, aligning with the desired tone and style.
• Initial Post – Iteration Summary (25 points): Detailed account of the iteration process, including the feedback provided, changes made, and a comparison between the initial draft and the refined version.
• Participation – Feedback to Other Students (30 points): Constructive and detailed feedback given to at least two peers, focusing on the effectiveness of the CAPE prompt, the quality of the AI-generated draft, and the iteration process.

Assignment 2: Publishing the LinkedIn Article and Final Peer Review

Assignment 2 is centered around students publishing their revised LinkedIn articles and providing a structured peer evaluation using a professor-created rubric. The key components include refining the draft, publishing, evaluating peer articles with the provided rubric, and reflecting on their own and peers’ articles.

Create and Share an Evaluation Rubric

Develop an evaluation rubric that aligns with your learning objectives for the LinkedIn article. The rubric should assess:

Context and Detail: Does the article provide sufficient context about the project, and does it explain key concepts effectively?

Depth of Reflection: Does the article offer genuine insights into the student’s learning process, including challenges faced and outcomes achieved?

Authenticity and Personal Voice: Is the article authentic and reflective of the student’s growth and experience?

Tone and Professional Branding: Is the tone suitable for a professional audience, and does the article align with the student’s personal branding?

Clarity and Structure: Is the article well-organized, with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion? Is the content easy to read and understand?

Share the rubric with students before they begin their peer evaluation. Ensure students understand each criterion so they can provide consistent and meaningful feedback.

Guide Students in Revising and Publishing LinkedIn Articles

Instruct students to revise their LinkedIn articles based on the peer feedback they received from Assignment 1.

Emphasize improvements in clarity, coherence, and depth of reflection, ensuring the article effectively communicates their learning experience and growth.

Require students to publish their revised LinkedIn articles.

Ensure the articles are made publicly accessible.

Instruct students to include a transparency note about AI assistance, such as: “This article was written with the assistance of ChatGPT for initial drafting and editing.”

Guide Students on Evaluating Peers’ LinkedIn Articles

Explain that students will use the professor-provided rubric to evaluate two of their classmates’ LinkedIn articles.

Make sure they understand that each criterion in the rubric should be addressed in their evaluation, providing constructive and specific feedback.

Require students to use AI to assist in their evaluation:

Have students input each rubric criterion into ChatGPT or Microsoft CoPilot to generate preliminary feedback on their peer’s article. For example, “Evaluate this LinkedIn article for clarity and structure. Does it have a well-defined introduction, body, and conclusion?”

Instruct students to enhance the AI-generated feedback with their own insights.

Students should carefully review the responses and add their personal observations, referencing specific parts of the article to provide more meaningful and contextual feedback.

Submitting Peer Evaluations

Require students to submit their final evaluations in the discussion board.

Each evaluation must include:

AI’s Preliminary Feedback: Include the original feedback generated for each rubric criterion.

Enhanced Evaluation by the Student: A detailed explanation of how they expanded upon the AI’s feedback, adding specific examples and recommendations.

• Participation and Follow-Up

Instruct students to respond to the evaluations they receive on their LinkedIn articles.

Encourage students to reflect on the feedback and consider any further improvements they could make based on their peers’ suggestions.

Require students to post a brief response to their peers, acknowledging the feedback and discussing any changes they plan to implement.

Grading Rubric for Assignment 2

• Content Quality of the LinkedIn Article (25 points) – Clear and engaging article that reflects coherent storytelling and professional growth.
• Use of Peer Feedback (20 points) – Demonstrates thoughtful incorporation of feedback from Assignment 1, including specific examples of changes and their impact.
• Publication and Transparency (10 points) – Published on LinkedIn with a transparency note regarding AI assistance. The post should be publicly accessible.
• Peer Evaluation Quality (25 points) – Provides detailed evaluations using the provided rubric. Demonstrates effective use of ChatGPT and enhances AI feedback with meaningful personal insights.
• Discussion Board Participation (20 points) – Actively engages in discussion by posting the LinkedIn article and reflecting on peer evaluations. Provides constructive responses to classmates.