Culturally Responsive Teaching Fall 23-Spring 24

MKTG 123: Public Relations and Ethics in Business

Grading for Equity / Retakes / Empowerment

Reflection on Instructional Change:

The first practice I chose was assessment retaking because I found this to be the easiest one to initiate changes for grading for equity. The second reason is that I had multiple quizzes in the previous semester and received feedback from students that they needed more availability for their assessments, such as more quizzes, more assignments, and a greater number of questions for the quiz. I found that assessment for retaking can be one practice that I can start to improve students' motivation and confidence by allowing them to learn from their mistakes and earn the opportunity to correct them.

As I learned about the flexibility of assessment formats, both formative and summative, I applied this to the practice exams for the midterm and final term. Students have unlimited attempts to retake the quizzes until they fully understand them and finally complete quizzes. This is particularly important for the midterm practice exam when students are not fully prepared for their midterm exams. For the other quizzes, however, I limited the chance for retaking, which has the benefit of encouraging students to be more prepared to understand the chapter material and begin their learning for the next chapters.

The second practice I implemented is related to empowerment. In this course, students are expected to submit a group project to create a public relations plan and give a presentation at the end of the semester. This is one of the critical assessments that students should take care of, and I practiced empowerment for this group project assessment. One of the reasons I chose this component to be changed throughout this semester is that group work needs a good level of motivation and engagement, and students should actively participate. Second, this is quite a long journey to complete (around 5 weeks), so any changes could make a big impact overall.

Empowering students was conducted by giving them chances to set their own group policies. In particular, the group project requires a good level of collaboration and willingness to make contributions to each of the members. In case students observe social loafing, the overall participation or teamwork could be tremendously negatively affected. Before the change, I set the group attendance policies and received peer evaluations at the end of the group project to grade students. However, I found that some groups were having trouble with certain group members regarding participation. This way of grading students' attendance or participation in their group work lacks equity since the instructor cannot fully understand each of the different situations of students. After empowering students during this semester, students were expected to first choose their leader and then discuss their own attendance policy for their assessment. I had fewer groups expressing difficulties with communication within the group this semester. I will continue to use this new practice for the next semester.

**Evidence of Instructional Change**
*Image 1: Assessment retakes*	*Image 2: Empowerment in group attendance policy*
Before the change After the change This is a revised assessment by providing "*retaking allowed*" quizzes.	Before the change After the change This is a revised attendance policy for the group assignment by having students voluntarily discuss and decide their own rules.

Course Syllabus

Pre-FLC syllabus and Schedule

MKTG-123-Section 02-Kim (Before equity-based changes)

Post FLC syllabus and Schedule

MKTG-123-Section 02-Kim (After equity-based changes)

**Faculty Bio**
	Greetings, everyone! I am Yaeeun Kim (You can call me Professor Kim), and I teach MKTG 123 Public Relations and Ethics in Business. I am a consumer behavior researcher interested in consumer psychology and purchase behavior. I hope this course is enjoyable and useful for you to understand the role of public relations in an organization.

This work was supported by:
	Grant funding from Sacramento State Division of Inclusive Excellence *Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Sacramento State.