Instructors provided a variety of forms of feedback. For each draft, students were given feedback based upon a rubric that had been developed over the years by Shulman and past co-instructors of the course.

In addition, this year, mid-course (around February 14), students were asked to assess and suggest changes to the rubric themselves. In order to do so, they were asked to read a set of former PLT students' cases, and consider the qualities of good cases. In their small group sections, the instructors facilitated a discussion of the qualities of good cases, asked students to assess whether the rubric captured those qualities, and then asked for suggestions regarding revisions to the existing rubric. Instructors met after class to share each group's suggestions, looked for shared suggestions, and then used the feedback to make a number of substantial changes to the rubric. We then used this revised rubric for the remainder of the course to assess and respond to case drafts as well as the final case.

You used really guided questions--you really concentrated upon one or two aspects of the case. It wasn't "your case needs xx to improve," it was more like, "Well why don't you focus upon the context for next time, and we'll work on a different aspect for the next draft." It was very focused, which helped.

--Sonya, STEP '00 student