Scaffolding Success: How Small Steps Transformed Student Learning in COMS 232

When Anne Kretsinger-Harries joined KU’s Course Design Institute (CDI) in May 2024, she brought a clear goal: redesign her COMS 232: Introduction to Rhetoric course to help students not only understand rhetorical theory but apply it meaningfully in their academic and campus lives. What emerged was a transformed course built on scaffolded assignments, formative feedback, and reflective learning.

The CDI provided Kretsinger-Harries with the tools and space to backward design her course around “big ideas” students could carry with them beyond the semester.

With peer feedback and guidance on assessment strategies, Kretsinger-Harries refined her learning goals and developed a plan to scaffold assignments toward larger outcomes.

The changes led to measurable improvements: “Excellent” ratings in research rose from 64% to 80% on Paper #1 and from 67% to 83% on Paper #2, while D/F ratings dropped significantly.

Go beyond the poster with a short Q&A with Kretsinger-Harries.

Q: How did participating in the Course Design Institute influence your approach to redesigning COMS 232?

A: "The Course Design Institute equipped me with the tools, frameworks, and space needed to backward design my COMS 232: Introduction to Rhetoric course, with a focus on the “big ideas” that students could take away at the end of the semester.

With the help of peer feedback received at the CDI, I was able to refine my learning goals and brainstorm a plan for scaffolding assignments towards larger projects and outcomes. I also appreciated the CDI’s guidance on assessment, and the focus on question like: “How will I know if students have achieved the desired results of this assignment? Of the course?” 

As a result of the CDI, I included more space for student self-reflection and smaller assignments geared towards helping students tackle challenging tasks and goals through small, incremental steps."

Q: What challenges did you encounter when introducing scaffolded assignments and self-reflection tasks, and how did students respond to these changes?

A: "Overall, I believe students responded well to the scaffolded assignments, which helped them to make small, incremental progress towards larger projects.

Since the scaffolded assignments were worth a smaller portion of the students’ grade, while also giving them an opportunity to receive early instructor (and sometimes peer) feedback, students seemed motivated to complete the assignments and to incorporate feedback they received."

"One challenge that I faced was a particularly shy/quiet class. I found that early in the semester, students were not very conversant with each other during in-class activities. 

So, to build towards planned peer workshops (which were a component of the scaffolding), I had to incorporate lots of opportunities for students to practice talking with each other in small groups so that they would feel more comfortable in the peer workshop settings.

This ranged from warm-up attendance questions to small, low-stakes discussion questions during class geared towards applying course concepts to real-world scenarios.

I ended up using a lot of worksheets to guide these small group discussions – students would complete the worksheet as a group and then share what they wrote.  When I solicited mid semester feedback from the class, students communicated that they liked the worksheets and thought that they helped facilitate more discussion."