Steve Draper
Posts: 25
 |
| 25/05/2007 15:24 |
|
The Sharp & Sutherland study demonstrates many nice features of a good learning design, particularly in the way things are woven together. Thus while the students are eventually required to design EVS questions and use them in presentations, they are exposed to them as users i.e. respondents in every class. Similarly, having to make presentations to the rest of the class both develops their "graduate skill" of presenting, but also requires them to master the course material on the topic they present on.
However to me the unique contribution of this case, relative to the existing EVS literature, is firstly the idea of moving EVS question design from teacher to students, but most of all that they report that this provoked deep discussion between students out of class. By far the majority of EVS use is, like the Bali & Keaney study, about raising student engagement in class. In the case of Mazur and those who adopt his methods, it can also greatly raise levels of deep comprehension. Yet none of this addresses the great issue particularly in first year, of promoting regular and productive work out of class: Gibbs' full principle. Since most student work at university is out of class, this is actually more important. While there are probably significant carry-over effects in many cases from in class to out of class, for instance via "metacognitive" awareness of the specific things a student does not understand and should work on, Sharp & Sutherland are reporting a more direct effect of EVS use on securing out of class deep learning and productive but unsupervised groupwork.
|
|
|
|
|
Maha Bali
Posts: 8
|
| 29/05/2007 12:14 |
|
I have to say I am very impressed by the pedagogic design and very curious as to how well the students were able to design their own questions? I understand that level 3 students are about to graduate, is that correct?
At our university, it is an effort to get instructors themselves to design higher-order questions in mutliple-choice format! I wonder how well the students did it!
I would love to hear examples of the kinds of questions the students came up with, if possible, and more details on the kind of guidelines you gave them and whatever else was done to prepare them (e.g. modeling?)
By the way, one "thermo-dynamics" instructor at our institution once had some of her older students design "ConcepTest" questions (Mazur-style) as a project, and present them to the rest of the class. As this was not my discipline I could not judge the quality of the questions!
Maha |
|
|
|
|
Debra Macfarlane
Posts: 21
.jpg)
|
| 29/05/2007 12:22 |
|
Hi,
I agree about the strength of the pedagogic design. There are lots of assessment techniques going on in this case study: self- and peer-assessment (of presentations and against set criteria), practice marking against criteria (to allow the students to understand the criteria, better assess their own and peers ability and reflect on their current learning position), giving feedback without the final assessment grade to allow students to concentrate on the comments etc. all of which are underpinned by the assessment theory and litertaure.
On top of this ARS has been introduced to students slowly and methodically allowing them to be comfortable in owning the process.
I wonder though, to what extent does ARS lead to the learning gains outlined and what gains would be there anyway, given the considered assessment and course design, without the technology? |
|
|
|
|
Angela Sutherland
Posts: 4
|
| 29/05/2007 13:18 |
|
Hello Maha,
Students were exposed to different kinds of questions posed by the lecturer throughout the lectures, which gave them a foundation from which to start working from. We also created a documentation based on two articles; Thalheimer and Fellenz as a way of coaching students towards designing appropriate multiple choice questions to embed in their presentations, and which would hopefully stimulate class discussion. The guidance included generic considerations such as avoiding ambiguity and double negatives.
What was important to note - students were not told how many questions to include, where to place them in the presentation, or the final style/s to adopt. This was left to the students' own initiative.
We went back to speak to the students about five months after the module was completed to further investigate the student experience. What was poignant, was that students actually remembered the questions they asked without prompting and also remembered questions posed by other groups.
One example of a question posed by one group was "Do you think that leadership can be learned?" Students acknowledged that this question was designed to stimulate class discussion. |
|
|
|
|
Andy Sharp
Posts: 11
|
| 29/05/2007 13:51 |
|
HI Maha
One thing Angela never mentioned about encouraging studentst to create questions that may be pertinent, was that we gave students the ARS software so that they could create questions in their own time. We gave students a session showing them how to install the software into Powerpoint and how to create questions in powerpoint using the software. If they had difficulties they could send the presentation for me to check over and to check that questions were created properly. |
|
|
|
|
Chris Hall
Posts: 3
|
| 29/05/2007 14:03 |
|
| What i really liked from this is that by participating in these activities this group of learners found value from their peers, and may be more inclined to collaborate in future. |
|
|
|
|
Angela Sutherland
Posts: 4
|
| 29/05/2007 14:09 |
|
Hello Debra,
During the post module feedback sessions, students overwhelmingly asserted that there was no point in asking questions during the presentations without the use of ARS, as the technology provided the structure to encourage all other students to listen attentively, in order to be able to answer the questions. To this end, students have carried out presentations since this module was carried out and have chosen specifically not to ask questions, as ARS clickers were crucial to actively engage the other students to participate in the presentation. |
|
|
|
|
Alec Wersun
Posts: 7
|
| 29/05/2007 18:27 |
|
| I like the "fun" element that is embedded in the use of this technology, as it seems central to participation. To what degree do you think that use of technology in this way may create a "turn-off" effect when students revert to more conventional methods of instruction? Will it polarise? Will judgements be made on the basis of "technology good" - "no-technology bad?". |
|
|
|
|
Angela Sutherland
Posts: 4
|
| 29/05/2007 23:11 |
|
Hello Alec, it would depend on the degree to which students felt it was useful to them, not merely in bringing a novelty 'fun' element but also, in providing a scaffold for facilitating student learning. However, (student) self-awareness of additional learning benefits and added value gained, by way of experiencing ARS and such technologies is crucial to avoid students reverting to more traditional pedagogies.
If it was merely to be used as an 'alternative way' of communicating with others, then this technology would be very short lived, once the novelty wears off as it requires a students to adopt a proactive approach to their learning in using the system. I.e. in our case study students had to learn about allocated topic areas prior to them being able to determine appropriate and challenging questions to stimulate other students to participate in class discussion. If students don't perceive acknowledged benefits then it may, as you say create a 'turn-off' effect as ultimately, student want to learn and if the technology provides no benefits, then students won't wish to use it after the fun wears off.
In the focus group feedback session students clearly asserted that they remembered more, and their recall of the subject area was much stronger as a direct result of using the ARS system. This was over and above the enjoyability factor conveyed. The only concern students raised - a concern which I'm sure is shared by every lecturer, is the availability, dependability and reliability of the technology in providing consistent quality which ensures students' endeavours are never thwarted.
|
|
|
|
|
Andy Sharp
Posts: 11
|
| 30/05/2007 00:09 |
|
Hi Chris
we deliberately mixed the groups to break up the existing friendship groups. This meant that students were forced to work with people they knew but hat groups had to go through the stages of forming, storming etc. Students indicated that after the formal exercises were over that they had formed new friendships and planned to continue to work with the new friends across other modules. To me this indicates that students perceive a value in retaining the working relationships. The other benefit from this is that good quality relationships can act as a buffer against pressures which can have a positive impact on retention rates. |
|
|
|
|
Andy Sharp
Posts: 11
|
| 30/05/2007 00:36 |
|
Hi Alec
We asked students on a number of occasions as to whether they would advocate using ARS in other modules there was almost unanimous agreement about extending the use of the technology. I dont think that this technology is in of itself a "silver bullet" everything depends on the way it is embedded with the pedagogy. the pedagogy determines whether the effect of ARS is postive neutral or negative.
In looking at a turn-off effect in non-technology enabled classes I think it would pretty much depend on the way individual students relate to modules. Whether they see the connections between different modules say as part of a programme or, sees each one as a unique package in itself, which would include aspects of the relationship between students and the lecturer the lecturers personality etc.
What we did discover in post evaluation meetings with students was that they felt very strongly that the technology was an enabler which allowed participation that would not have occurred were it not present. In addition they said that they would not have asked questions of their colleagues as they believe that there would have been minimal particpation without the benefit of anonimity offerred by the technology. This would also negate much of the beneficial group discussion outside of the class. These discussions relate to what they know about the topics (personal awareness) and what they believe their peers would /should know about the topic (higher order thinking). |
|
|
|
|
|
