Qs from Learning Story Luncheon
Posted on February 27, 2008
Filed under Conversations, CourseDesign, LearningStories
We didn’t get to these questions at the luncheon. Let’s try to get them here.
- How do you mediate student conflicts/use of inappropriate statements on discussion boards? (E.g Social work courses that cover sensitive discussion areas)
- Did grades change with these new approaches (passive vs. active)
- Have students objected to the new student outcomes? (E.g. “Define is an easier task than “explicate”)
- How do you prepare them to do this higher level work with course content?
- Will students start choosing such tech-rich courses over other traditional courses?
- Have you experienced any “push-back” from students who object to increased use of technology in your course?
- How do you smooth the transitions between online and in class activities?
- What percentage of your students just don’t get the technology?
- What type of support is provided (orientation to BB, referrals to student computing)
- How would you like to be supported beyond what you’re already receiving from ITS, pICT, your college?
- How do you reconcile individual learning with the benefits of cooperative learning (e.g. discussion groups). Aren’t there contradictions?
For Jesse
- How did you individualize learning for the students?
- Is the information you now present in class basically the same as if was under the old bullet-point regime?
- Copyright issues for using images?
For Tim and Vinod
- Can you tell us more about the type of activities students do outside of class or online.
Comments
11 Responses to “Qs from Learning Story Luncheon”
Leave a Reply
Tweets Social Software Luncheon- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Will students start choosing such tech-rich courses over other traditional courses?
ECAR’s 2007 study of undergraduates’ use of ITC shows that faculty competence using ICT is a factor in their satisfaction and learning. Mark Laumakis’ has begun noticing that students are asking for the blended section of his Psych 101 course more. There’s no definitive answer, but I think we can expect that when students experience a well-designed course, they’ll want more. I think it’s a quality issue not so much a technology issue
I’d like to comment on student reactions to these increasingly demanding learning objectives…
Explicate is, in fact, more difficult to do than define. One major struggle related to this in my Intro Psych course is just adjusting students to my expectations about good assessment. Namely, they come to my class expecting me to ask them to recognize definitions of terms in my multiple choice test items. However, I want them to demonstrate an ability to apply course concepts to examples and that’s how I test them.
Their biggest complaint is typically that the tests are too “hard.” I think “hard” translates as “he actually wants me to do something more than just recognize a term or a definition of a term.
Does anyone have similar experiences?
Will students start choosing such tech-rich courses over other traditional courses?
Based on my experience with RTM 305 and RTM 404 last semester, students responded positively to the blended approach and will seek such courses in the future. RTM 305 and 404 included WebQuests, Wikis, Captivate Adobe online presentations, and other online assignments. Asked if they would be interested in taking other blended courses the responses were 97% and 98% yes, respectively. Among other things students appreciated the novelty of the approach, but I agree with Suzanne that “it’s a quality issue and not so much a technology issue.” The use of technology is a means to an end; a more effective and more meaningful learning experience.
* How do you mediate student conflicts/use of inappropriate statements on discussion boards? (E.g Social work courses that cover sensitive discussion areas)
In JMS 200, we haven’t had any examples of this, but, if and when problems occur, the teaching assistants and I will discuss appropriate actions, guideline modifications, etc.
* Did grades change with these new approaches (passive vs. active)
Grade increased a bit in JMS 200, because students earned most of the available points for participating in in-class and online discussions.
* Have students objected to the new student outcomes? (E.g. “Define is an easier task than “explicate”)
Most students indicated they enjoyed/appreciated the opportunity to express their opinions and hear the opinion of others on the important events and issues associated with contemporary media.
* How do you prepare them to do this higher level work with course content?
In our first attempt, we didn’t do anything special to pave the way for more critical thinking, analysis, etc. The TAs did provide model responses/posts, but we’re open to innovative methods of meeting the requirements associated with the discussion sections.
* Will students start choosing such tech-rich courses over other traditional courses?
I would imagine that tech-rich courses are and will be preferred by students who have grown up in a culture that emphasizes technology.
* Have you experienced any “push-back” from students who object to increased use of technology in your course?
We had some students complain about the cost of clickers and the technical difficulties associated with them. In addition, some students have complained about the alternating weeks of F2F and online discussions. However, with 400+ students, you’re bound to have some non-believers.
* How do you smooth the transitions between online and in class activities?
In JMS 200, the F2F and online discussion sessions are based on material presented in class or contained in the textbook. What we touch on briefly during the traditional lectures or cover in the textbook is examined in more depth during the discussion sessions.
* What percentage of your students just don’t get the technology?
For clickers, about 25% didn’t enjoy the experience much. For the online discussion board, about 15% were less than thrilled.
* What type of support is provided (orientation to BB, referrals to student computing)
Minimum additional support other than links to tech support, syllabus instructions and TA explanations.
* How would you like to be supported beyond what you’re already receiving from ITS, pICT, your college?
The current level of support has been great and much appreciated. The best thing would be to have more courses/professors implementing innovative teaching/learning strategies.
* How do you reconcile individual learning with the benefits of cooperative learning (e.g. discussion groups). Aren’t there contradictions?
We haven’t done enough of this or been doing it long enough to have any great insights.
For Jesse
* How did you individualize learning for the students?
* Is the information you now present in class basically the same as if was under the old bullet-point regime?
* Copyright issues for using images?
For Tim and Vinod
* Can you tell us more about the type of activities students do outside of class or online.
In JMS 200, the F2F discussion sessions require that students take a position or defend a position associated with current issues related to contemporary media. They are assigned a question (questions developed by the lead instructor) and write a 250-word position statement. They discuss their paper in class and before they leave, they write a 2-sentence confirmation/modification statement.
In the online discussion sessions, students post a 250-word response to a question that deals with some of the fundamental issues associated with contemporary media. The questions normally come from “stop and think” questions embedded in the chapters of the textbook. After posting, two days later, all students must post a reaction comment to another student’s original post. The reaction post cannot be associated with the same question that a student used for his/her original post.
For both the F2F and online sessions, students are assigned to groups of 4-5 and each group is given a different question to address. In this way, students are exposed to/expected to think critically about at least four different media-related issues each week of the semester.
Did grades change with these new approaches?
Part I
I will address three areas in which I believe grades change with these new approaches.
Based on my experience using Adobe Captivate there are several explanations for students learning more and therefore earning higher grades.
I used the Captivate presentations on Fridays which is traditionally a “lower-attendance” day. This way EVERYONE was able to get the material (and therefore that was reflected in the grades). I posted the material Wednesday after class and left it up until the following Monday morning before class.
Furthermore, the Captivate presentations allow students to pause and review the material. My results showed that 90% of the students did this. Beyond that, students could also view the presentation multiple times and 57% of them did that. So, they had the opportunity to go over the material at their own pace and multiple times. (For some inexplicable reason one of my students was watching the online presentations two or three times a day during the time they were posted!)
One of the most exciting aspects of student response to the Captivate presentations was that 87% preferred seeing the lecture with closed captions. Being able to actually see the words of the lectures, while listening, may have contributed to better learning for visual learners.
Finally, I posted these online lectures again prior to the exams so students could review before the test.
All of these things, I believe, led to learning the material better and therefore better grades.
Did grades change with these new approaches?
Part II
I began constructing rubrics in the summer session I taught and after good results and some tinkering these were fully employed by the fall semester. The rubrics are used for all major assignments in the courses (RTM 305 and 404) which are the WebQuest/Wiki, Portfolio, and Experiential Component.
Although I have always provided evaluative criteria for all assignments, the difference with rubrics is that students get to see the continuum for meeting expectations from “developing” to “exemplary.” In other words, students were better versed in what NOT to do by studying the “developing” level of accomplishment and were, therefore, better able to achieve the “exemplary” level of performance. Students knew precisely what to do AND what not to do and were able to complete the major projects with a very high degree of competency.
Students’ increased performance on these major assignments was associated with higher grades.
Did grades change with these new approaches?
Part III
This semester I am using online quizzes to both reward students for doing the reading and preparing them for follow-up discussions in class. The quizzes are posted several days before the in-class discussions and students can complete them at their convenience. Based on my recent survey I am astounded that students could love, yes love, this policy so much. The results showed that 98% of the students are supportive of this approach. Here’s why:
I allow multiple attempts. (I should mention that I was reluctant at first, but Jon Rizzo encouraged this approach, and he was right!)
The readings quizzes “force” students to do the reading. Almost EVERYONE is completing the reading and this enhances learning and is reflected in better grades.
Students note that the quizzes “motivate” them to complete the reading. They also note that having multiple attempts helps them to better “grasp the ideas” because they can “go back and figure out what [they] originally didn’t understand.”
Many noted the convenience of being able to complete these on their own time (one student takes the quizzes between 1 and 2 a.m. due to work scheduling!). Others pointed out that this approach “reduces the pressure of the classroom environment” and others noted that this is efficient in that it “doesn’t waste class time.”
Finally, as a student pointed out, this strategy “saves paper and [we get our] scores instantly.”
Students are learning the material more effectively and are better prepared for in-class discussions. Almost everyone in the class is achieving perfect scores on the quizzes and that will be associated with higher grades.
One of the anonymous questions on the evaluation form for this Learning Stories Lunch was ” Isn’t this serving to justify overly-large classes?” I really appreciate Larry and Tim’s citation of examples and evidence in supporting their generalizations.
Did grades change with these new approaches?
I was curious and went back and looked at my GPAs for the past five years in RTM 305. The GPAs ranged from 2.7 to 3.0 with a mean of 2.85, almost exactly the same as the university average for upper division classes.
The GPA in RTM 305 for Fall 2007 (when I employed the strategies listed in the previous discussion) was 3.3!
Perhaps I had a particularly brilliant class this fall. There are any number of other variables that may have influenced this. Nonetheless, I’d suggest that these new approaches are resulting in more effective learning and therefore better grades.
Regarding the potential of students posting inappropriate responses on discussion boards:
If you don’t already provide this, I’d suggest including guidelines for appropriate responses on both the syllabus and Blackboard site, a grading rubric for posts and a sample “ideal” or “model” post.
I’ve done the above for the classes in which I’ve used the discussion board function and found that while some students don’t follow the guidelines and examples, I am able to hold them accountable and point to specific criteria when assessing posts (I assign points rather than give credit/no credit).
Just a thought.
On the Bb Support Site (student area), we have “Netiquette” guidelines you can direct your students to http://its.sdsu.edu/blackboard/student/gettingstarted/netiquette.html
Jon R.