Qs Learning Stories Risks/Rewards
Posted on March 25, 2008
Filed under Conversations, CourseDesign, LearningStories
Larry Beck, Chad Harris and Jacki Leak each answered audience questions about their course designs. We didn’t get to all the questions so here are some more.
For everyone
- Has anyone really figured out how to do online exams?
- Have any of you used the jigsaw technique? If so, what were the results?
- What about your workload? Preparing/reviewing and managing for both class and web-based class?
For Larry and Jacki,
- What is a WebQuest?
For Larry:
- How do you actually prepare and give lectures for Captivate? How long did it take?
- How complex was this information presented in Captivate? Was the content the same or different from your f2f lecture?
For Chad
- What about the “audience effect” associated with the quality of student work on the wiki?
- What about the extended shelf life of work posted on the wiki?
- What level of technological sophistication do students need to have to use Wikispaces?
- How do you address the “unfiltered” nature of material posted on the Wiki? At what point do you discuss/analyze?
For Jackie
- Was there a difference between the amount & intensity of information disclosed online verses in class?
Comments
14 Responses to “Qs Learning Stories Risks/Rewards”
Leave a Reply
Tweets Social Software Luncheon- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
A WebQuest is an inquiry-oriented lesson format in which most or all the information that learners work with comes from the web. The model was developed by Bernie Dodge at San Diego State University in February, 1995 with early input from SDSU/Pacific Bell Fellow Tom March, the Educational Technology staff at San Diego Unified School District, and waves of participants each summer at the Teach the Teachers Consortium.
http://webquest.org/
What about your workload?
This is a very important question. To be as diplomatic as possible, I will say that this encompassed a “considerable” amount of work.
One aspect has to do with determining exactly what you are going to do with your course design. I was in a unique position because I had committed to the redesign of RTM 305 and yet I was teaching RTM 404 for the first time in the fall. It wasn’t possible for me to be exposed to the “blended” approach to learning and not incorporate that into the new course as well. All of this took a great deal of thought and attention to detail.
Another aspect was learning and making application of the technology (Captivate, WebQuests, Wikis, Blackboard strategies, etc.) and developing online assignments. The Captivate sessions, in particular, were time-consuming. To repeat what I said in the presentation today, I received a tremendous amount of help with these technologies.
Yet another aspect was putting the plans into action and monitoring the blended approach carefully over the semester with the notion that there would be significant changes in the next semester based on what I learned. So, I was planning for the Spring semester as I was immersed in the Fall.
Finally, I devoted a lot of time to writing lengthy questionnaires and analyzing the survey results collected from the two classes. (What I presented today, and the more extensive “First Iteration Course Design” that is posted on this site, represent only a portion of what I collected and analyzed.)
In sum, I worked long hours on the blended approach to these two classes and continue to devote much time to them. That said, the incredible amount that I’ve learned, the rewards of collaboration, and the positive responses of my students make it all worthwhile.
How do you actually prepare and give lectures for Captivate? How long did it take?
A Concise Clinic on Captivate: Part I
The first thing you need to do is learn how to use the program. Jon Rizzo will be offering a faculty workshop on Friday, April 25, 10-12.
The program itself is not overwhelming and actually kind of fun.
How do you actually prepare and give lectures for Captivate? How long did it take?
A Concise Clinic on Captivate: Part II
You need to type transcripts of your lectures. This is tedious, but necessary 1) as a script and 2) for using the closed-captioning feature for Universal Design Learning requirements. What you will find is that these lectures become very focused because you don’t want to type any more than you have to.
How do you actually prepare and give lectures for Captivate? How long did it take?
A Concise Clinic on Captivate: Part III
The next step is to record your voice over your PowerPoint slides. As I piloted my work over the summer I found that my original slides were up for an unbearable length of time. In class students could look at me or the screen, but with Captivate they are only looking at the screen. Students are accustomed to images flashing in at them. Therefore, I found it necessary to go back and double and even triple the number of slides so students wouldn’t be bored to death.
How do you actually prepare and give lectures for Captivate? How long did it take?
A Concise Clinic on Captivate: Part IV
The next thing you have to do is add the closed-captioning. Since you already have the transcript, it is simply a matter of cutting and pasting the narrative into “bubbles” for closed-captioning. As I mentioned in my presentation today, given a choice of captions or no captions, 87% of the students preferred the captions.
How do you actually prepare and give lectures for Captivate? How long did it take?
A Concise Clinic on Captivate: Part V
The last step is to transfer your “lecture” to Blackboard.
How do you actually prepare and give lectures for Captivate? How long did it take?
A (NOT SO) Concise Clinic on Captivate: Part VI
It took a long time.
However, this approach was much more convenient for students and they liked these lessons as an option on Fridays as I reported in my presentation.
Not only that, but the Captivate program allows students to pause and jot down notes or go back and review slides. Or they can review the whole thing if they want to (and many did). So, Captivate presentations may be more effective since students have unlimited opportunities to review and learn the material.
How complex was this information presented in Captivate? Was the content the same or different from your f2f lecture?
Almost missed this one…
The information was pretty straightforward and exactly the same as presented in class.
As far as online testing is concerned, here are the recommendations that I have culled from the existing literature:
1. require a password in order to access the test
2. allow one attempt at completing the test
3. make the test available within a brief time period (e.g., window from 1-4 pm on Thursday)
4. provide a time limit for the completion of the test (e.g., you have 75 minutes to complete this test)
5. in constructing the test, decrease the use of factual/definition multiple choice questions and increase the use of conceptual/applied multiple choice questions
6. scramble/randomize the presentation of BOTH questions AND answers
7. randomly select multiple choice items on the test from a larger pool (e.g., 40 items drawn from a pool of 70 items)
8. include a test ethics/honor statement item in the test itself (e.g., I promise not to cheat on this test)
9. do a low-stakes quiz as a dry-run to identify and permit the fixing of any problems.
I know that faculty have lots of concerns about online testing. I, however, am no more concerned about the integrity of online testing than I am about the integrity of face-to-face testing in huge courses (I teach two sections of 500 students each). I don’t foresee any greater opportunities for cheating in online tests than there are for cheating in tests in such huge classes.
For a terrific article on “Designing Online Courses to Discourage Dishonesty,” check out this link:
http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eqm0348.pdf
What about the “audience effect” associated with the quality of student work on the wiki?
Not sure what you mean by “audience effect.”
What about the extended shelf life of work posted on the wiki?
Also, not sure what you mean by “extended shelf life.” The wiki is open to the public for as long as you allow. The one from last semester is still up, but I haven’t checked to see if students and/or the public are still posting to it.
Are you perhaps referring to the topical nature of the content, that perhaps links for the current election will be outdated in a short period of time?
What level of technological sophistication do students need to have to use Wikispaces?
The wiki space is easy to use, since it is literally a web page that can be edited without any knowledge of HTML. Wiki pages have simple text editor interfaces that are usually simple enough to be self-explanatory.
Some students gripe about finding some of it complex, but they usually work through the issues, and the trouble-shooting aspect I believe has it’s own pedagogical value - they often collaborate to figure out problems, like the use of Widgits, which are simple graphics they can attach to YouTube links and whatnot. The Students actually taught me how to use these through the discussion board that is attached to every page.
So that is the beauty of the wiki space - very easy to use, but has the sophistication of a real web page. Some teachers use wikis like MySpace - they require their students to all have their own page on a wiki, and you can design it just like your own MySpace page, except you don’t have the set categories like “My Hobbies,” etc. You create your own categories, on any topic you like. A little bit more free in it’s design potential.
How do you address the “unfiltered” nature of material posted on the Wiki? At what point do you discuss/analyze?
This is an important question, and constitutes the next step in really using wiki’s to build on student’s own knowledge of Media and Society. I’m currently trying to figure out ways to build on the work they have already done with their topics, and Jim Julius and I are still in the brainstorming stage, so any suggestions will help.
Of course, the sheer amount of content on the spaces so far (with 195 students, keep in mind), precludes analysis of all of it. But already we have picked out certain images and links to discuss in lecture, where I link it to course material in the book and lectures. For example, we analyzed a couple of the model images to talk about the ways gender is represented in imagery, how imagery interpolates its viewers through eye contact and the politics of the gaze, etc. So we have done some analysis together, in lecture, using material the students provided in the wiki space.
But again, any suggestions on how to further analyze the work are welcome.