A year ago, I introduced the use of Nicenet (www.nicenet.org/) in my teaching at the foundation course.
I don't use the forum as the students see each other every day so they may feel that it doesn't help them communicate better (though it would get them to write more in English and this would help. I use the documents section as a wiki and also for me to post the content of my presentations ,the links section and the facility for sending group e-mails.
Relative advantage
The use of documents helps students get my notes, it works better than collaborative pen and paper poster activities, it is the only way I have to give them links and constantly update them, it allows me to send e-mails. Overall it allows me to do new things and to do the usual things better.
Compatibility
fully compatible with their use of technology in every day life, but it goes against their views about learning and teaching: in China they only get lectures
Complexity
None, but remembering a password seems always a challenge for them. Motivation is not always high as other tutors ask them to do so much that they only do the minimum.
Triability
I have tried to use various features of nicenet with other groups.
Observability
The work done is published.
Friday, 27 February 2009
Sunday, 22 February 2009
Disability support in computer-based assessment
http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/case-studies/tangible/nottingham/index_html1/view
Main issues
-the move towards increased online assessment could exacerbate any potential disadvantages for individuals with certain forms of disability.
- need to focus on the measurement of subject matter understanding rather than a students' ability to interact with a particular assessment format.
Requirements
- a system that accommodates different needs( depending on the disability)
- a system that can be used quickly
- and that works on any computer
Use of Touchstone which allows the customisation An extra table within the main system has been added; it has the advantage that accommodations can be 'distributed' to any client machine that the candidate sits at for an exam and is easy to centrally administer. A new simple interface has been added to the system to allow non-technical staff to easily set student preferences.
Users can change a number of different colours that are used: font size, background, foreground, headings, number of marks, and notes, time allowed.
Benefits
- system caters for several disabilities
- can be centrally controlled through the creation of personal profiles within the system
- Touchstone caters for students who cannot use a mouse
- the system calculates the extra time and display this to users
Disadvantages
- upfront development time to alter the CAA system to be more flexible
- IT support personnel must work closely together to ensure that students are made aware of what adjustments can be made, what would be most suitable for them, and then to ensure that any that are performed work as intended
Main issues
-the move towards increased online assessment could exacerbate any potential disadvantages for individuals with certain forms of disability.
- need to focus on the measurement of subject matter understanding rather than a students' ability to interact with a particular assessment format.
Requirements
- a system that accommodates different needs( depending on the disability)
- a system that can be used quickly
- and that works on any computer
Use of Touchstone which allows the customisation An extra table within the main system has been added; it has the advantage that accommodations can be 'distributed' to any client machine that the candidate sits at for an exam and is easy to centrally administer. A new simple interface has been added to the system to allow non-technical staff to easily set student preferences.
Users can change a number of different colours that are used: font size, background, foreground, headings, number of marks, and notes, time allowed.
Benefits
- system caters for several disabilities
- can be centrally controlled through the creation of personal profiles within the system
- Touchstone caters for students who cannot use a mouse
- the system calculates the extra time and display this to users
Disadvantages
- upfront development time to alter the CAA system to be more flexible
- IT support personnel must work closely together to ensure that students are made aware of what adjustments can be made, what would be most suitable for them, and then to ensure that any that are performed work as intended
Saturday, 21 February 2009
Use of summative computer assisted assessment in Applied Technology and Finance
http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/case-studies/tangible/leeds/index_html
Context
- module of 'Applied Technology and Finance' taken in semester one of level 1 by students on both tourism and events management courses
- 350 students
- many students are weak in numeracy and IT literacy
-change driven by staff
Problems/reasons to introduce new method
-paper tests took a considerable amount of time to mark and feedback to 350 students
- impossible to give the students multiple opportunities to receive feedback
- need to introduce students to the rigid deadlines demanded by the University
New method
- 5 stage tests worth 10% each and an end exam worth 50%
- Tests have both formative and summative aspects.
-Every two weeks starting at week three the students had to take a test (summative assessment) with the questions based on the activities of the previous two weeks along with a small number of the questions based on the supplementary reading and activities
- immediate results, feedback at the end of the week
- design implemented at the beginning by WebCT experts and later by all tutors
-students were thoroughly briefed before assessments and before the end exam
- students would get 20 questions presented randomly from a bank of 30 questions to avoid cheating. Also answers randomised in multiple choice questions.
- only plausible excuses accepted for missed tests
- WebCT Vista and Respondos were used; students were expected to know how to use thse tools for use in other modules
Benefits
- tutor time reduced to 20 hrs from 120 hrs (supervison, marking, standardisation..)
-learning objects are re-usable
--staff satisfaction
- possibility to use theis method to other modules
- marked improvement in attendance during weeks where tests took place
- results were sent to personal tutors immediately - possibility to follow up on any problems
- mean mark increase from 53% to 63%
- past questions for final exam posted online: those who did them gained 15% more
- students less apprehensive of taking a Finance subject since they get regular feedback on how they are doing.
- savings in costs and time
-students were engaged because of the small amounts of summative assessment spread over the module
Disadvantages
- initial cost and time to develop the learning objects
- new staff teaching on the module require an induction (general approach, how to develop questions, quality assurance)but skills are re-usable
- one type of feedback does not necessarily fit all students.
Conditions
- This approach works best in modules with large numbers of students where the initial outlay of time and effort will have a bigger pay off at a later date.
- important to have a few technologists among the tutors
- tutors need to modify their teaching to embed the new assessment method
Context
- module of 'Applied Technology and Finance' taken in semester one of level 1 by students on both tourism and events management courses
- 350 students
- many students are weak in numeracy and IT literacy
-change driven by staff
Problems/reasons to introduce new method
-paper tests took a considerable amount of time to mark and feedback to 350 students
- impossible to give the students multiple opportunities to receive feedback
- need to introduce students to the rigid deadlines demanded by the University
New method
- 5 stage tests worth 10% each and an end exam worth 50%
- Tests have both formative and summative aspects.
-Every two weeks starting at week three the students had to take a test (summative assessment) with the questions based on the activities of the previous two weeks along with a small number of the questions based on the supplementary reading and activities
- immediate results, feedback at the end of the week
- design implemented at the beginning by WebCT experts and later by all tutors
-students were thoroughly briefed before assessments and before the end exam
- students would get 20 questions presented randomly from a bank of 30 questions to avoid cheating. Also answers randomised in multiple choice questions.
- only plausible excuses accepted for missed tests
- WebCT Vista and Respondos were used; students were expected to know how to use thse tools for use in other modules
Benefits
- tutor time reduced to 20 hrs from 120 hrs (supervison, marking, standardisation..)
-learning objects are re-usable
--staff satisfaction
- possibility to use theis method to other modules
- marked improvement in attendance during weeks where tests took place
- results were sent to personal tutors immediately - possibility to follow up on any problems
- mean mark increase from 53% to 63%
- past questions for final exam posted online: those who did them gained 15% more
- students less apprehensive of taking a Finance subject since they get regular feedback on how they are doing.
- savings in costs and time
-students were engaged because of the small amounts of summative assessment spread over the module
Disadvantages
- initial cost and time to develop the learning objects
- new staff teaching on the module require an induction (general approach, how to develop questions, quality assurance)but skills are re-usable
- one type of feedback does not necessarily fit all students.
Conditions
- This approach works best in modules with large numbers of students where the initial outlay of time and effort will have a bigger pay off at a later date.
- important to have a few technologists among the tutors
- tutors need to modify their teaching to embed the new assessment method
Friday, 20 February 2009
Roger's categories
How far can you apply Roger's model to a context you know – a current or past place of work, or a less formal situation? For example, can you link it to an innovation in elearning?
The course L195 ( OU Beginners Italian),which was launched a year ago, introduced in one go: Lyceum, forums, blogs and wikis, e-TMAs, podcasts, interactive exercises and Audacity for speaking tasks. No foreign languages had ever been taught completely online before and the whole structure of the course was designed to create a completely new learning experience.
So how can the stakeholders be classified using Roger's categories?
Course designers/ course team - they were innovators/early adopters - They had some knowledge of the educational value of the new tools and associated learning experience, but had not thought/ had no funding to support the tutors with training (this meant that many tutors were not able to support the students) Also the number of tools that was introduced suggested a wish to use the technology because it was available and it was said to have educational value, but the way tasks had been designed was not always conducive to learning. They took a huge risk and had to endure much heated criticism.
The tutors - some were early adopted (like me) mostly because they knew what to do with the new tools, believed that a combination of these (not all at once) could work and tried to help colleagues and students. Some were an early majority and tried their best to understand and cope: they offered constrctive feedback, welcomed dialogue and asked for training. Not all of these are convinced yet about the suitability of the innovations introduced. Some were clearly a late minority: some of these criticised everything and left.
The students - judging from my 20 students and those who wrote on the general forums the large majority behaved as late majority, 10% were early adopters and a good number ( I can't quantify)were laggards. The laggards refused to use the online tools; some were disillusioned and stressed and dropped out .
The students' attitudes can be justified by the fact that most are retired, some are elderly, the majority wants to learn Italian because they associate this language with the things of the past: the Renaissance, the historic centre of Italian towns, the opera and traditional regional food. For them, innovation and technology have nothing to do with all this nor with the way have they been studying in the past. Some were suspicious about the use of broadband, others demanded cassettes and CDs and more face-to- face tutorials. Many refused all these innovations, boycotted them and just used the books which were not sufficient to pass the course.
My conclusion Our reaction to innovation depends on our background, age, past experiences and expectations. It is possible to change as a result of experience, training and, most of all, the possibility (always present at the OU) and a willingness to discuss things in a constructive way.
The course L195 ( OU Beginners Italian),which was launched a year ago, introduced in one go: Lyceum, forums, blogs and wikis, e-TMAs, podcasts, interactive exercises and Audacity for speaking tasks. No foreign languages had ever been taught completely online before and the whole structure of the course was designed to create a completely new learning experience.
So how can the stakeholders be classified using Roger's categories?
Course designers/ course team - they were innovators/early adopters - They had some knowledge of the educational value of the new tools and associated learning experience, but had not thought/ had no funding to support the tutors with training (this meant that many tutors were not able to support the students) Also the number of tools that was introduced suggested a wish to use the technology because it was available and it was said to have educational value, but the way tasks had been designed was not always conducive to learning. They took a huge risk and had to endure much heated criticism.
The tutors - some were early adopted (like me) mostly because they knew what to do with the new tools, believed that a combination of these (not all at once) could work and tried to help colleagues and students. Some were an early majority and tried their best to understand and cope: they offered constrctive feedback, welcomed dialogue and asked for training. Not all of these are convinced yet about the suitability of the innovations introduced. Some were clearly a late minority: some of these criticised everything and left.
The students - judging from my 20 students and those who wrote on the general forums the large majority behaved as late majority, 10% were early adopters and a good number ( I can't quantify)were laggards. The laggards refused to use the online tools; some were disillusioned and stressed and dropped out .
The students' attitudes can be justified by the fact that most are retired, some are elderly, the majority wants to learn Italian because they associate this language with the things of the past: the Renaissance, the historic centre of Italian towns, the opera and traditional regional food. For them, innovation and technology have nothing to do with all this nor with the way have they been studying in the past. Some were suspicious about the use of broadband, others demanded cassettes and CDs and more face-to- face tutorials. Many refused all these innovations, boycotted them and just used the books which were not sufficient to pass the course.
My conclusion Our reaction to innovation depends on our background, age, past experiences and expectations. It is possible to change as a result of experience, training and, most of all, the possibility (always present at the OU) and a willingness to discuss things in a constructive way.
Phased online summative assessment in undergraduate accounting
CAMEL (tangible benefits of e-learning) Case Study: University of Glamorgan, Phased online summative assessment in undergraduate accounting
http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/case-studies/tangible/glamorgan/index_html
Context
-first year accounting students
Problem
- Students' poor performance
- lack of participation in the learning process
- superficial engagement in the topic area
Aims
- measure development
- identify area that need support
- provide timely feedback to promote self reflection
- use feedback to promote learning
End of course assessment
- an in-class time-constrained case study, weighted 30%,
- an end of year 3 hours' time-constrained examination.
New online assessment method in addition to end of course texts
- phased: 5 texts from October to March
- 60 questions per test: multiple-choice, multiple-response, true/false, yes/no and text match questions
- Feedback provided:score for the test, a summary of the questions asked and the student answers to those questions and an explanation of the incorrect answers.
- 50 minutes, supervised, several sittings due to the size of the labs.
-questions shuffled to prevent cheating
Benefits
- improved performance at end of course assessment
- students liked to be tested on small areas of the syllabus rather than one test covering many topics
- students thought that this assessment encouraged them to allocate their study time appropriately throughout the year
- students thought that testing gave opportunities for self-assessment, evaluation and reflection at an early stage and throughout the year
- it allowed them to get timely feedback
- it helped them get organised and do a bit at a time/easier to revise at the end
- after the initial effort to create the materials, tutors have no extra workload
- incerased motivation and time management
- possibility to diagnose problems early and give support
- increased student learning and participation in the learning process.
My comments
- It is not clear if the marks count towards the final mark
- it is not necessary to use the technology for a phased assessment approach
- the technology makes the teachers' work easier
- the technology allows the quality of materials and feedback to be the same for all students
- even in accounting the use of multiple choice questions is not sufficient to test understanding
The use of technology at my college
These are the three statements that my college includes in its mission statement:
Collaboration to deliver learning
Innovation to develop learning
Imagination to foster learning
Innovation is not seen as a way to deliver learning, but to develop it. This seems to be based on the idea that learners benefit from having tools and opportunities that allow them to create- develop- their own learning.
Yet this is not always what is done. In my department there have been several technological changes:
- the introduction of projectors
- computers in every classroom
- laptops for every student in certain rooms
- wireless connection for students' laptops
- the college moodle
But are these used to develop learning?
This is what I have noticed so far:
- computers and projectors are used for presentations to support lectures or for student presentations
- the moodle is used as a repository of information; wiki and fora are not used
- laptops + wireless connection are used to get students to research topics (retrieve information) in class
While all this looks quite new and 'trendy' it is just a way of doing the usual old things, (i.e. basically delivering information through lectures and data) in a new way. But everybody is still teaching in the old way. The technology hasn't changed anything, so there hasn't been innovation but just minor changes. These may have introduced an element of stress as if it doesn't work (or where there are restrictions imposed by the college restrictions on Internet) lesson plans fall apart. This is why many tutors say that technology is disruptive and just masks some bad teachers' inability to teach.
What is needed to is a good deal of funds to introduce training more time for professional development and possibly some innovators amongst those who make decisions and write the syllabuses.
Collaboration to deliver learning
Innovation to develop learning
Imagination to foster learning
Innovation is not seen as a way to deliver learning, but to develop it. This seems to be based on the idea that learners benefit from having tools and opportunities that allow them to create- develop- their own learning.
Yet this is not always what is done. In my department there have been several technological changes:
- the introduction of projectors
- computers in every classroom
- laptops for every student in certain rooms
- wireless connection for students' laptops
- the college moodle
But are these used to develop learning?
This is what I have noticed so far:
- computers and projectors are used for presentations to support lectures or for student presentations
- the moodle is used as a repository of information; wiki and fora are not used
- laptops + wireless connection are used to get students to research topics (retrieve information) in class
While all this looks quite new and 'trendy' it is just a way of doing the usual old things, (i.e. basically delivering information through lectures and data) in a new way. But everybody is still teaching in the old way. The technology hasn't changed anything, so there hasn't been innovation but just minor changes. These may have introduced an element of stress as if it doesn't work (or where there are restrictions imposed by the college restrictions on Internet) lesson plans fall apart. This is why many tutors say that technology is disruptive and just masks some bad teachers' inability to teach.
What is needed to is a good deal of funds to introduce training more time for professional development and possibly some innovators amongst those who make decisions and write the syllabuses.
Formative e-assessment in economics
Formative e-assessment in Economics
http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/case-studies/tangible/derby/index_html/view
Problems
- high failure rates because:
SS haven't studied economics before and lack the necessary skills for model
building approach
SS have inadequate self-regulated learning skills in first year
Lectures don't promote self-regulating skills
- subject requires regular practice and development of knowledge and skills over short time span
- low retention rate
Solution
'... to reduce failure rates amongst full-time students through improving self-regulating learning through computer-based formative private study.'
Challenges
- need to use computers with a lot of memory: programme accessible from univ. only.
- part time and distance SS would not easily access the materials
- many SS never consider the online element: advertising was needed
- many SS would use the formative materials instead of going to lectures
What was included in the materials:
- extensive feedback loops( errors generate more explanations+ examples+ return )
- interactive learning activities and interactive formative assessment
- conceptual knowledge
- automated advice and activities for improvement,
- multiple attempts,
- staged development and continuous formative grades
Method
- simulations, drag and pull diagrams, recognition exercises,
- calculation activities,
- and concept identification activities,
Activities were linked to lectures (before as preparation and after as reinforcement and additional learning), other materials and summative assessment. They kept the student active and provide continuous feedback whilst building knowledge and skills.
Monitoring
Student engagement was monitored (number of times they accessed, the time spent at each access, the level of progression at each access and a summary score) Inactive students were contacted and offered a clinic.
Advantages
- increase in mean scores for all assessments relative to both 2003 and 2004
- rise in the top end performance at A and B grades and a fall in the failure rates in the final assessment
- positive informal feedback (materials help understand and apply the information and prepares for the exam) and formal feedback (incerased interest in topic, gave them confidence)
- reduced drop out rate
- no negative effect on attendance
- weak students spotted and helped early
- supported students whose first language is not English
- promoted staff development
- e-learning was adopted by other department as a result
-the formative materials lead directly to a new computer-based final assessment
- reduction in marking time; more time for materials development and monitoring
Disadvantages
- materials development, error resolution, evaluation time consuming
- possible only with a very good IT support team and large number of students
- materials need continuous development
- coursework results not affected
The materials now form the central component of the teaching and learning strategy for first year economics and data analysis within the business school.
Notes/lessons learned
- changes in self-regulated learning were not seen (inappropriately measures) yet these were the real objectives!
-SS must see a direct and obvious benefit or they will not use the materials
- essential to discuss benefits/ dissemination in class
http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/case-studies/tangible/derby/index_html/view
Problems
- high failure rates because:
SS haven't studied economics before and lack the necessary skills for model
building approach
SS have inadequate self-regulated learning skills in first year
Lectures don't promote self-regulating skills
- subject requires regular practice and development of knowledge and skills over short time span
- low retention rate
Solution
'... to reduce failure rates amongst full-time students through improving self-regulating learning through computer-based formative private study.'
Challenges
- need to use computers with a lot of memory: programme accessible from univ. only.
- part time and distance SS would not easily access the materials
- many SS never consider the online element: advertising was needed
- many SS would use the formative materials instead of going to lectures
What was included in the materials:
- extensive feedback loops( errors generate more explanations+ examples+ return )
- interactive learning activities and interactive formative assessment
- conceptual knowledge
- automated advice and activities for improvement,
- multiple attempts,
- staged development and continuous formative grades
Method
- simulations, drag and pull diagrams, recognition exercises,
- calculation activities,
- and concept identification activities,
Activities were linked to lectures (before as preparation and after as reinforcement and additional learning), other materials and summative assessment. They kept the student active and provide continuous feedback whilst building knowledge and skills.
Monitoring
Student engagement was monitored (number of times they accessed, the time spent at each access, the level of progression at each access and a summary score) Inactive students were contacted and offered a clinic.
Advantages
- increase in mean scores for all assessments relative to both 2003 and 2004
- rise in the top end performance at A and B grades and a fall in the failure rates in the final assessment
- positive informal feedback (materials help understand and apply the information and prepares for the exam) and formal feedback (incerased interest in topic, gave them confidence)
- reduced drop out rate
- no negative effect on attendance
- weak students spotted and helped early
- supported students whose first language is not English
- promoted staff development
- e-learning was adopted by other department as a result
-the formative materials lead directly to a new computer-based final assessment
- reduction in marking time; more time for materials development and monitoring
Disadvantages
- materials development, error resolution, evaluation time consuming
- possible only with a very good IT support team and large number of students
- materials need continuous development
- coursework results not affected
The materials now form the central component of the teaching and learning strategy for first year economics and data analysis within the business school.
Notes/lessons learned
- changes in self-regulated learning were not seen (inappropriately measures) yet these were the real objectives!
-SS must see a direct and obvious benefit or they will not use the materials
- essential to discuss benefits/ dissemination in class
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
