Sep 20 – On Biggs’ idea of “backwash from assessment”:

On Biggs’ idea of “backwash from assessment”:

Typically students are not very aware of LOs, but they tend to be very focused on Assessment Tasks (ATs, which determine if they will pass the course).

Check out this article about “backwash from assessment”:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11251-005-3002-8#page-1

Students DO change their behaviors to help them achieve the ATs, so if the ATs are aligned with the LOs, then students will automatically guide themselves toward achievement of the LOs (which is what the teacher hopes)!

Sep 20 – An analogy to illustrate the SOLO levels of understanding

An analogy to illustrate the SOLO levels of understanding

Imagine a course where the teacher wants to train the students how to use construction tools, like a saw, hammer & nails, a drill, and screwdriver & screws.

The context is to build a small bridge, and the assessment objective criteria is that it must be able to support a weight of 50 kg, and perhaps some subjective assessment of “joint build quality”.

Each student can design their bridge in any way they want.

Unit 1: the teacher shows them various bridge designs, and after this unit perhaps they can IDENTIFY selected bridge designs.

Unit 2: they review and discuss various ways to join wood together and they practice making structural joints using a technique the instructor demonstrates.   After this unit the students should be able to LIST joint types and DESCRIBE how wood can be joined together, COMBINE techiques to design a joint, and they are assessed on their ability to PERFORM SERIAL SKILLS (or follow a procedure) to create joints using their tools and the wood supplied.

Unit 3: the students CREATE their first bridge designs, ANALYZE each other’s designs, COMPARE AND CONTRAST them with their groupmates in CRITICAL feedback, and are assessed on their ability to RELATE the use of various joints to the overall design of each bridge.

At this point most of the students can only create bridge designs which are very similar to what they saw in the slideshow or textbook.   A FEW students may already be capable of original creative work, and they design bridges using their own unique designs.   These students are starting to GENERALIZE THEIR LEARNING TO A NEW DOMAIN, so they have reached the Extended Abstract level.   They have GONE BEYOND the domain of bridge designs they were shown, and are applying their understanding to create new designs they have never seen before.

Unit 4: the teacher asks the students to REFLECT on their prior learning, and HYPOTHESIZE a new unique bridge design based on the concepts, materials, and principles supplied.   The students are assessed on their ability to CREATE actual wooden bridges by ANALYZING their prior designs and APPLYING THE SERIAL SKILLS to build their new bridge designs.

The students are assessed on whether their bridge can hold up 50 kg, and the teacher evaluates the quality of their joint construction.

Typically almost all of the students can pass the course at Multi-structural and Relational levels, and some of the students can now create original designs.   A few might even apply their understanding to create designs which are even outside of the domain of bridge design, such as designing a SHOPPING MALL which doubles as a bridge, or a BOAT which can motor along the river and then transform itself into a bridge!

Should Relational level be assigned a “B” grade or an “A”?    (is this an introductory or advanced bridge design class?)

Note that the top students can create designs which makes summative assessment difficult: how do you reward innovation and still require the basics?   What if it’s a great shopping mall and only a mediocre bridge?

Can the teacher expect ALL of the students to create original designs, beyond what they have been shown or taught?    (Isn’t this the requirement for PhD level work: “an original contribution to the field”?)

This is why typically the Extended Abstract level is considered to be “outside of the learning cycle”, as this level of performance demonstrates understanding BEYOND what the teacher has taught.

Sep 20 – How can we differentiate instruction to suit different levels of students?

How can we differentiate instruction to suit different levels of students?

Typically it is impossible to adjust LOs “on the fly” to suit different students, or groups of students.

What we CAN do, as teachers, is to adjust the TLAs to suit prior levels of knowledge.

For example, the percentage of students in the 6311 course with no prior experience teaching has gone up over the past 5 years from about 50% to basically 100%!    While I cannot really change the LOs of the course without going to the head of the dept and perhaps the board of examiners, I can change the TLAs: I can adjust the key readings to provide more coverage of basic knowledge (such as primers).

I can also provide additional scaffolding, or more frequent scaffolding, if some groups have smaller ZPDs than others.

Sep 19 – On Computerized Adaptive Testing

On Computerized Adaptive Testing

A good example of Computerized Adaptive Testing is the GRE exam.

It used to be adaptive on a question-by-question basis, but it was re-developed in 2011 to be adaptive on a section-by-section basis.  Ref: http://www.ets.org/gre/institutions/scores/how/

I think CAT makes summative assessment more efficient, but I think that it has tremendous potential to “personalize” formative assessment, where the computer adapts to the learner as they arelearning….so that when the learner stumbles it can go more slowly, or even back up to correct a previous misunderstanding…..and when the learner is “on a roll” and learning quickly, the computer can skip the easy questions and jump right to the most challenging ones!

Set up correctly, CAT could be the perfect one-on-one teaching tutor, who always knows what to do, and is always ready to help you, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week!

Look at how good Amazon is at “based on what book you have chosen, what other books you might be interested in”!

Another example of adaptive computerized presentation is Google Now, which constantly monitors your inputs, emails and searches, and recommends all sorts of things, like the fastest route to drive home, or what restaurants you would like that are nearby to where you are now!

Sep 15 – How is PBL different from traditional teaching?

How is PBL different from traditional teaching?

PBL is different from traditional teaching in that it requires the student to take a more active role.

The tutor presents the context (background, or scenario) of the problem, and may show the students how to use certain tools (such as a calculator or other equipment) to help solve it, but the students must actively solve the problem themselves.

Where traditional teaching generally allows the student to remain passive and just listen, the inquiry-based PBL approach is based on the idea that the students must actively construct the answer themselves.

Easy-reading resources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem-based_learning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiry-based_learning

 

 

Sep 15 – When we get peer feedback, how do we select feedback useful to our learning?

When we get peer feedback, how do we select feedback useful to our learning?

That is an excellent question: how do we select the feedback that is useful to our learning?

The key idea to the solution is that we learn to listen to those who give us useful information.

If we feel rewarded by getting positive feedback, we tend to look back and value more highly those people who gave us helpful information.

The learning theory Connectivism will help you to understand how this works: read the Wiki article and skim George Siemen’s article.   I will also give you a link to the Wiki article about neural networks, and the underlying mechanism LTP, or Long-Term Potentiation.

In the modern world where we have so much feedback from so many sources, this theory of learning may supersede the social constructivist theory in importance.

Brant

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectivism

A Learning Theory for the Digital Age, by George Siemens: http://www.ingedewaard.net/papers/connectivism/2005_siemens_ALearningTheoryForTheDigitalAge.pdf

Neural Networks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network

Long-Term Potentiation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_potentiation

Sep 15 – How does the concept of an “eCommunity” relate to MOOCs?

How does the concept of an “eCommunity” relate to MOOCs?

An eCommunity can be both a good thing, and a bad thing, depending on how you are treated as part of that community online.

The recent ride of MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) has been a good thing in that lots of people now have the opportunity to take a free course from a great instructor, but the dropout rate is very high (sometimes over 90% of the students fail to finish the course).

I suspect that loneliness plays a major role in this dropout rate: there is not much social support or networking built into most MOOC models.

EdX is one of the leading MOOC models, and HKU has signed up to this platform (although they don’t have any online MOOC courses yet): https://www.edx.org/how-it-works    https://www.edx.org/school/university%20of%20hong%20kong/allcourses

Personally I think that a good online course needs a strong eCommunity support, where the students feel they are part of a group, and there is a strong sense of belonging to that group.

Check out the 2U model in comparison: http://2u.com/about/

We will explore the use of Adobe Connect web conference meetings to support synchronous learning, which is similar to the 2U model.

If this discussion forum had 1000 students in it with no way to talk in small groups, do you think you could easily form personal connections with other students, or even maintain a coherent conversation?

Sep 15 – On using SOLO verbs to create ILOs for a course about making moon cakes

On using SOLO verbs to create ILOs for a course about making moon cakes:

How about:

After completing this course, the students will be able to:

———————————————————————–

Identify the required ingredients at a grocery store

Combine the ingredients in the proper proportions at the proper time

Describe the baking technique: time, temp, position in oven, etc

List the possible mistakes that someone new to making mooncakes might encounter

Analyze the ingredients in another type of mooncake by tasting it

Compare and contrast the different types of mooncakes made in different parts of China

Constructively criticize mooncakes made by other students to provide helpful feedback

Explain the cultural roots and history of the mooncake

Relate the mooncake to other types of baked goods in Chinese cuisine

Justify their baking method compared to others

Create an animated tutorial for teaching the mooncake baking method

Formulate a new recipe using a microwave or convection oven

Generate a Chinese/English dictionary of recipe ingredients, baking times, verbs like mixing, grinding, etc

Given the evolution of mooncake making over the years, hypothesize where the art of mooncake making might be in 20 more years

Reflect on what they have learned, and how input from other students helped them improve their baking

Theorize how mooncakes became such an important part of the Mid-Autumn Festival