Professors, students are neighbors in some dorms - CNN.com
Blogged with Flock
Monday, March 05, 2007
Sunday, July 02, 2006
William James Resources
William James is considered by many to be one of the most influential American philosophers, and was instrumental in the beginnings of Psychology. James' father was friends with many famous literary figures, in fact James' godfather was Ralf Waldo Emerson. James earned a doctorate of medicine from Harvard, and taught physiology and philosophy there. Today, the philosophy building at Harvard is named William James Hall. James was a very prolific writer, and to this day his works are being analyzed and applied to our understanding of psychology and learning.
“I am sure that, be it in the end judged true or false, it is essential to the evolution of clearness in philosophical thought that someone should defend a pluralistic empiricism radically."
- William James
About William James
http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/james.html#top
Comprehensive site about William James, including biography, writings, etc.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/james/
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Psychology, includes biography, life timeline, and summary of writings and contributions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James
wikipedia page for James, including biography, and summary of James’ philosophical views
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19950301-000029.html
Article on Psychology Today website about the James brothers.
http://www.psy.pdx.edu/PsiCafe/KeyTheorists/James.htm
Background information and links to other resources
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0111.html
New York Times obituary of James on August 27th, 1910.
http://www.loa.org/volume.jsp?RequestID=66§ion=notes
From the Library of America, is a summary of historical background about James’ writings.
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/07.24.97/books-9730.html
Discussion of James’ contributions to political philosophy
http://website.lineone.net/~williamjames1/
Article that discusses James’ childhood, teaching, and contributions to psychology
Writings
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/James/Principles/index.htm
This is an online version of The Principals of Psychology, the introductory psychology textbook for which James is most famous. Considered by some to be the most important psychology text in history.
http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~lward/James/documents.html
selected works of James.
http://www.mythosandlogos.com/James.html
Links to several of James’ writings and lectures
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/william_james.html
Quotes of William James
http://www.4literature.net/William_James/Pragmatism/
Online text of Pragmatism, a series of lectures delivered by James at Lowell Institute in Boston in November and December, 1906, and in January, 1907, at Columbia University, in New York. These lectures discuss pragmatism, and its impact on philosophy.
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/author.htm#j
Several primary source documents written by James, found on the Classics in the History of Psychology website.
Pragmatism
http://www.4literature.net/William_James/Pragmatism/
Online text of Pragmatism, a series of lectures delivered by James at Lowell Institute in Boston in November and December, 1906, and in January, 1907, at Columbia University, in New York. These lectures discuss pragmatism, and its impact on philosophy.
http://james.pragmatism.org/
William James Society, an active group of individuals who continue to analyze to life and work of William James
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism
Wikipedia page about pragmatism, James’ primary contribution to philosophy.
http://radicalacademy.com/amphilosophy7.htm
A history of pragmatism, and how James along with Charles Sanders Pierce started the “pragmatism movement”.
Analyses of James
http://williamjamesstudies.press.uiuc.edu/1.1/shusterman.html
Critical analysis by Richard Shusterman (Florida Atlantic University) of James’ view on practical and aesthetic values, and how this impacts life decisions.
http://hcs.harvard.edu/~husn/BRAIN/vol3/pdf/b96_7.pdf
Article that analyzes James’ Varieties of Religious Experience, and discusses James’ psychological study of religion.
“I am sure that, be it in the end judged true or false, it is essential to the evolution of clearness in philosophical thought that someone should defend a pluralistic empiricism radically."
- William James
About William James
http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/james.html#top
Comprehensive site about William James, including biography, writings, etc.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/james/
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Psychology, includes biography, life timeline, and summary of writings and contributions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James
wikipedia page for James, including biography, and summary of James’ philosophical views
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19950301-000029.html
Article on Psychology Today website about the James brothers.
http://www.psy.pdx.edu/PsiCafe/KeyTheorists/James.htm
Background information and links to other resources
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0111.html
New York Times obituary of James on August 27th, 1910.
http://www.loa.org/volume.jsp?RequestID=66§ion=notes
From the Library of America, is a summary of historical background about James’ writings.
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/07.24.97/books-9730.html
Discussion of James’ contributions to political philosophy
http://website.lineone.net/~williamjames1/
Article that discusses James’ childhood, teaching, and contributions to psychology
Writings
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/James/Principles/index.htm
This is an online version of The Principals of Psychology, the introductory psychology textbook for which James is most famous. Considered by some to be the most important psychology text in history.
http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~lward/James/documents.html
selected works of James.
http://www.mythosandlogos.com/James.html
Links to several of James’ writings and lectures
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/william_james.html
Quotes of William James
http://www.4literature.net/William_James/Pragmatism/
Online text of Pragmatism, a series of lectures delivered by James at Lowell Institute in Boston in November and December, 1906, and in January, 1907, at Columbia University, in New York. These lectures discuss pragmatism, and its impact on philosophy.
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/author.htm#j
Several primary source documents written by James, found on the Classics in the History of Psychology website.
Pragmatism
http://www.4literature.net/William_James/Pragmatism/
Online text of Pragmatism, a series of lectures delivered by James at Lowell Institute in Boston in November and December, 1906, and in January, 1907, at Columbia University, in New York. These lectures discuss pragmatism, and its impact on philosophy.
http://james.pragmatism.org/
William James Society, an active group of individuals who continue to analyze to life and work of William James
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism
Wikipedia page about pragmatism, James’ primary contribution to philosophy.
http://radicalacademy.com/amphilosophy7.htm
A history of pragmatism, and how James along with Charles Sanders Pierce started the “pragmatism movement”.
Analyses of James
http://williamjamesstudies.press.uiuc.edu/1.1/shusterman.html
Critical analysis by Richard Shusterman (Florida Atlantic University) of James’ view on practical and aesthetic values, and how this impacts life decisions.
http://hcs.harvard.edu/~husn/BRAIN/vol3/pdf/b96_7.pdf
Article that analyzes James’ Varieties of Religious Experience, and discusses James’ psychological study of religion.
Monday, April 24, 2006
Web Design Unit Evaluation Report
Web Design Unit Evaluation Report
The purpose of this unit was a pilot test of offering EDTC 3123 in an online format. The web design aspect of the course is commonly viewed as the most challenging unit for students, therefore making this the greatest common factor for offering this course online. In other words, if they cannot complete this unit adequately online, then it really does not matter if the other units can be done online or not.
The unit was broken into 5 lessons, and also included a discussion board where students were to ask questions and respond to challenges faced in each lesson. To evaluate the effectiveness of this unit, students completed an online unit evaluation form. Additionally, I held an informal discussion with the students about what they felt went well and what obstacles were difficult to cross.
Below is a summary of the responses to each question of the survey:
5= Strongly Agree
4= Somewhat Agree
3= No Opinion
2= Somewhat Disagree
1= Strongly Agree
1. I was able to access the learning materials in the unit.
Average = 4.63
2. I understood what I was supposed to do in each lesson.
Average = 3.74
3. The content of each lesson was easy to follow.
Average = 3.47
4. The video tutorials were helpful to me.
Average = 4.74
5. The video tutorials played at a speed that was easy to follow.
Average = 4.47
6. I understood what I was looking for in the example websites in lesson 1.
Average = 4.16
7. Using the html tutorials website was helpful to understand html code.
Average = 3.37
8. By following the instruction in this unit, I was able to build and publish a basic website with FrontPage.
Average = 4.68
9. I understand what a WebQuest is and how to use it in a lesson.
Average = 4.26
10. I feel like I know enough now about web design that I could continue to build on my classroom website and use it for instructional purposes.
Average = 4.37
Discussion: From these averages, most students felt that the unit was effective for them to learn how to design an instructional website. All questions averaged greater than 3.
On questions 2 and 3, it revealed what was reinforced by student comments offered later in the evaluation form, such as:
- I think you need to be more careful about how the directions are worded. It might make sense to someone who already knows what is going on, but to someone who has no idea, the directions were kind of confusing.
- Wording, and a more clear form of what is expected in our assignments.
- The instruction of homework was a little bit confusing. So I needed more detail instruction for that.
However, I am leery of relying too heavily on the feedback from this group of students to fully decide how effective the instruction was. When asked how much time was spent on each lesson, here was the average hours given:
Lesson 1- 1.47
Lesson 2- 2.32
Lesson 3- 2.16
Lesson 4- 2.56
Lesson 5- 3.44
In reality, this unit would have been given about 2 weeks of class time to complete. The sum of average time spent on all 5 lessons is just under 12 hours, which would be equivalent to time they would have spent in class. However, normally a student would be expected to spend time out of class studying and working on the project, so the students actually spent much less time on this unit than should have been.
Video Tutorials
The students felt very strongly that the videos were crucial. They definitely benefited by the step by step instruction in this format, especially for those who “discovered” the video control buttons (pause, play, fast forward, etc.). I think a revision that could be make is to more explicitly point out how to use the video tutorials, perhaps even create a tutorial for the tutorial.
Lesson 2: The Infamous HTML Quiz
Probably the most problematic point of the entire unit was a great misunderstanding of how the students were to complete the html quiz. This was intended to be a very simple exercise, however many students misinterpreted the instructions and made this a very, very complex task. So much that many reported that they felt if lesson 2 was so beyond their ability that they felt hopeless about the rest of the lessons. This was one of the excuses given for why so many students did not even access lessons 3 through 5 until the day before the entire unit was to be completed. I personally think the students just procrastinated, and when they finally went into the lessons were overwhelmed by what they would have to complete within 1 day.
In light of how the html quiz went, I am actually considering the fact that this lesson could be dropped completely, for several reasons. For one, it would save time in an already very busy course. Also, if the point is for students to be able to recognize basic html, the reality is that since most people use web editing software today, most pages do not contain basic html code in their source code. So, for these reason, I believe that the html lesson could possibly be excluded altogether.
Accessing the WebQuest Template
Another problem that many students faced was that the tutorial I created for obtaining the WebQuest template was using the built-in Windows XP Zipped File Utility. However, when students tried to do this on campus, they were presented with WinZip (trial version). When they did not recognize this, they asked for assistance from the COE tech help desk, and were told anything from, “I guess you’ll have to buy it” to “It’s not working here, you’ll have to go to Math Sciences”. In actuality, the students only had to make a few clicks to get the template into their FrontPage website.
Final Thoughts
I believe that this unit could undergo several of the revisions mentioned above and be retried before ruling out whether this course could work online. When I read student comments such as:
“I think this was the ONE unit that should have been done in class. Most of the other units in this class would have been perfect for an online class but this one was too complicated to do on our own. Maybe if we would have taken one class period to discuss what you wanted and then finished the lesson outside of class that would have been more helpful. “
I still have to consider that the students really did not spend ample time working on the unit. One student even offered the complaint (after the fact, of course) that, “Well, we didn’t sign up for an online class”. So possibly, this course would have to be actually offered online to receive feedback from students who “signed on” for an online experience.
Considering the average scores on the evaluation given above, I still believe that the students viewed this unit as effective in accomplishing the unit object which was that students could create an instructional classroom website.
The purpose of this unit was a pilot test of offering EDTC 3123 in an online format. The web design aspect of the course is commonly viewed as the most challenging unit for students, therefore making this the greatest common factor for offering this course online. In other words, if they cannot complete this unit adequately online, then it really does not matter if the other units can be done online or not.
The unit was broken into 5 lessons, and also included a discussion board where students were to ask questions and respond to challenges faced in each lesson. To evaluate the effectiveness of this unit, students completed an online unit evaluation form. Additionally, I held an informal discussion with the students about what they felt went well and what obstacles were difficult to cross.
Below is a summary of the responses to each question of the survey:
5= Strongly Agree
4= Somewhat Agree
3= No Opinion
2= Somewhat Disagree
1= Strongly Agree
1. I was able to access the learning materials in the unit.
Average = 4.63
2. I understood what I was supposed to do in each lesson.
Average = 3.74
3. The content of each lesson was easy to follow.
Average = 3.47
4. The video tutorials were helpful to me.
Average = 4.74
5. The video tutorials played at a speed that was easy to follow.
Average = 4.47
6. I understood what I was looking for in the example websites in lesson 1.
Average = 4.16
7. Using the html tutorials website was helpful to understand html code.
Average = 3.37
8. By following the instruction in this unit, I was able to build and publish a basic website with FrontPage.
Average = 4.68
9. I understand what a WebQuest is and how to use it in a lesson.
Average = 4.26
10. I feel like I know enough now about web design that I could continue to build on my classroom website and use it for instructional purposes.
Average = 4.37
Discussion: From these averages, most students felt that the unit was effective for them to learn how to design an instructional website. All questions averaged greater than 3.
On questions 2 and 3, it revealed what was reinforced by student comments offered later in the evaluation form, such as:
- I think you need to be more careful about how the directions are worded. It might make sense to someone who already knows what is going on, but to someone who has no idea, the directions were kind of confusing.
- Wording, and a more clear form of what is expected in our assignments.
- The instruction of homework was a little bit confusing. So I needed more detail instruction for that.
However, I am leery of relying too heavily on the feedback from this group of students to fully decide how effective the instruction was. When asked how much time was spent on each lesson, here was the average hours given:
Lesson 1- 1.47
Lesson 2- 2.32
Lesson 3- 2.16
Lesson 4- 2.56
Lesson 5- 3.44
In reality, this unit would have been given about 2 weeks of class time to complete. The sum of average time spent on all 5 lessons is just under 12 hours, which would be equivalent to time they would have spent in class. However, normally a student would be expected to spend time out of class studying and working on the project, so the students actually spent much less time on this unit than should have been.
Video Tutorials
The students felt very strongly that the videos were crucial. They definitely benefited by the step by step instruction in this format, especially for those who “discovered” the video control buttons (pause, play, fast forward, etc.). I think a revision that could be make is to more explicitly point out how to use the video tutorials, perhaps even create a tutorial for the tutorial.
Lesson 2: The Infamous HTML Quiz
Probably the most problematic point of the entire unit was a great misunderstanding of how the students were to complete the html quiz. This was intended to be a very simple exercise, however many students misinterpreted the instructions and made this a very, very complex task. So much that many reported that they felt if lesson 2 was so beyond their ability that they felt hopeless about the rest of the lessons. This was one of the excuses given for why so many students did not even access lessons 3 through 5 until the day before the entire unit was to be completed. I personally think the students just procrastinated, and when they finally went into the lessons were overwhelmed by what they would have to complete within 1 day.
In light of how the html quiz went, I am actually considering the fact that this lesson could be dropped completely, for several reasons. For one, it would save time in an already very busy course. Also, if the point is for students to be able to recognize basic html, the reality is that since most people use web editing software today, most pages do not contain basic html code in their source code. So, for these reason, I believe that the html lesson could possibly be excluded altogether.
Accessing the WebQuest Template
Another problem that many students faced was that the tutorial I created for obtaining the WebQuest template was using the built-in Windows XP Zipped File Utility. However, when students tried to do this on campus, they were presented with WinZip (trial version). When they did not recognize this, they asked for assistance from the COE tech help desk, and were told anything from, “I guess you’ll have to buy it” to “It’s not working here, you’ll have to go to Math Sciences”. In actuality, the students only had to make a few clicks to get the template into their FrontPage website.
Final Thoughts
I believe that this unit could undergo several of the revisions mentioned above and be retried before ruling out whether this course could work online. When I read student comments such as:
“I think this was the ONE unit that should have been done in class. Most of the other units in this class would have been perfect for an online class but this one was too complicated to do on our own. Maybe if we would have taken one class period to discuss what you wanted and then finished the lesson outside of class that would have been more helpful. “
I still have to consider that the students really did not spend ample time working on the unit. One student even offered the complaint (after the fact, of course) that, “Well, we didn’t sign up for an online class”. So possibly, this course would have to be actually offered online to receive feedback from students who “signed on” for an online experience.
Considering the average scores on the evaluation given above, I still believe that the students viewed this unit as effective in accomplishing the unit object which was that students could create an instructional classroom website.
Web Design Unit Task Analysis
I never put this over here so I figured I better:
Web Design Task Analysis
Part 1- Effective Web Design
The Student Will (TSW)
- read the introductory text about website design considerations, such as navigation, communication, and layout
- view several examples of websites with POOR use of these considerations
- read additional web design recommendations
- view the “Criteria for evaluating educational WWW sites” rubric
- consider these aspects as they design their classroom websites
Part 2- HTML Basics
TSW
- read the introductory text
- read through html tutorials
- practice html code with online html editing tool
- complete html quiz to demonstrate ability to recognize html tags and their results on an actual web page
Part 3- Creating a Website with FrontPage
TSW
- read the into text
- view the video that shows how to setup a free NetFirms web space account
- setup a free NetFirms web space account
- view the classroom website design rubric that will be used to assess their classroom website
- view the video that shows how to start a website with FrontPage and publish it online
- create a website with FrontPage and publish it to their NetFirms account
- view the video that shows how to use a table to arrange web page contents, add text and pictures
- arrange web page contents, add text and pictures to their website
- publish the changes
- view the video that shows how to add at new pages to the website, make hyperlinks to the new pages; arrange the pages in the Navigation View, and rename the pages in the Navigation View
- add at new pages to the website, make hyperlinks to the new pages; arrange the pages in the Navigation View, and rename the pages in the Navigation View
- publish the changes
- view the video that shows how to add a theme to all pages; add and configure shared borders
- add a theme to all pages; add and configure shared borders
- publish the changes
Part 4- About WebQuests
TSW
- read the intro text
- go to the webquest design tutorial website and read about the structure of a webquest and the purpose of each part
- go to the webquest examples website and view several examples
- post to the web design unit discussion board a proposal for what their webquest’s task will be
Part 5- Creating a WebQuest
TSW
- read the intro text
- view the video that shows how to download and extract the webquest template into their already started classroom website
- view the webquest design rubric that will be used to assess their webquest
- edit the pages of the webquest template to construct their webquest
- publish their changes
- post the link to their completed classroom website to the web design unit discussion board
Web Design Task Analysis
Part 1- Effective Web Design
The Student Will (TSW)
- read the introductory text about website design considerations, such as navigation, communication, and layout
- view several examples of websites with POOR use of these considerations
- read additional web design recommendations
- view the “Criteria for evaluating educational WWW sites” rubric
- consider these aspects as they design their classroom websites
Part 2- HTML Basics
TSW
- read the introductory text
- read through html tutorials
- practice html code with online html editing tool
- complete html quiz to demonstrate ability to recognize html tags and their results on an actual web page
Part 3- Creating a Website with FrontPage
TSW
- read the into text
- view the video that shows how to setup a free NetFirms web space account
- setup a free NetFirms web space account
- view the classroom website design rubric that will be used to assess their classroom website
- view the video that shows how to start a website with FrontPage and publish it online
- create a website with FrontPage and publish it to their NetFirms account
- view the video that shows how to use a table to arrange web page contents, add text and pictures
- arrange web page contents, add text and pictures to their website
- publish the changes
- view the video that shows how to add at new pages to the website, make hyperlinks to the new pages; arrange the pages in the Navigation View, and rename the pages in the Navigation View
- add at new pages to the website, make hyperlinks to the new pages; arrange the pages in the Navigation View, and rename the pages in the Navigation View
- publish the changes
- view the video that shows how to add a theme to all pages; add and configure shared borders
- add a theme to all pages; add and configure shared borders
- publish the changes
Part 4- About WebQuests
TSW
- read the intro text
- go to the webquest design tutorial website and read about the structure of a webquest and the purpose of each part
- go to the webquest examples website and view several examples
- post to the web design unit discussion board a proposal for what their webquest’s task will be
Part 5- Creating a WebQuest
TSW
- read the intro text
- view the video that shows how to download and extract the webquest template into their already started classroom website
- view the webquest design rubric that will be used to assess their webquest
- edit the pages of the webquest template to construct their webquest
- publish their changes
- post the link to their completed classroom website to the web design unit discussion board
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Assessments for performance-based objectives
1A-Students will write a needs assessment: The assessment will be a rubric that contains an element for each component that should be included in a needs assessment report, with 3 levels of performance for each element (Excellent, Adequate, Needs Improvement). Each of the elements will contain criteria based on thoroughness, clarity, and that the needed information was represented. Other elements included would rate grammer, spelling, correct formatting, etc.
1B-Students will conduct a needs assessment: The assessment will be a combination of a checklist and a rubric. The checklist will identify whether specific tasks were performed or not. The rubric will rate how well the student performed the tasks that could be performed at various levels of quality (such as, did they ask the right questions, did they collect data in the most efficient manner, did they process the data to answer the questions it was intended to, etc.)
1C-Students will plan a needs assessment: The assessment will be an oral presentation of the plan. The student(s) will present the plan in a "proposal" format to the instructor. The student will be required to clearly explain how their plan is suited to their specific situation, and how their methods of data collection and analysis are appropriate and are the best choices. Then the instructor will ask the a series of questions to challenge their plan. The students will have to explain why the choices in their plan were the best choices.
2A-Students will write a research paper on Romeo and Juliet: A rubric will be used to assess the research paper. Students will be assessed on the following:
- did the paper answer the research question?
- did the paper make the points that needed to be made?
- did the paper adequately communicate the research found, why it's relevant, how it relates to the other research sources, etc.?
- did the paper follow the correct format, was grammatically correct, etc.?
2B-Students will research Romeo and Juliet: This assessment will be an observation checklist with additional comments to evaluate how the student(s) perform their research. The checklist will identify if the students developed a solid research question, sought information that is relevant to the research question, sought for information in the most appropriate locations, etc.
2C-Students will analyze Romeo and Juliet: This assessment would be an essay exam. The students will have been a series of points to consider. The essay questions will require that the student explain in their own words based on the analysis they had performed. The student responses will be graded on depth, breadth, and clarity.
3A-Students will reduce fractions: students will solve a set of problems on paper, providing all steps on paper. The responses will be graded on the steps taken to solve the problem as well as the final solution.
3B-Students will demonstrate how to reduce fractions: Students will individually work a fraction problem on the board, and verbally explain each step as they go. Students will be graded how clearly, thoroughly, and accurately they perform the task.
3C-Students will list the steps to reduce fractions: The students will be given a set of fractions, and then will document each step necessary to completely reduce each fraction. The instructor will read the list, then question the student on why they chose the order of steps that they did. The student will be graded on the initial list as well as their "defense" of the list.
3D-Students will identify reduced fractions: This assessment will be a worksheet that present the students with a series of fractions at various stages of being reduced. The student will circle the fractions that are completely reduced.
Students will UNDERSTAND cell division
4A-Students will MODEL cell division: a checklist will identify that each step is represented as the students demonstrate cell division using yarn and paper plates.
4B-Students will IDENTIFY stages of cell division: Students will match images of real cells to the appropriate stage.
4C-Students will EXPLAIN cell division: the students will be assessed with a checklist/rubric. The checklist will identify that the student mentioned the steps and in the correct order, the rubric will rate the quality of explanation (throroughness, clarity, etc.).
1B-Students will conduct a needs assessment: The assessment will be a combination of a checklist and a rubric. The checklist will identify whether specific tasks were performed or not. The rubric will rate how well the student performed the tasks that could be performed at various levels of quality (such as, did they ask the right questions, did they collect data in the most efficient manner, did they process the data to answer the questions it was intended to, etc.)
1C-Students will plan a needs assessment: The assessment will be an oral presentation of the plan. The student(s) will present the plan in a "proposal" format to the instructor. The student will be required to clearly explain how their plan is suited to their specific situation, and how their methods of data collection and analysis are appropriate and are the best choices. Then the instructor will ask the a series of questions to challenge their plan. The students will have to explain why the choices in their plan were the best choices.
2A-Students will write a research paper on Romeo and Juliet: A rubric will be used to assess the research paper. Students will be assessed on the following:
- did the paper answer the research question?
- did the paper make the points that needed to be made?
- did the paper adequately communicate the research found, why it's relevant, how it relates to the other research sources, etc.?
- did the paper follow the correct format, was grammatically correct, etc.?
2B-Students will research Romeo and Juliet: This assessment will be an observation checklist with additional comments to evaluate how the student(s) perform their research. The checklist will identify if the students developed a solid research question, sought information that is relevant to the research question, sought for information in the most appropriate locations, etc.
2C-Students will analyze Romeo and Juliet: This assessment would be an essay exam. The students will have been a series of points to consider. The essay questions will require that the student explain in their own words based on the analysis they had performed. The student responses will be graded on depth, breadth, and clarity.
3A-Students will reduce fractions: students will solve a set of problems on paper, providing all steps on paper. The responses will be graded on the steps taken to solve the problem as well as the final solution.
3B-Students will demonstrate how to reduce fractions: Students will individually work a fraction problem on the board, and verbally explain each step as they go. Students will be graded how clearly, thoroughly, and accurately they perform the task.
3C-Students will list the steps to reduce fractions: The students will be given a set of fractions, and then will document each step necessary to completely reduce each fraction. The instructor will read the list, then question the student on why they chose the order of steps that they did. The student will be graded on the initial list as well as their "defense" of the list.
3D-Students will identify reduced fractions: This assessment will be a worksheet that present the students with a series of fractions at various stages of being reduced. The student will circle the fractions that are completely reduced.
Students will UNDERSTAND cell division
4A-Students will MODEL cell division: a checklist will identify that each step is represented as the students demonstrate cell division using yarn and paper plates.
4B-Students will IDENTIFY stages of cell division: Students will match images of real cells to the appropriate stage.
4C-Students will EXPLAIN cell division: the students will be assessed with a checklist/rubric. The checklist will identify that the student mentioned the steps and in the correct order, the rubric will rate the quality of explanation (throroughness, clarity, etc.).
Monday, March 20, 2006
Sorbet for the brain?
My wife and I went to The Rancher's Club for our 6th anniversary dinner last weekend. This was my first restaurant experience to be given something to "cleanse my palette" before the main dish, in this case a small bowl of raspberry sorbet. So for some reason, during church the next morning I found myself pondering this whole cleansing the palette concept and an analogy to learning psychology donned on me. I've always found that I transition from working on stuff for one class to another class easier if I spend some time on a meaningless mental activity in between, like watching a reality TV show or something. I used to think I was procrastinating, but from now on I'm going to say that I'm "cleansing my cognitive palette"!
ID Research Precis 3
Liu, M., & Bera, S. (2005). An analysis of cognitive tool use patterns in a
hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and
Development,53(1), 5-21.
This study examined the use of cognitive tools by 6th graders to solve an ill-structured problem in a hypermedia program. Student log files were analyzed to determine what tools were used at various stages of solving the problem. Generally, early in the process, students focused more on tools that share cognitive load and support cognitive processing. In the later stages, students focused more on tools that support activities normally out of reach as well as hypothesis testing. The more successful students used cognitive processing and cognitive load tools more at the beginning and less at the end of the process.
hypermedia learning environment. Educational Technology Research and
Development,53(1), 5-21.
This study examined the use of cognitive tools by 6th graders to solve an ill-structured problem in a hypermedia program. Student log files were analyzed to determine what tools were used at various stages of solving the problem. Generally, early in the process, students focused more on tools that share cognitive load and support cognitive processing. In the later stages, students focused more on tools that support activities normally out of reach as well as hypothesis testing. The more successful students used cognitive processing and cognitive load tools more at the beginning and less at the end of the process.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Smith and Ragan ID Model
ID Model
Mark Jones
EDTC 5753
Smith and Ragan ID Model
The Smith and Ragan instructional design model is an example of systematic instructional design. The Smith and Ragan ID model has three primary phases: analysis, strategy, and evaluation. These phases are conducted in series, however the events within each phase may happen in various orders, and even concurrently.
The analysis phase is when as much information as possible is determined about the learning environment, the learners, and the learning task. While analyzing the learning environment, a needs assessment may be used to determine the actual need for instruction, and what direction that instruction should take. A context analysis is conducted to gather information about the learning environment. This step helps to answer questions about the setting for the instruction, those who will deliver the instruction, how the instruction fits with other instruction already developed, and what resources are available for the instructional media.
During the learner analysis, four categories of characteristics are considered: learner similarities that are either stable or change over time, and learner differences that are either stable or change over time. Learner characteristics might be cognitive (aptitude, reading level, prior knowledge, etc.), physiological (age, gender, sensory perception, etc.), affective (interests, motivations, anxieties, etc.), or social (ethnicity, socioeconomic background, relationships with peers, etc.).
When analyzing the learning task, the following steps are generally followed: 1) the learning goal is written, 2) the types of learner of the goal are determined, 3) an information-processing analysis of the goal is performed, 4) prerequisites are identified, as well as the type of learning of the prerequisite, 5) learning objectives are written for the learning goal and each prerequisite, and finally 6) the exam questions or specifications are written. In the prior list, the “types of learning” is the desired learning outcome. The type of learning may be declarative knowledge, intellectual skills, cognitive strategies, attitudes, psychomotor skills, or a combination of these types, known as a learning enterprise. The information-processing analysis of the goal, and the prerequisite analysis of what was identified from the information-processing analysis are the steps that determine the content of the instruction. From this information, performance objectives can be written, as well as the assessment that will confirm that the learner has achieved the desired objectives as well as to evaluate the quality of the instruction. The assessment is usually a performance or a written assessment.
The strategy phase deals with details such as the sequence of the instruction (organizational strategy), media selection and learner grouping (delivery strategy), as well as scheduling and obtaining necessary resources (management strategy). The organizational strategy is intended to select instructional strategies that will most effectively and efficiently present the content to the learners. The instructional strategies selected are directly related to the types of learning identified during the previous phase. Generally, each lesson follows the following stages: introduction, body, conclusion, and assessment. An expanded version of Gagne’s nine events of instruction are followed throughout these four stages.
The evaluation phase is when a formative evaluation of the instruction is conducted. Every aspect of the ID process is subject to review and revision, including the goal, the analysis of learner, context, task, the assessment, etc. Usually, experts are given a draft form of the instruction for evaluation before it is used with learners. Then, in an ideal situation, the instruction is tried out on a test group of learners that are similar to the intended learners. This occurs in three phases, one-to-one, small group, and then field trials. Types of data that are collected and analyzed might include learner performance, learner attitudes towards the instruction, and completion time. Often times, surveys are used to collect much of this data.
Formative evaluation data is analyzed and used to identify problems or weaknesses in the instruction. Once identified, revisions are made to the instruction and then it is reimplemented. In this way, the evaluation process is continual and ongoing, both during the design of the instruction, as well as after it is implemented.
References:
Smith, P., & Ragan, T. (2005). Instructional design. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Mark Jones
EDTC 5753
Smith and Ragan ID Model
The Smith and Ragan instructional design model is an example of systematic instructional design. The Smith and Ragan ID model has three primary phases: analysis, strategy, and evaluation. These phases are conducted in series, however the events within each phase may happen in various orders, and even concurrently.
The analysis phase is when as much information as possible is determined about the learning environment, the learners, and the learning task. While analyzing the learning environment, a needs assessment may be used to determine the actual need for instruction, and what direction that instruction should take. A context analysis is conducted to gather information about the learning environment. This step helps to answer questions about the setting for the instruction, those who will deliver the instruction, how the instruction fits with other instruction already developed, and what resources are available for the instructional media.
During the learner analysis, four categories of characteristics are considered: learner similarities that are either stable or change over time, and learner differences that are either stable or change over time. Learner characteristics might be cognitive (aptitude, reading level, prior knowledge, etc.), physiological (age, gender, sensory perception, etc.), affective (interests, motivations, anxieties, etc.), or social (ethnicity, socioeconomic background, relationships with peers, etc.).
When analyzing the learning task, the following steps are generally followed: 1) the learning goal is written, 2) the types of learner of the goal are determined, 3) an information-processing analysis of the goal is performed, 4) prerequisites are identified, as well as the type of learning of the prerequisite, 5) learning objectives are written for the learning goal and each prerequisite, and finally 6) the exam questions or specifications are written. In the prior list, the “types of learning” is the desired learning outcome. The type of learning may be declarative knowledge, intellectual skills, cognitive strategies, attitudes, psychomotor skills, or a combination of these types, known as a learning enterprise. The information-processing analysis of the goal, and the prerequisite analysis of what was identified from the information-processing analysis are the steps that determine the content of the instruction. From this information, performance objectives can be written, as well as the assessment that will confirm that the learner has achieved the desired objectives as well as to evaluate the quality of the instruction. The assessment is usually a performance or a written assessment.
The strategy phase deals with details such as the sequence of the instruction (organizational strategy), media selection and learner grouping (delivery strategy), as well as scheduling and obtaining necessary resources (management strategy). The organizational strategy is intended to select instructional strategies that will most effectively and efficiently present the content to the learners. The instructional strategies selected are directly related to the types of learning identified during the previous phase. Generally, each lesson follows the following stages: introduction, body, conclusion, and assessment. An expanded version of Gagne’s nine events of instruction are followed throughout these four stages.
The evaluation phase is when a formative evaluation of the instruction is conducted. Every aspect of the ID process is subject to review and revision, including the goal, the analysis of learner, context, task, the assessment, etc. Usually, experts are given a draft form of the instruction for evaluation before it is used with learners. Then, in an ideal situation, the instruction is tried out on a test group of learners that are similar to the intended learners. This occurs in three phases, one-to-one, small group, and then field trials. Types of data that are collected and analyzed might include learner performance, learner attitudes towards the instruction, and completion time. Often times, surveys are used to collect much of this data.
Formative evaluation data is analyzed and used to identify problems or weaknesses in the instruction. Once identified, revisions are made to the instruction and then it is reimplemented. In this way, the evaluation process is continual and ongoing, both during the design of the instruction, as well as after it is implemented.
References:
Smith, P., & Ragan, T. (2005). Instructional design. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Component Display Theory
ID Theory
Mark Jones
EDTC 5753
Component Display Theory
Component Display Theory (CDT) was developed by David Merrill in the early 1970’s during the creation of TICCIT, one of the earliest forms of learner-controlled computer based instruction. The idea behind TICCIT was to provide learners the ability to choose both the types of practice and the level of difficulty in an instructional computer system. The method of providing this learner control led Merrill to approach instructional strategies as an algorithm: plugging various combinations of types of instruction as variables into an equation to provide optimal learning outcomes, depending on the content and performance desired. Creating this system required a categorization of both content and strategy. Merrill devised a 2X2 matrix of content to strategy. Content was categorized as either generality or instance, and strategy was categorized as either expository (telling) or inquisitory (asking). The resulting 4 squares of this matrix define the 4 primary performance forms in CDT, and are outlined below (Colaric):
Generality/Expository (EG): Rule
Generality/Inquisitory (IG): Recall
Instance/Expository (EeG): Example
Instance/Inquisitory (IeG): Practice
In CDT, secondary performance forms include prerequisites, objectives, helps, mnemonics, and feedback. CDT assumes that the most effective instruction is that which provides all the appropriate and necessary primary and secondary performance forms to a learner during a lesson. CDT is analogous to a doctor prescribing a combination of medicines to treat a specific condition. “Component Display Theory is a prescriptive model which draws from both cognitive and behavioral research and deals exclusively with micro-level strategies in the cognitive domain. It relies heavily on Gagne's assumption of different conditions of learning for different outcomes” (Colaric).
In CDT, a 2 dimensional chart is used to classify learning outcomes. The 2 dimensions are student performance (remember, use, or find) and subject matter content (fact, concept, procedure or principle). After the content-performance matrix has categorized the desired learning outcome, then sets of instructional strategies are prescribed based on the content and desired performance. An example of a lesson based on CDT might look like the following (Component display theory (m.d. merrill)):
• Objective - Define an equilateral triangle (Remember-Use)
• Generality - Definition (attributes, relationships)
• Instance - Examples (attributes present, representations)
• Generality Practice - State definition
• Instance Practice - Classify (attributes present)
• Feedback - Correct generalities/instances
• Elaborations - Helps, Prerequisities, Context
Component Display Theory has been very significant to the field of instructional design and the development of educational technology. CDT was one of the first examples of successfully separating instructional strategy from content, and has served as the foundation for later ID theories such as Elaboration Theory and Instructional Transaction Theory.
References:
Colaric, S. (n.d.). Component display theory. Retrieved Mar. 18, 2006, from The Instructional Systems Process Web site: http://lsit.coe.ecu.edu/colaric/KB/CDT.htm.
Component display theory. (n.d.). Retrieved Mar. 18, 2006, from opencontent.org Web site: http://opencontent.org/docs/cdt.pdf.
Component display theory (m.d. merrill). (n.d.). Retrieved Mar. 18, 2006, from Explorations in Learning & Instruction: The Theory Into Practice Database Web site: http://tip.psychology.org/merrill.html.
White, A. (2001). Component Display Theory. In B. Hoffman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Technology. Retrieved March 18, 2006, from http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/articles/cdt/start.htm.
Mark Jones
EDTC 5753
Component Display Theory
Component Display Theory (CDT) was developed by David Merrill in the early 1970’s during the creation of TICCIT, one of the earliest forms of learner-controlled computer based instruction. The idea behind TICCIT was to provide learners the ability to choose both the types of practice and the level of difficulty in an instructional computer system. The method of providing this learner control led Merrill to approach instructional strategies as an algorithm: plugging various combinations of types of instruction as variables into an equation to provide optimal learning outcomes, depending on the content and performance desired. Creating this system required a categorization of both content and strategy. Merrill devised a 2X2 matrix of content to strategy. Content was categorized as either generality or instance, and strategy was categorized as either expository (telling) or inquisitory (asking). The resulting 4 squares of this matrix define the 4 primary performance forms in CDT, and are outlined below (Colaric):
Generality/Expository (EG): Rule
Generality/Inquisitory (IG): Recall
Instance/Expository (EeG): Example
Instance/Inquisitory (IeG): Practice
In CDT, secondary performance forms include prerequisites, objectives, helps, mnemonics, and feedback. CDT assumes that the most effective instruction is that which provides all the appropriate and necessary primary and secondary performance forms to a learner during a lesson. CDT is analogous to a doctor prescribing a combination of medicines to treat a specific condition. “Component Display Theory is a prescriptive model which draws from both cognitive and behavioral research and deals exclusively with micro-level strategies in the cognitive domain. It relies heavily on Gagne's assumption of different conditions of learning for different outcomes” (Colaric).
In CDT, a 2 dimensional chart is used to classify learning outcomes. The 2 dimensions are student performance (remember, use, or find) and subject matter content (fact, concept, procedure or principle). After the content-performance matrix has categorized the desired learning outcome, then sets of instructional strategies are prescribed based on the content and desired performance. An example of a lesson based on CDT might look like the following (Component display theory (m.d. merrill)):
• Objective - Define an equilateral triangle (Remember-Use)
• Generality - Definition (attributes, relationships)
• Instance - Examples (attributes present, representations)
• Generality Practice - State definition
• Instance Practice - Classify (attributes present)
• Feedback - Correct generalities/instances
• Elaborations - Helps, Prerequisities, Context
Component Display Theory has been very significant to the field of instructional design and the development of educational technology. CDT was one of the first examples of successfully separating instructional strategy from content, and has served as the foundation for later ID theories such as Elaboration Theory and Instructional Transaction Theory.
References:
Colaric, S. (n.d.). Component display theory. Retrieved Mar. 18, 2006, from The Instructional Systems Process Web site: http://lsit.coe.ecu.edu/colaric/KB/CDT.htm.
Component display theory. (n.d.). Retrieved Mar. 18, 2006, from opencontent.org Web site: http://opencontent.org/docs/cdt.pdf.
Component display theory (m.d. merrill). (n.d.). Retrieved Mar. 18, 2006, from Explorations in Learning & Instruction: The Theory Into Practice Database Web site: http://tip.psychology.org/merrill.html.
White, A. (2001). Component Display Theory. In B. Hoffman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Technology. Retrieved March 18, 2006, from http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/articles/cdt/start.htm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
