1 / 36

Promoting Higher Learning Outcomes in Computing Subjects

Promoting Higher Learning Outcomes in Computing Subjects. Terry King Dept of Information Systems University of Portsmouth LTSN-ICS Conference London Aug 2001. Session Aims. Background What do we mean by Higher Learning Outcomes Activity-Centred Curriculum Ideas-Centred Curriculum

kamea
Download Presentation

Promoting Higher Learning Outcomes in Computing Subjects

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Promoting Higher Learning Outcomes in Computing Subjects Terry King Dept of Information Systems University of Portsmouth LTSN-ICS Conference London Aug 2001

  2. Session Aims • Background • What do we mean by Higher Learning Outcomes • Activity-Centred Curriculum • Ideas-Centred Curriculum • Conclude

  3. Background • NTFS award from ILT in July 2000 • Reflection on teaching style especially with postgraduates • Preoccupation with curriculum developments and students achieving higher learning outcomes • SLONE project and research

  4. Higher Learning Outcomes John Biggs (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University.

  5. With appropriate TLA’s can upgrade to higher stage of learning and improved BPL Upgrading Learning through appropriate TLA’s J.Moon (1999)

  6. Activity-Centred Curriculum IDEAS IDEAS IDEAS Activities IDEAS IDEAS IDEAS IDEAS IDEAS IDEAS

  7. Activities? • Critiques (“Crits”) • On-line Learning Journals • Use of Computer-aided Formative Assessment

  8. Crits • In Art and Design - each students work is critiqued by the whole group - personally defend your decisions • Adapted to group-built multimedia artefacts • Each group, 2 crits each semester • Discussion on basis for the crit • Assessed group prepare report • Successful. Very rewarding

  9. On-Line Learning Journal • Assessment • Journal Structure • Double-entry journal • WebCT (VLE) as a recording medium • Bulletin Board - Entry/Reply structure • Guidelines • Activities for Reflection • Initial task - start strongly

  10. Stages of Reflection(J.Moon, 1999)

  11. Reflections on Journals? • Success - rewarding - reduce plagarism • Serendipitous outcomes • Make need for evaluation/stages explicit • Accommodate different forms of reflection eg. mind maps, images, media • Must more direction at beginning (eg views from past students)

  12. Computer-Aided Formative Assessment • For computer-based testing need to try and relate learning outcomes to levels of learning and their relative complexity - easy to apply Bloom’s Taxonomy • Revision to Bloom’s to give an improved focus for objective questions • Examples of computer-based questions for higher learning outcomes

  13. Subjective testing Higher Learning Outcomes - what is possible with CAA? Applying Bloom’s Taxonomy to Objective Testing Hierarchy of levels of learning calculate

  14. Current Approaches to Designing Questions for HLO’s • From Verbs associated with HLO’s • identify, categorise, distinguish, judge, compare, contrast, determine, decide …. • Adapted current exam questions • Use of exemplars

  15. Original 6 levels written as verbs + create last Lorin Anderson and David Krathwohl (2001) Modified Bloom’s Taxonomy to assist educators in writing learning objectives Modification to Bloom’s Taxonomy

  16. Knowledge Dimension • Factual • Terminology, Specific Details • Conceptual • Categories, Principles, Theories & Models • Procedural • Skills/algorithms, Techniques/Methods, Criteria • Metacognitive Knowledge

  17. Create / Synthesis not possible within the context of objective testing Generation of material - more than one completely correct response Cannot be assessed by standard commercial CAA software Modified Bloom’s Taxonomy X X X X 123

  18. Analyse/Evaluate • Analyse • Differentiate • Organise • Attribute • Evaluate • Check • Critique

  19. Learning Journal Conclusion • Do not need CAA to deliver objective questions for higher learning outcomes but .. it helps ..enhanced features • Very positive student response • Good for formative assessment… but needs monitoring/ evaluation • Considerable overhead in terms of training, time and expertise - results unclear as yet • Even if commercial software - scripting experience can be very useful • Use with care for summative assessment

  20. Problems with Activity-Centred Curriculum • Teacher-led • Reductionist • Ideas are drawn in on the basis of the activities suggested- may not foster students own research/ knowledge building to wider ideas base or innovation

  21. Ideas-Centred Curriculum ACTIVITIES ACTIVITIES ACTIVITIES ACTIVITIES Ideas ACTIVITIES ACTIVITIES ACTIVITIES ACTIVITIES ACTIVITIES

  22. Knowledge Building? • Pedagogical approach - Shifts of focus away from ‘tasks and activities’ to ‘knowledge creation’. • Allows students to create, examine and improve ideas, and engage directly with problems of understanding • Fosters processes of ‘knowledge creation’ in day-to-day life - encourages innovation • Provides social supports for knowledge creation • Sustains student work at the cutting-edge of abilities and disciplines M. Scardamalia, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto

  23. Knowledge Building (KB) Principles • 12 principles: • Eg. Community Knowledge, Democratising Knowledge, Idea Diversity, Improveable Ideas, etc • Expressed as the value-added to “standard best practice”

  24. Example Knowledge Building (KB) Principle Example:Constructive Use of Authoritative Sources Standard best practice:Participants critically evaluate information sources and recognise that even the best are fallible KB Value Added:Participants use authoritative sources, along with other information sources as data for their own KB and idea-improving processes. Knowledge Building Indicators: Contributing new information; referencing and building-on authoritative sources; building bibliographies

  25. Knowledge Forum (KF) • Technology whichmodels a ‘KB Community’ and enables KB • Students activities expressed as ‘problems’ or points of focus which can be researched and developed • Generate a database of nodes which holds all the student entries. Entries are explicit. • Super-discussion group • Computer-Supported Intentional Learning Environment (CSILE)

  26. Example of layout for a post-graduate course Knowledge Forum Views

  27. Knowledge Forum Database views

  28. Student Entry on aWeekly Reading

  29. Student Entry on aWeekly Reading

  30. Annotated Entry

  31. Advantages of KF • Ideas-centred learning relates to the SLONE model for on-line collaborative group learning: • Give a group a performance challenge around which they can negotiate meaning using KF • Democratisation of knowledge. Facilitates an individuals identification with the group and their sense of belonging. Feel less like outsiders. • Promotes and enables group members to work with others to improve their own performance, helping students to buy into the group project. • Applicable to all subject areas

  32. Conclusion • An activity-centred curriculum cannot take students past standard best practice. • Worth experimenting with KF and KB in conjunction with activities. Especially assessment metrics. • Example: Systems Analysis and Design case study for group solution. • Use KF -Tease out possible solutions, make more interesting, bring in a wider range of information, help weaker students etc?

  33. KF URL’s www.learn.motion.com/lim/kf/KF0.html csile.oise.utoronto.ca/

More Related