This week we focused on improving our online teaching techniques using Bender’s suggestions. Similar to Week 3’s format, each person in the group identified strategies that can be helpful in facilitating our Web Conference sessions.
The major themes that emerged in our discussions included:
Team teaching and shared teaching : It is common to use these two terms interchangeably but the method of collaborating is different. Shared teaching, which is essentially taking turns to deliver instruction, is deemed to be easier; team teaching, on the other hand requires more coordination in the sense that both instructors are “on the floor” at the same time. The fluidity of the session can be compromised if they are not pursuing the same objectives, or at times, possess markedly different styles. Experiences were shared about the challenges and benefits of both techniques.
The group also discussed the difficulties of using chats for reflective discussions. The speed and multiple tasks to attend to during such sessions do not secure it high marks for more deliberate thoughts. Threaded discussions and blogs are better tools to move the learning events higher in Bloom’s Taxonomy.
I liked how David and Linda packaged the above topics nicely. Both wrote about the reinforcing relationship between team teaching and chatting. The former (sharing responsibilities of the classroom space at the same time) can provide structure for the latter to make it more effective. While this may seem common sense, this link was put together so insightfully. Greg also provided an example of possibly organizing a chat session via a round-robin approach.
Maria suggested the use of electronic library shelf which will provide references for learners. I thought this was a good idea to address various types of learners: visual learners who need visual stimulation either through graphics or text; “thinkers” who prefer the ability to deepen their learning by pursuing more information at their own pace; and reflective who prefer to challenge their mental models and constantly seek ways to improve these.
David also suggested using Virtual Tours as a way of offering tours of simulation tools to learners. After describing his ideas he asked for inputs on improving these. I thought that my best contribution for the week was in addressing his question through combining declarative, procedural and higher order thinking activities to move the learners to a more relevant appreciation of the topic. While this is something I regularly use in face-to-face sessions, Marilyn expressed confidence that it can work online as well.
And so we continue with the work at hand...finalizing our facilitation plans, hopefully brimming with more engaging ideas we learned this week.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Asking Questions about Formative Evaluation
Dr. Marty Tessmer of CITT was our guest this week. We read a chapter of his work on Formative Evaluation and were able to hear his interview with Dave regarding the same subject. Since I was not able to participate in this synchronous activity due to technical problems, my involvement was limited to the discussion that commenced thereafter.
The questions were generally divided into those specific to our EdWeb projects and general queries regarding Formative Evaluation. Edweb-specific questions dealt heavily on how to assess the effectiveness of our navigation systems. Since most of us in class are new at constructing our own instructional websites, there is a concern that what may work for us may not work for our target audience. Similarly, the appropriate writing style was asked to which Dr. Tessmer replied that conversational is best, citing the practice used by screenplay writers.
Richard brought up a very interesting point relating content and navigation. He wrote that the amount of content and what the instructor wants to do with it affects how a learner should be able to navigate the website. I think that this emphasizes the need to clear about our objectives. A website can serve many purposes haphazardly, but what we want is for it to serve our intended purpose successfully.
My contribution opened up the Formative Evaluation discussion in general. Based on my work, it appears that it can be used selectively to support the agenda of various stakeholders. Items can be highlighted or downplayed as the “reporter” sees fit. With no clear, strict universal rules governing its implementation, the “art” wins over the science. David seconded this line of thought when he wrote about the “dramatic shifts” in perception that undoubtedly affect the reported evaluation results.
As a fitting end to the discussion, David compared formative and summative evaluation and how they can be used in a virtuous cycle. From Dave’s reply, Thiagi and Markle’s paper, and my personal belief, formative and summative evaluations are distinct in concept but related, if not overlapping in practice. This fluidity resonates with the current implementation of Formative Evaluation: the combination of science and art, and the focus on continually asking questions more than getting defensible answers.
The questions were generally divided into those specific to our EdWeb projects and general queries regarding Formative Evaluation. Edweb-specific questions dealt heavily on how to assess the effectiveness of our navigation systems. Since most of us in class are new at constructing our own instructional websites, there is a concern that what may work for us may not work for our target audience. Similarly, the appropriate writing style was asked to which Dr. Tessmer replied that conversational is best, citing the practice used by screenplay writers.
Richard brought up a very interesting point relating content and navigation. He wrote that the amount of content and what the instructor wants to do with it affects how a learner should be able to navigate the website. I think that this emphasizes the need to clear about our objectives. A website can serve many purposes haphazardly, but what we want is for it to serve our intended purpose successfully.
My contribution opened up the Formative Evaluation discussion in general. Based on my work, it appears that it can be used selectively to support the agenda of various stakeholders. Items can be highlighted or downplayed as the “reporter” sees fit. With no clear, strict universal rules governing its implementation, the “art” wins over the science. David seconded this line of thought when he wrote about the “dramatic shifts” in perception that undoubtedly affect the reported evaluation results.
As a fitting end to the discussion, David compared formative and summative evaluation and how they can be used in a virtuous cycle. From Dave’s reply, Thiagi and Markle’s paper, and my personal belief, formative and summative evaluations are distinct in concept but related, if not overlapping in practice. This fluidity resonates with the current implementation of Formative Evaluation: the combination of science and art, and the focus on continually asking questions more than getting defensible answers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
