[Week 10]
This week saw some major progress on our group project. We have finally established the structure of our instruction, much of the content, and are beginning some early stage prototype videos. At this point my principal concern is the development of professional quality in our videos. Because principles of public speaking are not sequential or cummulative in nature, instruction on public speaking does not need to be either! Still, we are creating structure in each video in order to create a consistent format, so that learners know what to expect out of each video. We have access to the software an hardware to make professional quality videos, the next step is learning how to do it! I am planning on taking some more lynda.com training, this time in video production.
Our design decisions have ranged from large scale to small scale, and many of them are fleshed out through a collaborative process where a group member takes a position on a design decision, and another member takes a differing view, and then as a group we debate the merits of both positions. This is certainly part of the learning process, and as a group we are able to overcome the conflicts, mostly by either abandoning initial positions, or finding middle ground.
One design decision we had to flesh out was the structure of feedback. In our project, learners have the option to upload videos of themselves practicing their speaking skills. To help them, other learners would give feedback. We could not decide if those giving feedback should have a detailed framework for giving feedback (in the format of a form) or general guidelines. On the one hand, a detailed framework would ensure that the learners received relevant feedback. On the other, people may feel intimidated if they were to receive such a form of feedback for their initial efforts. After much debate, we resolved the issue by finding a middle ground: learners could indicate whether they want formative of summative style feedback. If they requested formative feedback, those leaving feedback would leave general, and encouraging comments. If they selected summative feedback, those giving feedback would leave detailed feedback with a high level of expectation, and would use a structured feedback form.
While we have not yet designed the guidelines for feedback nor the feedback form, we think this will enable our learners to collaborate and assess each other by encouraging them to scal expectations to learner input.
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Saturday, March 2, 2013
[Week 9] Reflection
Reflection is something I have seldom used in my instruction. Aside from a once-per-concert reflection, I never used it. The reflection I used was something like this:
1. What was your favorite part of the concert last night?
2. What do you think went very well?
3. What do you think could have gone better?
4. What did you learn that will help you for the next concert?
I would leave a good deal of space for the students to write, and was often very surprised by their answers. My purpose was to help them remember the experience, and to draw attention to the idea that a concert is, in addition to a performance, a learning experience.
Another tool I considered using was a practice journal. I don't know if it would benefit the students or not, but I imagine that it would, mainly because it creates another pathway to a memory. Like the 'think sheets' used in R541 and Dr. Pisoni's undergrad memory class, it could create one more 'cue' to remember things.
One thing this week's readings point out to me is that the kind of reflection you do must match your pourpose. While that seems rather intuitive, having a pre-established idea of what kind of reflections are best for certain tasks can certainly instructional designers make more intentional decisions.
In the reading, I found the ideas of meta-cofnitive reflections rather interesting. Davis states: "I characterize reflection as “poor” or “unproductive” when it seems unlikely to promote these knowledge integration processes, and as “more productive” when it is more likely to foster knowledge integration processes. For instance, the student who plans for the day’s work and who considers ways in which his or her ideas are or are not well understood is likely to be more successful at knowledge integration than the student who merely forges full-speed ahead without engaging in these metacognitive activities.
knowledge integration processes of linking and distinguishing ideas."
I find this fascinating because I find myself going through a similar process, where suddenly I'm having to think in a meta-cognitive fashion in many respects, and I'm thinking that it will be very productive to direct students to begin thinking about how they engage their intelligence with the world around them.
Reflection is something I have seldom used in my instruction. Aside from a once-per-concert reflection, I never used it. The reflection I used was something like this:
1. What was your favorite part of the concert last night?
2. What do you think went very well?
3. What do you think could have gone better?
4. What did you learn that will help you for the next concert?
I would leave a good deal of space for the students to write, and was often very surprised by their answers. My purpose was to help them remember the experience, and to draw attention to the idea that a concert is, in addition to a performance, a learning experience.
Another tool I considered using was a practice journal. I don't know if it would benefit the students or not, but I imagine that it would, mainly because it creates another pathway to a memory. Like the 'think sheets' used in R541 and Dr. Pisoni's undergrad memory class, it could create one more 'cue' to remember things.
One thing this week's readings point out to me is that the kind of reflection you do must match your pourpose. While that seems rather intuitive, having a pre-established idea of what kind of reflections are best for certain tasks can certainly instructional designers make more intentional decisions.
In the reading, I found the ideas of meta-cofnitive reflections rather interesting. Davis states: "I characterize reflection as “poor” or “unproductive” when it seems unlikely to promote these knowledge integration processes, and as “more productive” when it is more likely to foster knowledge integration processes. For instance, the student who plans for the day’s work and who considers ways in which his or her ideas are or are not well understood is likely to be more successful at knowledge integration than the student who merely forges full-speed ahead without engaging in these metacognitive activities.
In particular, students who, when they reflect, recognize
weaknesses in their current understanding are more apt to engage in the other
knowledge integration processes of linking and distinguishing ideas."
I find this fascinating because I find myself going through a similar process, where suddenly I'm having to think in a meta-cognitive fashion in many respects, and I'm thinking that it will be very productive to direct students to begin thinking about how they engage their intelligence with the world around them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)