Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
presentations [2021/06/18 03:14] – becker | more_information [2024/01/07 00:01] (current) – becker | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | ====== | + | ====== |
- | ===== Murky Waters: Instructional Design Theories and Models | + | ===== Presentations |
- | In science, a theory is an explanation for how something works. Here, a theory | + | The following are slides from some of the talks I have given that relate |
+ | If nothing else, this speaks | ||
- | Becker, K. (2017) Murky Waters: Instructional Design Theories | + | ==== The Cases For/Against Re-Submission ==== |
+ | |||
+ | There has long been a practice - sometimes unofficial, but sometimes codified in an institution’s plagiarism policies - that all work submitted for grading by a student must be, in some sense, wholly new work. We typically do not allow students to submit anything for grading that has previously been submitted in another course. Some years ago, I began to re-examine all of my teaching practices and philosophies. Doing so has opened up new possibilities as well as helping to re-focus my efforts on the core principles that have guided me throughout my teaching career. I have always seen my role as more of a coach than a gate-keeper. Given that, two questions deserve to be asked, and answered when it comes to what we are asking our students to do: How does this practice help my students learn what I need them to learn? What are the reasons for the exercise being done in the way it is? When it comes to the thorny issue of re-submission, | ||
+ | This process is an important way to learn how to write. Why then don’t we do allow this for our students? | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Becker, K. (2021). The Cases For/Against Re-Submission, | ||
+ | Presentation ET PD GM SoTL | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{url> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== What’s Better When I Do? What Breaks if I Don’t? ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Some years ago I accepted a teaching assignment for a course I first taught in 1982. | ||
+ | I hadn’t taught that course in years so I looked at the most recently used syllabus, | ||
+ | That 2012 syllabus looked almost identical to the syllabus I had used 30 years ago - right down to the textbook*. | ||
+ | It put the unquestioning sameness of our pedagogy into sharp focus for me, and prompted me to begin to reevaluate absolutely everything I was doing. | ||
+ | It occurred to me that we don’t question | ||
+ | For example: | ||
+ | - What is the true purpose of and benefit for high-stakes, closed book final exams? | ||
+ | - What do our tests REALLY test? | ||
+ | - Is it what we have determined is most important? | ||
+ | - Are they really objective? | ||
+ | - What purpose do hard deadlines serve? | ||
+ | - Who do they benefit most? In what way does what I am doing facilitate learning or understanding? | ||
+ | - Which of my teaching strategies actually interfere with what I need my students to learn? | ||
+ | Just because we have been doing something a certain way for decades does not mean it is the best way, or even a good way to do something. On the other hand, leaping onto every new bandwagon that comes along does not make you a better teacher. | ||
+ | This session will attempt to prompt some serious self-reflection and lively discussion on what we do, why we do it, and what it’s good for. | ||
+ | *Same author, new edition. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Becker, K. (2019). What’s Better When I Do? What Breaks if I Don’t? to be presented at: Mount Royal Faculty Association Faculty Retreat A Place for You: Building a Better U, April 29-30, 2019 at Kanaskis, Alberta. | ||
- | <html> | + | {{url> |
- | <iframe src="https:// | + | |
- | </ | + | |
- | ===== It’s Time to Stop Using Compartmentalized Scoring | + | ==== It’s Time to Stop Using Compartmentalized Scoring ==== |
The consequences of compartmentalized scoring are that students need consistently good marks for a good grade. | The consequences of compartmentalized scoring are that students need consistently good marks for a good grade. | ||
Line 25: | Line 55: | ||
Becker, K. (2018) It’s Time to Stop Using Compartmentalized Scoring, 2018 Symposium on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Building SoTL Communities - Within, Between, and Beyond, Banff, AB, Nov 8-10 2018 Symposium on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning | Becker, K. (2018) It’s Time to Stop Using Compartmentalized Scoring, 2018 Symposium on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Building SoTL Communities - Within, Between, and Beyond, Banff, AB, Nov 8-10 2018 Symposium on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning | ||
- | <html> | + | {{url> |
- | <iframe src="https:// | + | |
- | </ | + | |
- | ===== T.A.P.: The Teach Aloud Protocol | + | ==== T.A.P.: The Teach Aloud Protocol ==== |
A popular approach in teaching is what is being called “Teaching Out Loud”. The approach advocated by many of those who use the term is in many ways closer to “Teaching Boldly” (or “Teaching Loud”) than it is to Teaching out Loud. The idea is to advocate for the courage to try new things and to teach the ways students learn. While this is important, there is another approach that has received far less attention, but that is equally important, especially with adult learners. This approach is called the Teach Aloud Protocal (T.A.P.), and it draws inspiration from the “Think Aloud” idea in psychological and educational research. The basic idea is that the ‘subject’ says what they are thinking about as they complete a task. The goal is to learn about the thought processes the subject is using. Given that, “Teaching Aloud” should be about the teacher explaining their reasoning and thought processes while teaching. This presentation will relate the author’s experiences with this approach and discuss some of the implications of adopting a Teach Aloud Protocol in higher education courses. | A popular approach in teaching is what is being called “Teaching Out Loud”. The approach advocated by many of those who use the term is in many ways closer to “Teaching Boldly” (or “Teaching Loud”) than it is to Teaching out Loud. The idea is to advocate for the courage to try new things and to teach the ways students learn. While this is important, there is another approach that has received far less attention, but that is equally important, especially with adult learners. This approach is called the Teach Aloud Protocal (T.A.P.), and it draws inspiration from the “Think Aloud” idea in psychological and educational research. The basic idea is that the ‘subject’ says what they are thinking about as they complete a task. The goal is to learn about the thought processes the subject is using. Given that, “Teaching Aloud” should be about the teacher explaining their reasoning and thought processes while teaching. This presentation will relate the author’s experiences with this approach and discuss some of the implications of adopting a Teach Aloud Protocol in higher education courses. | ||
Line 35: | Line 63: | ||
Becker, K. (2017). T.A.P.: The Teach Aloud Protocol and Transparency in Teaching to be presented at: Mount Royal Faculty Association Faculty Retreat Changes: Shift Happens, May 8-9, 2017 at Kanaskis, Alberta. | Becker, K. (2017). T.A.P.: The Teach Aloud Protocol and Transparency in Teaching to be presented at: Mount Royal Faculty Association Faculty Retreat Changes: Shift Happens, May 8-9, 2017 at Kanaskis, Alberta. | ||
- | <html> | + | {{url> |
- | <iframe src="https:// | + | |
- | </ | + | |
- | ===== The Randomness of Grades | + | ==== The Randomness of Grades ==== |
This presentation takes a look at elements of our schedules, assignments, | This presentation takes a look at elements of our schedules, assignments, | ||
Line 45: | Line 71: | ||
Becker, K. (2017). Grades and The Random Factor: How Randomness Affects Assessment to be presented at: Mount Royal Faculty Association Faculty Retreat Changes: Shift Happens, May 8-9, 2017 at Kanaskis, Alberta. | Becker, K. (2017). Grades and The Random Factor: How Randomness Affects Assessment to be presented at: Mount Royal Faculty Association Faculty Retreat Changes: Shift Happens, May 8-9, 2017 at Kanaskis, Alberta. | ||
- | <html> | + | {{url> |
- | <iframe src="https:// | + | |
- | </ | + | |
- | ===== Misguided Illusions of Understanding | + | ==== Murky Waters: Instructional Design Theories |
- | Becker, K. (2018) Misguided Illusions of Understanding and Getting Creative with Grading ACCP-CAID Canadian Association of Instrcutional | + | In science, a theory is an explanation for how something works. Here, a theory that has no supporting evidence is really little more than an idea and it is not until sufficient supporting evidence has been gathered that the theory begins to be taken seriously. In the social sciences by contrast, a ‘theory’ can be loosely developed and poorly tested (NIH, 2005), yet still gain acceptance and even legitimacy. Some even describe theories as casual models (Briggs, 2006), so it should come as no surprise that there is often confusion around the distinction between an ID theory and an ID model. The terms seem to be used interchangeably. In education, instructional design (ID) theory came out of synergies of learning theory, psychology, and communications. These terms are used as in the social sciences, so it isn't surprising that there is confusion. ID theories should be distinguished from ID models in that ID theories attempt to explain how to teach, whereas ID models provide guidance on how to design it. This presentation will provide a brief overview of the distinctions between ID theories and ID models, and offer a new approach to categorizing both (see attached images) that can help practitioners and students understand the distinction as well as to make better use of the particular features of each. |
+ | |||
+ | Becker, K. (2017) Murky Waters: Instructional Design Theories and Models, CNIE 2017: Exploring our past, present and future, Banff, AB, May 17-19, 2017 Canadian Network for Innovation In Education | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{url> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Misguided Illusions of Understanding and Getting Creative with Grading ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Becker, K. (2018) Misguided Illusions of Understanding and Getting Creative with Grading, | ||
Invited Workshop | Invited Workshop | ||
- | <html> | + | {{url>https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1dVBaE_8AyQzLgvtOujA-6YvujiLX9X8wYFQiabyr93A/embed?start=false& |
- | <iframe src="//www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/key/ | + | |
- | </ | + | |
- | ===== Gamification how to gamify learning and instruction Part 1 (of 3) ===== | + | ==== Gamification how to gamify learning and instruction Part 1 (of 3) ==== |
- | <html> | + | {{url>https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Fgc4q-v40tloOEBXBefb0Hb3FpbeF75E/embed?start=false& |
- | <iframe src="//www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/key/ | + | |
- | </ | + | |
- | ===== Gamification how to gamify learning and instruction Part 2 (of 3) ===== | + | ==== Gamification how to gamify learning and instruction Part 2 (of 3) ==== |
- | <html> | + | {{url>https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/18GyhAb08S8xk9gmwPVQ1uo6jqAr9Nrvj/embed?start=false& |
- | <iframe src="//www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/key/4w93XDBASxmEj1" | + | |
- | </ | + | |
- | ===== Gamification how to gamify learning and instruction Part 3 (of 3) ===== | + | ==== Gamification how to gamify learning and instruction Part 3 (of 3) ==== |
- | <html> | + | {{url>https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BB0BN2D6gHWI1lv0wdrtFWh19GEgekXg/embed?start=false& |
- | <iframe src="//www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/key/yvpBo7jWrxPhNb" | + | |
- | </ | + | |
+ | ==== Death to Deadlines ==== | ||
- | ===== Is gamification a game changer? | + | 2016 |
+ | |||
+ | Various approaches to allowing flexibility for students in computer science (CS) assignments (deadlines, choices, graduated requirements, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Becker, K. (2016). Death to Deadlines 2.0 presented at: Mount Royal University Centennial Symposium on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Banff, Alberta, November 10-12, 2016. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{url> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Is gamification a game changer? ==== | ||
2013 | 2013 | ||
Line 86: | Line 122: | ||
Becker, K., Patrick Perri (2013). Is Gamification a Game-Changer? | Becker, K., Patrick Perri (2013). Is Gamification a Game-Changer? | ||
- | <html> | + | {{url>https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/15MuAKMNhK9fSf-wnF70UiDgKoI6b8euOP9glc6137Wo/embed?start=false& |
- | <iframe src="//www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/key/ | + | |
- | </ | + | |
- | ===== How Much Choice is Too Much? ===== | + | ==== How Much Choice is Too Much? ==== |
2009 | 2009 | ||
Line 98: | Line 132: | ||
Providing a learner-centered perspective is in keeping with modern constructivist approaches to learning, and this means that courses must be designed with learner attributes and choice in mind. Concerns over accreditation and the need for accountability at the post-secondary level seem to contradict freedom of choice and flexibility of term work, but this need not be the case. This paper outlines numerous strategies for offering choice and flexibility to students in a freshman programming course. Approaches include flexible deadlines, the ability to re-submit work that has already been assessed, writing tasks, contributing to course content, bonuses for embellishments and extra work, and choices about which problems to solve. All of the strategies have been employed in classes, and students’ reactions as well as effects on student engagement and quality of work are described. | Providing a learner-centered perspective is in keeping with modern constructivist approaches to learning, and this means that courses must be designed with learner attributes and choice in mind. Concerns over accreditation and the need for accountability at the post-secondary level seem to contradict freedom of choice and flexibility of term work, but this need not be the case. This paper outlines numerous strategies for offering choice and flexibility to students in a freshman programming course. Approaches include flexible deadlines, the ability to re-submit work that has already been assessed, writing tasks, contributing to course content, bonuses for embellishments and extra work, and choices about which problems to solve. All of the strategies have been employed in classes, and students’ reactions as well as effects on student engagement and quality of work are described. | ||
- | <html> | + | {{url>https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/10zHQkWqlxgXXQQE-L8-KjiOQC-AfJIAqPLfhukU5c_Q/embed?start=false& |
- | <iframe src="//www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/key/ | + | |
- | </ | + | |
- | ===== Reconciling a Traditional Syllabus with an Inquiry-Based Introductory Course | + | ==== Reconciling a Traditional Syllabus with an Inquiry-Based Introductory Course ==== |
2007 | 2007 | ||
Line 110: | Line 142: | ||
Becker, K. (2004) Reconciling a Traditional Syllabus with an Inquiry-Based Introductory Course The Journal of Computing Science in Colleges Volume 20, Number 2, December 2004, pp 28-37 Consortium for Computing Science in Colleges Northwest Conference, October 8-9 2004, Salem, Oregon | Becker, K. (2004) Reconciling a Traditional Syllabus with an Inquiry-Based Introductory Course The Journal of Computing Science in Colleges Volume 20, Number 2, December 2004, pp 28-37 Consortium for Computing Science in Colleges Northwest Conference, October 8-9 2004, Salem, Oregon | ||
- | <html> | + | {{url> |
- | <iframe src="// | + | |
- | </ | + | |
- | + | ||
- | ===== Death to Deadlines ===== | + | |
- | + | ||
- | 2007 | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Various approaches to allowing flexibility for students in computer science (CS) assignments (deadlines, choices, graduated requirements, | + | |
- | + | ||
- | Becker, K. (2006) Death to Deadlines: A 21st Century Look at the Use of Deadlines and Late Penalties in Programming Assignments presented at WCCCE 2006 - The Western Canadian Conference on Computing Education, Calgary, Alberta, May 4-6, 2006 | + | |
- | + | ||
- | < | + | |
- | <iframe src="//www.slideshare.net/ | + | |
- | </ | + | |