Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revisionNext revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
presentations [2018/11/20 20:01] – [T.A.P.: The Teach Aloud Protocol] becker | more_information [2024/01/07 00:00] – [Misguided Illusions of Understanding and Getting Creative with Grading] becker | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | ====== | + | ====== |
- | ===== It’s Time to Stop Using Compartmentalized Scoring | + | ===== Presentations |
- | A popular approach in teaching is what is being called “Teaching Out Loud”. | + | The following are slides from some of the talks I have given that relate |
+ | If nothing else, this speaks | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== 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 | ||
+ | This process | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | 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 | ||
+ | I hadn’t taught | ||
+ | That 2012 syllabus looked almost identical | ||
+ | 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 our own methods and motives nearly often enough, or honestly enough. | ||
+ | For example: | ||
+ | - What is the true purpose of and benefit for high-stakes, | ||
+ | - 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 | ||
+ | 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 | ||
+ | *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. | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{url> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== It’s Time to Stop Using Compartmentalized Scoring ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The consequences of compartmentalized scoring are that students need consistently good marks for a good grade. | ||
+ | Exams typically happen on single days. If a student has a crappy day, they’re hooped. Does this really reflect a student’s mastery | ||
+ | The author has known students who were genuinely talented and dedicated fail courses, or lose out on an ‘A’ because | ||
+ | Is that reasonable that one could at some point be unable to pass a course, even if they get 100% on everything from that point on? | ||
+ | If goal is to help students master the course content, then how does compartmentalized grading further that goal? The truth is, it doesn’t. | ||
+ | This presentation will present a simple alternative to this approach; namely, strictly cumulative scoring. Cumulative scoring starts with zero. | ||
+ | This presentation will explain a variety of ways this can be made to work without substantially adding to the instructor’s workload. | ||
+ | We design | ||
+ | We shouldn' | ||
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 17: | 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 27: | 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 68: | 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 80: | 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 92: | 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/ | + | |
- | </ | + | |