An Interdisciplinary GE course: From

Transcription

An Interdisciplinary GE course:
From preparation to execution to formative assessment
Kelvin Lee
Department of Communication Studies
P C Yuen
Department of Computer Science
HONG KONG BAPTIST UNIVERSITY
1
An Interdisciplinary GE course: From preparation to execution to formative assessment
Content
• Background
• Problems
• Solutions
• Results
• Conclusions
2
Background
• COMP1610/DGC1330 – “Interactive Computing for Visual Communication”
• Interdisciplinary GE course jointly offered by the Department of Communication
Studies and the Department of Computer Science.
Dr. Lee Kai Wah, Kelvin
Professor Yuen Pong Chi
Dept. of Communication Studies
HKBU
Head, Dept. of Computer Science
HKBU
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Computer Graphics and
Animation, Interactive
Programming, Visual Design
Human Face Recognition,
biometric template
protection, video
surveillance
3
Background
• COMP1610/DGC1330 – “Interactive Computing for Visual Communication”
• Interdisciplinary GE course jointly offered by the Department of Communication
Studies and the Department of Computer Science.
GE Requirements
Units
Cores
26
Distributions
1. Arts
2. Business
12
3. COMMUNICATION/VISUAL ARTS
4. SCIENCE/CHINESE MEDICINE
5. Social Sciences
4
Background
Time
Oct 2009
Dec 2009
Jan 2010
Jun 2010
Sep 2011
Pilot Run in Fall Semester 2011
5
Background
• Computer evolution
The "ENIAC" - Electronic Numerical
Integrator and Computer
World’s First Computer
February 14, 1946
90s Desktop
iPhone 4
6
Background
• End user diversification
7
Background
• Application Scope
8
Background
• Application Scope
Visual
Literacy
Computing
Literacy
9
Problems
Enrollment Statistics
Study of Year
Number of Students
First
14
Second
8
Third
11
TOTAL
33
10
Problems
Enrollment Statistics
Majors
Number of Students
English
3
Music
1
Translation
1
Visual Arts
6
Computer Science
5
Communication
11
Social Work
2
European Studies
3
Statistics
1
11
Problems
 No prerequisites, mixed backgrounds of study year and disciplines
 Typical Stereotypes
• Visual needs artistic talents
• Computing demands strong mathematical skills
 How to make it truly interdisciplinary?
 Professional -> General Education
12
Solutions
 No prerequisites, mixed backgrounds of study year and disciplines
 Outcome-based Learning
13
Solutions
• Tangible learning outcomes in labs, assignments and projects
• Visual for interface, Computing for interaction
• Emphasis on understandings, integrations and achievements
• Appreciation of ideas and contemporary applications
14
Solutions
No.
1
Learning Outcomes (LOs)
Describe the fundamental principles and high-level concepts of programming.
2
Apply the essential visual communication principles for new media design.
3
Master the core programming concepts and develop applications with high-level block
building development environment such as Processing.
Design and leverage the visual and interactivity capabilities of various types of new media.
4
5
Integrate and apply the knowledge learnt to develop new media applications such as
interactive online advertisement, interactive games and augmented reality.
15
Solutions
Assessment Schedule
Week
Date
Lab
1
08 Sept
2
15 Sept
3
22 Sept
4
29 Sept
5
06 Oct
Lab
6
13 Oct
Lab
7
20 Oct
Assignments
Project
Announce
Lab
Hand in member list
Announce
Hand in proposal
Lab
8
27 Oct
Hand-in
9
03 Nov
Announce
10
10 Nov
11
17 Nov
12
24 Nov
13
01 Dec
Proposal Presentation
Lab
Hand-in
Project presentation and Report
submission
16
Solutions
 Typical Stereotypes
• Visual needs artistic talents
• Computing demands strong mathematical skills
 First Lecture highlights the course aims via applications/demonstration
related to their daily life.
 Explain the technologies and design principles behind those
applications
 Arouse students’ interests and establish their confidence by learningby-doing
17
Solutions
• Excerpt of Lecture 1 note
18
Solutions
 How to make it truly interdisciplinary?
 Professional -> General Education
 Identify a common platform with Visual and Computing
capability for practice - Processing
 Pinpoint the essential links between the topics discussed in each
lecture
 Discuss how visual communication theories can be implemented
from the computational point of view
 Integrative assessments demand both sides of knowledge: Visual
and Computing
19
Solutions
Developed by Casey Reas and Benjamin Fry of Aesthetics and Computation
research group of MIT in 2001.
http://www.processing.org
20
Solutions
 Integrative Assessment Methods : multiply perspective & synthesis
 Lab sessions
:
in a progressive mode
 Assignments
:
demand knowledge built from lab sessions
 Group Project :
learn-by-examples, encourage creativity
 Examination
:
Basic principles and theories, analysis and
understandings
 Rubrics
:
Labs, Assignments and Project
21
COMS Faculty Forum March 16, 2012
Solutions
 Assignment One : Interactive Puzzle
22
Solutions
 Assignment Two : Interactive Tapping Game
23
Solutions
 Assignment Rubrics
24
Results: Project Showcases
• A basic working code template with primitive graphics and design is
provided – Angry Bird variant
25
Solutions
 Project Rubrics
26
Results: Project Showcases
Title
:
Students :
Sticky Notes
Chow Tsz Tung (PRA), Lee Shuk Yee (PRA)
Title
:
Students :
Crazy Bakery
Mo Pian (PRA), Xu Jiaying(PRA)
Title
:
Students :
Naughty Boy
Au Ka Ho (MUS), Chu Ting Fung (COMP)
For more showcases, please check the website at
http://www.comp.hkbu.edu.hk/~comp1610/showreel.html
27
Results: Formative Review Exercise
 Conducted by Centre for Holistic Teaching and Learning
 Qualitative and quantitative studies of learning experience
 Learning Experience Inventory – Course (LEI-C): learning
experience, interests and reflections
 Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ): study the changes in
students’ approaches to learning attribute
 Focus group interviews
28
Learning Experience Inventory – Course (LEI-C)
Mean Scores of LEI-C Category 1-5 by Course Unit and Faculty
(2011-2012 Semester 1)
5.00
Mean Score
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
S1
C15
C16
C18
C19
ARTS
C20
S2-3
C21
S4
S5
S1,5-6 S2,4
S1-4
S1-2 S1-3,5
C5
C10
C11
C4
AVA
S4
C14
BUS
S1-2
C8
C9
C6
COMM
C12
C13
C7
SCI/
COMM
SCI
Category 1 3.80
3.94
3.92
3.44
3.88
4.33
3.93
3.77
3.00
4.19
4.00
3.78
3.85
4.13
3.87
3.84
3.66
4.05
3.56
3.96
3.96
3.76
Category 2 3.84
4.00
3.98
3.69
3.88
4.46
3.99
3.67
2.92
4.06
3.91
3.83
3.86
4.17
3.86
3.86
3.64
4.00
3.55
4.14
3.96
3.82
Category 3 3.69
3.87
3.80
3.35
3.75
4.29
3.80
3.58
3.04
3.81
3.76
3.84
3.60
4.04
3.68
3.61
3.39
3.84
3.46
3.87
4.10
3.64
Category 4 3.81
3.91
4.08
3.63
3.75
4.42
3.78
3.52
2.95
4.00
3.90
3.78
3.70
4.10
3.76
3.69
3.72
4.04
3.54
3.95
3.77
3.65
Category 5 3.61
3.61
3.98
3.56
3.50
4.21
3.54
3.55
2.88
3.69
3.86
3.76
3.58
3.98
3.70
3.60
3.40
3.75
3.64
3.84
3.79
3.50
29
Learning Experience Inventory – Course (LEI-C)
Mean Scores of LEI-C Category 1-5 by Course Unit and Faculty
(2011-2012 Semester 1)
5.00
Mean Score
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
S1
C15
C16
C18
C19
C20
S2-3
C21
S4
S5
S1,5-6 S2,4
S1-4
S1-2 S1-3,5
C5
C10
C11
C4
What IAVA
am to learn?
S4
C14
BUS
S1-2
C8
C9
C6
COMM
C12
C13
C7
SCI/
COMM
Category 1
ARTS
SCI
Category
1 3.80
Category
2
3.94
3.92
How to3.88
go about
3.44
4.33learning
3.93 it?
3.77
3.00
4.19
4.00
3.78
3.85
4.13
3.87
3.84
3.66
4.05
3.56
3.96
3.96
3.76
Category
2 3.84
Category
3
Category 3 3.69
Category 4
Category 4 3.81
Category
5
Category
5 3.61
4.00
3.98
2.92
4.06
3.91
3.83
3.86
4.17
3.86
3.86
3.64
4.00
3.55
4.14
3.96
3.82
3.87
3.80
3.04
3.81
3.76
3.84
3.60
4.04
3.68
3.61
3.39
3.84
3.46
3.87
4.10
3.64
3.91
4.08
2.95
4.00
3.90
3.78
3.70
4.10
3.76
3.69
3.72
4.04
3.54
3.95
3.77
3.65
3.61
3.98
3.69
3.88did4.46
3.67
How well
I learn3.99
it?
3.35 3.75 4.29 3.80 3.58
How I feel about my learning?
3.63 3.75 4.42 3.78 3.52
Reflecting
my learning?
3.56
3.50 on4.21
3.54 3.55
2.88
3.69
3.86
3.76
3.58
3.98
3.70
3.60
3.40
3.75
3.64
3.84
3.79
3.50
30
Study Process Questionnaire - (SPQ)
 SPQ1 conducted in week-2 and SPQ2 week-12
Deep Learning
Surface Learning
Focus is on “what is signified”
Focus is on the “signs”
Relates previous knowledge to new knowledge
Focus on unrelated parts of the task
Relates knowledge from different courses
Information for assessment is simply memorized
Relates theoretical ideas to everyday experience
Facts and concepts are associated unreflectively
Relates and distinguishes evidence and argument
Principles are not distinguished from examples
Organize and structures content into coherent
whole
Task is treated as an external imposition
Emphasis is internal, from within the student
Emphasis is external, from demands of
assessment
31
SPQ1 & SPQ2 Comparison: Deep Approach and
Surface Approach
50.00
Mean Score
40.00
30.00
29.82
31.33
26.59
26.53
20.00
10.00
0.00
Deep Approach
Surface Approach
Approach
SPQ1
SPQ2
32
SPQ1 & SPQ2 Comparison: Sub-Scales
25.00
Mean Score
20.00
15.00
14.7615.50
15.6115.83
10.00
12.3512.29
14.0014.22
5.00
0.00
Deep Motive
Deep Strategy
Surface Motive
Surface Strategy
Motive and Strategy
SPQ1
SPQ2
Deep
Surface
Motive
Intrinsic interest
Fear of failure
Strategy
Maximize meaning
Narrow target, rote learn
33
Focus Group Interviews
•
What students most appreciated
“This course is very interesting”;
“The professors are very helpful”;
“And it is a great pleasure to do the assignment”;
“We can use our assignment for our phones”.
•
Recommendations from students
Workload is a bit heavy. “I am a year three student, and I feel the workload of this course is
comparable to level 3 courses”.
There is a gap between learning and assessment. “The final project is very difficult and the
regular assignment is easy. What we have learnt from the class is not adequate for us to work
out the final project.”
34
Focus Group Interviews
•
All three students recommended that the instructors could elaborate on some knowledge
point and consider students’ prior knowledge.
•
“Some of us do not have computer science background. In terms of math, the instructor
would say “this function is to make…”. However, we do not understand why. When we make
the program, it causes difficulty because we did not understand why. In our final project, we
know we have learned this, but we could not apply. I hope the teacher could elaborate.”
35
Results: Online TE
Positive Comments
COMP1610 / DGC1330
36
Results: Online TE
Negative Comments
COMP1610 / DGC1330
37
Conclusions
 Wonderful experience in team teaching
 Need to select and filter materials appropriate for the student
standards and also fulfill the interdisciplinary nature
 Revise the assessments to balance the work load and learning
 Future planning with more hands-on lab sessions
38
Thank You!
Q&A
39

An Interdisciplinary GE course: From

Transcription

Similar documents

What Does Research Say the Benefits of Formative Assessment Are?

Using Formative Assessment During Reading Instruction

GRADUATE COURSE PROPOSAL OR REVISION, Cover Sheet

Making it Happen - Dimension Systems

Final Program - Science in Society

Formative Assessment and Next-Generation Assessment Systems

What is assessment for learning? Dylan Wiliam

formative assessment class-ix

An Interdisciplinary Design Journal

2010 Moore - Formative Architecture in Tumbes

Pamphlet

From Olmec to Epi-Olmec at Tres Zapotes

The PARI Journal Vol. IX, No. 1

Educational Design Research - Downloads

MOC - Vision

to view the full submission

commencement - Vanderbilt University

Inspiring Science Education Teacher Guide

Rotorcraft 10 2011

Improving Speed to Market in E-commerce