1 / 26

An integrated teaching approach to encourage student-centred learning

An integrated teaching approach to encourage student-centred learning. Marion Birch & Niels Walet School of Physics and Astronomy The University of Manchester. 1. Dynamics. Core module, 1 st semester 230-280 students – Mechanics ‘A’ level modules 0- 4

chi
Download Presentation

An integrated teaching approach to encourage student-centred learning

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. An integrated teaching approach to encourage student-centred learning Marion Birch & NielsWalet School of Physics and Astronomy The University of Manchester 1

  2. Dynamics • Core module, 1st semester • 230-280 students – Mechanics ‘A’ level modules 0- 4 • Classical Newtonian Mechanics • Prior to 2006- 07 - traditional 2 x 1hr lectures /week - poor exam results - mediocre student feedback 2

  3. Innovative Techniques • Just-in-Time Teaching • E- learning • E- assessment • Peer instruction 2

  4. Objectives • To encourage the students to take responsibility for their own learning • To change the students’ attitude to learning • To provide a much more student-centred approach • To instil a deeper conceptual understanding • To increase students’ engagement with the material • To enhance exam performance 3

  5. What is Just-in-Time Teaching? • Developed in the States • Content decided at last minute • Determined by what the students are struggling with • Electronic assignment – submitted a few hours before the lecture 4

  6. Our Approach 5

  7. Role of online assignment • Must be quick and easy to deliver and analyse • Should give a rich source of feedback as students are progressing through the material • Should allow for real tests of mathematical approach to the material • Must be able to pick up common mistakes easily 4

  8. Available technology • When we started very limited • We use MIT-developed commercial product: MasteringPhysics ( Pearson) (developed as CyberTutor by Pritchard et al) • Alternatives: mathematical products • Stack • Webwork • MapleTA • And maybe one or two more • Need computer algebra ability • Not so easy to author/verify 4

  9. 9

  10. 4

  11. Successes Initial Outcomes Better exam performance 95% submission of on-line assignments Favourable feedback re’ talklets 13

  12. Pitfalls Initial Outcomes Did not meet with students’ expectations Disappointing feedback –resistance to on-line learning cf. lectures Reduction in attendance at lectures On-line assignments not very popular (cf MIT-hate subject!) JIRP sessions poorly attended 14

  13. Current version • Overview lecture - 2hrs - interactive – Peer Instruction • Pre-lecture reading • Hints added to Mastering Physics problems, notation changed; • Optimised feedback • 4 JIRP groups – always new problems • Better management of students’ expectations 15

  14. Attitudes • Appreciation of e-assessment • Students want more! • So what have we done • And what lessons can we learn about analysing assignments 29

  15. So what about e-assessment • Started from question bank • By now re-authored every single question • All with feedback • Some with less hints, most with more • So how does one make the decission? • Any lessons to learn

  16. 12

  17. 12

  18. 12

  19. 12

  20. 12

  21. Quality control • Initially the results were not as good are regards to feedback • Typos in question bank questions.... • Analysis of every question was needed • Feedback needed to be added to all questions, and removed(!) when too trivial • Substantial job (~40 hours first two years)

  22. Lessons • E-assessment requires good analysis tools (e.g, blackboard just starting) • “Fancy” e-assessment needs better analysis tools (e.g., categories of wrong answers) • Algebraic assessments require even better tools; need statistics, grouping, etc. • So do real tools provide this? • MapleTA, Stack, MasteringPhysics, ... All to some level

  23. Conclusions 1 • Good E-assessment requires real quality control • Often not discussed, and rather ad-hoc • It should be designed into the teaching review cycle • It is important for “normal” questions, but crucial for more exceptional styles • Must influence design of VLEs and E-assement engines.

  24. Conclusions 2 • Satisfaction requires good feedback • And support! • Good hints are what is necessary and sufficient for a large fraction of the students • Too many hints -> clicking through • Not enough hints, or insufficient feedback for wrong answers-> problems!

  25. Examination Marks Distributions 2007 - 08 2005 - 06 30

More Related