1 / 21

Student Opinion of Learning Activities on Computing Undergraduate Degrees

Student Opinion of Learning Activities on Computing Undergraduate Degrees. John Colvin, Colin Price & Warren Wright University of Worcester January 2008. Project Origins. Catalyst Belief in student-centred learning Admiration of the teaching of some of my colleagues

sani
Download Presentation

Student Opinion of Learning Activities on Computing Undergraduate Degrees

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. Student Opinion of Learning Activities on Computing Undergraduate Degrees John Colvin, Colin Price & Warren Wright University of Worcester January 2008

  2. Project Origins • Catalyst • Belief in student-centred learning • Admiration of the teaching of some of my colleagues • Positive anecdotal evidence from students • My curiosity • New video camera!! • Project • Student opinion of student-centred learning activities? • Why did academics incorporate these learning activities?

  3. Context • Project: 2005/2006 • Where: University of Worcester • ‘New’ University • Students: • Computing • Modular Scheme • Entry • 160 UCAS points • Non-traditional entries • Would many of our students have entered HE 20 years ago? • Project staff believe ‘didactic’ approach is inappropriate

  4. Learning Activities • 9 modules • 130 Year 2/3 students • Learning Activities • Integrated into 3 hour sessions • All followed introductory sessions of varying lengths • Tracked different Learning Activities in particular modules over 4-7 weeks

  5. Methodology AFTER Learning Activity (4-7 weeks) BEFORE Group Discussion 1-1 Staff Discussion & Questionnaire Observation & Video Students Student Questionnaire

  6. SynchronousOn-line discussions

  7. Student Presentations & Discussions

  8. Programming Examples and Exercises

  9. Simulation Software (Small Groups)

  10. Proprietary Software (Individually)

  11. Student Opinion of Learning Activity • Challenging? • Interest? • Enable the achievement of the ILO’s? • Appropriate for the stage of the course? • Frequency? • Encourage attendance? • Purpose of the activity?

  12. How Challenging?

  13. Interesting?

  14. Achievement of ILO’s

  15. Appropriate for Stage of Course

  16. How Often?

  17. Encourage Attendance?

  18. Why were Learning Activities included?

  19. Academic Awareness of Constructive Alignment

  20. Conclusions • Student Opinion • Positive & uniform across different activities • Learning activities are interesting, challenging, supportive and appropriate for the stage of their course • Preference for a palette of differing learning activities throughout a module • Only a few students believed that individual activities might encourage attendance • Academics • Correspondence between academics and students on the why academics incorporate their learning activity. • Constructive Alignment theory was not yet fully appreciated by academics

  21. Where are we now? • Continued drive to Student-centred learning • Limited staff turnover • Vet ‘teaching’ of staffat interview • Quality enhancement, rather than control mechanisms? • Greater Awareness of ‘Constructive Alignment’

More Related