Teaching & Learning Showcase 2012

1. Teaching & Learning Showcase 2012 Improve Your LMS: Formative Online Checkpoint Tests to Drive Engagement Phillip Wong Lecturer Faculty of Business & Finance @tetracarbon www.tetracarbon.com

2. You will see You will gain • Situation & Problem • Theoretical Framework • The tool & its rules • Why it works • How to find out more Know: • Appreciate sustainable assessment • Better understanding of Asian learners Do: • Create online checkpoint test in your LMS

3. Problems: Cohort: Large number of East Asian students • Confucius Heritage Culture Learners • Focus on Culture not Race Poor engagement / boredom Poor textbook purchase rate, reading almost non-existent Poor sustained student effort – tendency to cram Student tendency for “collaborative rote” – commonly known as “cheating”

4. Vote Now: Sound Familiar?

5. Just put it on the test

7. But that creates further problems… • Marking overload • Wash back – Teaching the test (Ramsden, 1991 & Crooks 1988) • Marginalised groups? • Culturally appropriate? • Achieve the intended pedagogical outcome? • Goals of a “Western education”? (Doherty & Singh, 2005) • Cognitively Aligned? (Biggs & Tang, 2011) • Flexibility for students?

8. Framework: • CHC Learners • Hofstede’s cultural dimensions • Sustainable assessment • Inclusive design • F r a m e w o r k

9. Boud: Sustainable assessment “Assessment that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of students to meet their own future learning needs.” (Boud, 2000, p.151) Prior to enrolment During study Post Study Prior knowledge, experiences & attitudes Teaching & Learning Activities (TLA) Adjusted behaviour subsequent Grading Formative assessments (AT) Feedback Summative assessments (AT) Final Marks issued Learning objectives (ILO) Wash Back Constructive alignment Sustainable Assessment

10. Sustainable assessment: To do this: • Focus on formative assessment and feedback • Assessment designed to teach • Must be criterion referenced (not bell curve) • Students learn to self assess and reflect with peers • Feedback has to be used (Boud2000)

11. NOT SUSTAINABLE

12. Framework: • CHC Learners • Hofstede’s cultural dimensions • Sustainable assessment • Inclusive design • F r a m e w o r k (Boud 2000 p151)

13. Inclusive design: Good design benefits all (Broughan & Hunt 2012)

14. Framework: • CHC Learners • Hofstede’s cultural dimensions • Sustainable assessment • Inclusive design • F r a m e w o r k (Broughan & Hunt 2012) (Boud 2000 p151)

15. Hofstede: Culture and CHC Learners Strong Power Distance versus Weak Power Distance Collectivism versus Individualism Masculinity versus Femininity Uncertainty Avoidance Long term versus Short term Safety (Hofstede 1980)

16. Hofstede: Culture and CHC Learners Strong Power Distance versus Weak Power Distance Collectivism versus Individualism Masculinity versus Femininity Uncertainty Avoidance Long term versus Short term Safety (Hofstede, 1980)

17. Caricatures: Role Pairs

18. Hofstede: Understanding CHC Learners The West The East Collectivism, large power distance, strong uncertainty avoidance and masculine cultures • Students to learn how to do • Face-consciousness is strong • Individuals only speak up in class when called upon personally by the teacher • Teacher-centred education • Teachers are never contradicted nor publicly criticized • Older teachers more respected than younger teachers • Teachers are expected to have all answers • Good teachers use academic language • Male students avoid traditionally feminine subjects • Not conform with Western norms ofacademic writing, vague arguments Individualism, small power distance, weak uncertainty avoidance and feminine culture • Students learn how to learn • Face-consciousness is weak • Individual students will speak up in class • Student-centred education • Students are allowed to contradict or criticize teachers • Younger teachers more liked than older teachers • Teachers are allowed to say “I don’t know” • Good teachers use plain language • Male students may choose traditionally feminine academic subjects • Arguments in academic writing are strong (Hofstede, 1986)

19. The Tool & the rules

20. The tool & the rules • Weekly quiz (checkpoint test), online via the LMS • The average is 10% of final grade • Simple: • 11 Topics, • 11 Chapters from textbook • 11 Checkpoints • 11 Questions on final exam • Each 10-14 MCQs • Only 1 attempt, time limited to 1 hour • Questions randomised from large bank • Answer order randomised • Questions are grouped by LO to ensure complete coverage • Students can do this whenever they want • Automatically get result, but not answers • Can review with the teacher 11

21. The tool & the rules • Each checkpoint test unlocks the next topic: • Student must do the quiz for week 1 to get to week 2 learning material. • hidden until student engages online • Handouts, • MP3 recording of lectures • PowerPoint slides, • suggested tutorial solutions • Actively obstructs advanced learning without basic work first • Questions are difficult and can be VERY specific about the textbook • Students receive an “early warning notice”

22. Why it works: Sustainable • Time: • Significant setup time • Reusable • Publisher question sets ok • Student help proof read your questions • Lockstep nature forces fundamentals • Students better able to see links • Prevents cramming • Encourages reading before progressing • Teacher can guide student if student asks for a review • Students agonise over checkpoint result despite low weighting • This encourages deeper learning earlier on • Low scores are used as early warning indicators

23. Why it works: Reading & CHC cultures Students sit the checkpoint test with textbook in front of them • Students effectively forced to read the textbook closely, at least, search for details in short periods of time • an important professional / academic skill • Students without texts are effectively penalised • Lesson: professionals must be equipped with the right tools

24. Why it works: Natural collaboration & CHC learners Incentive to “cheat”/“collude” – groups of 4 are common • Actually deepens understanding since now exposed to 40 questions rather than just 10 each • The strong naturally teach the weak • Peer teaching is effective (Hattie 2009) • The student’s natural tendency to “cheat” tricks them into learning more, in a more natural setting • Better than teacher set group work Tool uses CHC learners OWN preferences Rather than trying to fight them with Western superiority Avoids the assumption“WEST IS BEST”

25. Why it works: Natural collaboration & CHC learners • Authentication: Each student maintains incentives to remain engaged since marks go against their name • Validation: Because of the open book / MCQ nature, low weighting (only 10%) • Enough to make it matter to students… • …but not enough to be a decisive factor in a pass / fail situation • Exam topic overlap validates checkpoint test • Tool does not assess competence itself, rather it rewards interaction - sustainable assessment (Boud 2000) • To the student, it (deceptively) feels like standard summative assessment • Subtle: (inclusive design) • feels culturally independent • actually culturally appropriate

26. Find out more: • Visit tetracarbon.com • Tweet me @tetracarbon • Facebook facebook.com/economista • Email phillip.wong@holmesglen.edu.au

27. References: Biggs, J. and C. Tang (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university, Open University Press. Broughan, C., & Hunt, L. (2012). Chapter 11: Inclusive teaching. In L. Hunt & D. Chalmers (Eds.), Universe teaching in focus: a learner centred approach. Camberwell VIC Australia: ACER Press. Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of educational research, 58(4), 438-481. Doherty, C. and P. Singh (2005). How the West is done: Simulating Western pedagogy in a curriculum for Asian international students. Internationalizing Higher Education: 53-73. Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement, Routledge. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values, Sage Publications, Incorporated. Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning.International Journal of intercultural relations 10(3): 301-320. Ramsden, P. (1991). Learning to teach in higher education: Routledge. Images: The Karate Kid http://www.sonyinsider.com/2010/05/18/the-karate-kid-is-the-kung-fu-kid/ The Karate Kid (Remake) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1237945/Karate-Kid-remake-trailer-released-Will-Smiths-son-Jayden-takes-starring-role-Jackie-Chan.html

28. Abstract: This presentation assists teachers to construct appropriate eLearning strategies that support learners from Confucius (Asian) backgrounds. Educators of international students need to be aware of how Western and Eastern pedagogies differ. Educators can then recognise, and take advantage of the different learning approaches of learners with Confucius backgrounds. There is significant research evidence that demonstrates the need for cross cultural understanding in the higher education environment. In applying these concepts, Phillip has designed a coherent mix of online assessments, eLearning/eFeedback tools that drive better engagement, and ultimately better learning outcomes. Attendees will have a better appreciation of international students’ learning, sustainable assessment concepts, and receive simple practical tips on how to improve their LMS to build engagement of this frequently misunderstood cohort.

29. Notes

30. Improve Your LMS: Formative Online Checkpoint Tests to Drive Engagement Culture matters! Always has and always will Phillip Wong @tetracarbon www.tetracarbon.com

31. About Phillip Phillip is an accounting and taxation lecturer at Holmesglen. Phillip writes on and researches into applying sustainable assessments principles by Boud, education and social media, eLearning practices and cross cultural issues in tertiary education. For more information and regular updates, tweet @tetracarbon or read his blog www.tetracarbon.com.

32. Notes