The Influence of Self-efficacy and Metacognitive Prompting on Math Problem-solving Efficiency
ICT Efficacy and Efficiency for Academic Writing
description
Transcript of ICT Efficacy and Efficiency for Academic Writing
ICT Efficacy and Efficiency ICT Efficacy and Efficiency for Academic Writingfor Academic Writing
William S. Warner, Ph.D.
William S. Warner
Combine audio, visual and written feedbackCompare efficacy and efficiencyAssess instructor and student response
William S. Warner
Of all the factors that make a difference to student outcomes, the power of feedback is paramount....
Hattie, J.C (2009) Visible Learning
Information and Information and Communication TechnologyCommunication Technology
Fronter-basedFronter-based
13 Assignments 2-3 Days for Feedback
William S. Warner
Efficiency vs. EfficacyEfficiency vs. Efficacy
William S. Warner
TIME
IMPACT
Pilot Project EvaluationPilot Project EvaluationEfficacy – 29 Students Efficiency – 5 TAs Appealing idea
Unhelpful % Helpful2 1 0 1
2Written 0 5 7 7 81 Tutor 0 0 3 21 76Fronter 0 2 14 30
54Rubric 0 4 12 35 49 Audio 3 10 3 38
45
• 10-30 seconds/comment• 1-2 comments/paragraph• Too soon to judge• Technical snags• Time-consuming
Relative to Fronter comments Relative to Fronter comments
Disagree % Agreeaudio is more… 21 0 1 2efficient 20 40 30 20 0effective 0 30 50 20 0More suite for encouraging than editing
William S. Warner
Hard Copy PreferredHard Copy Preferred
• Final 3 papers – with rubric• TAs
–Spot more errors–Rubric provides equitable quality-control–Ease of evaluation: 4X4 matrix
• Students–Written comments qualified detail–Rubric quantified standards: 16-24 points–Targets strengths and weaknesses
William S. Warner
0-1 2 3 4* Did not argue a debatable issue* No evidence* No counter argument and rebuttal* No insight: an “information dump” or opinion piece
*Argued a somewhat debatable issue *Significance of issue not clear*Attempted to reason claims* Logic sometimes faulty* Supporting evidence weak* Weak counter argument and rebuttal * Shows limited insight
*Argued a debatable issue *Justify issue’s significance* Adequately reasoned most claims*Logic generally sound* Supporting evidence adequatebut not always linked to thesis*Adequate counter argument and rebuttal*Demonstrates insight
*Argued a highly controversial issue or opposed conventional thinking *Compelling justification of issue* Persuasively reasoned all claims * Logical* Supporting evidence strong and directly linked to thesis* Insightful counter argument and strong, convincing rebuttal* Demonstrates original insight
IDEAS Score X 2:
_________(out of 8)
*No clear sense of beginning, middle, end*Supporting details are insufficient *No paragraph topics
*Contains introduction, body and conclusion, but not always distinct*Supporting details are often illogically sequenced* Some paragraph topics not visible
* Distinct introduction, body and conclusion*Supporting details usually sequenced logically * Each paragraph has a clear topic
* Introduction moves reader in three steps, followed by a distinct body, and a conclusion that does not merely repeat the body*Supporting details logically sequenced* Each paragraph has a clear topi
ORGANIZATIONScore:
_________(out of 4)
* Incoherent: most sentences not clear* Not cohesive: no transitions between paragraphs and sentences* Thesis not visible* Topic sentences lacking* Excessive nominalization* Excessive passive voice* Excessive 1st person or metawriting* Excessively abstract* Excessive jargon or slang* Contractions (e.g. don’t)* Excessive “to be” verb* Agent of action in sentence often missing
*Somewhat difficult to understand* Occasionally not cohesive: some transitions missing* Thesis easily misunderstood or does not reflect argument * Topic sentences rarely visible* Wordy* Unnecessary metawriting or 1st person * Frequent abstract language* Some jargon or slang* Some contractions (e.g.don’t)* Often unnecessary negative (e.g., did not remember)* Frequent, unnecessary “to be verb” (e.g. there is, there are)* Agent of action in sentence often missing
* Generally clear* Overall cohesive: transitions present but sometimes lacking or awkward* Thesis reflects argument * Topic sentences visible* No metawriting* Acceptable 1st person* Sometimes wordy* Occasional jargon* No slang* No contractions (e.g. don’t)* Some unnecessary negative (e.g., did not remember)* Agent of action in sentence generally visible
* Easy to understand: writing flows* Cohesive: purposeful transitions create a coherent essay* Clear thesis prepares reader* All topic sentences crystallize paragraphs* No metawriting or 1st person* Concise* Precise* No jargon or slang* No contractions (e.g. don’t)* Negative (e.g. did not remember) in the affirmative (forgot)* Strong verb instead of weak “to be” (e.g., there is, there are) * Agent of action always visible
STYLEScore X 2:
_________(out of 8)
* Did not follow instructions *Many spelling and punctuation errors* Abbreviation errors* Many citation errors* Not APA reference style* < 600 words text*> 750 words text
* Followed instructions * Several spelling and punctuation errors* Several abbreviation and citation errors* Irregular APA reference style
* Followed instructions * Some spelling or punctuation errors* Some citation or abbreviation errors* APA reference style
* Followed instructions * Few or no spelling or punctuation errors* Few or no citation or abbreviation errors* APA reference style
MECHANICS
Score:_________(out of 4)
TOTAL Score out of 24
Not Approved
< 12 Weak Approval
12 - 15 Approved 16- 19 Strong Approval
20-24 GRADE RANGE
RubricRubric
William S. Warner
StudentStudent TATA Rubric ScoresRubric Scores
William S. Warner
We’re not as smart as we thinkWe’re not as smart as we think
Autumn 2012Autumn 2012Audio replaced with JINGSKYPE introducedSocial media6 (45-min) video lectures
◦Introduction◦Outline◦Clarity ◦Cohesion◦Tables & Figures
William S. Warner
William S. Warner
Social MediaSocial Media
Writing Centre http://www.umb.no/nwc/
Writing Wrongs Blog http://writingwrongsblog.wordpress.com/
William S. Warner
Autumn – 3 assignments81 students: 49 BSc, 32 MSc
EffectEffect
Unhelpful % Helpful2 1 0 1 2
JING 0 0 0 18 82Tutor 0 0 3 15 82
Paper 0 0 11 39 50Rubric 0 1 12 41 45
I found JING as helpful as the tutorDisagree % Agree2 1 0 1 2
5 11 23 29 28
William S. Warner
Unhelpful % Helpful2 1 0 1 2
JING 0 2 2 16 80
Tutor 0 0 12 27 61
Fronter 0 4 7 29 60
Paper 0 6 6 41 44Rubric 0 2 10 45 43
I prefer JING to Fronter commentsDisagree % Agree2 1 0 1 2
6 4 14 19 57
Spring – 10 assignments75 students: 15 BSc, 60 MSc
STUDENT: Efficient EffectSTUDENT: Efficient EffectAutumn Spring
• 98 % students found JING increased writing efficiency
• Easier to understand than cryptic or loaded sentences
• Voice tone • Emphasize/prioritize• Confidence/support
JING saved me timeDisagree % Agree2 1 0 1 20 7 20 35 38
JING motivated/gave me confidenceDisagree % Agree2 1 0 1 23 3 20 40 35
JING improved my writingDisagree % Agree2 1 0 1 20 1 33 42 24
William S. Warner
Autumn6 TAs3 assignmentsDid not track student
Spring8 TAs4 and 6 assignmentsTracked 10 students
Efficacy◦ Very effective – 4◦ Effective – 2
Efficiency◦ Very efficient – 1◦ Efficient – 5
Efficacy◦ Very effective - 1◦ Effective - 7
Efficiency◦ Very efficient - 2◦ Efficient - 6
William S. Warner
TA EvaluationTA Evaluation
NotNot 22 11 00 11 22 VeryVery Effective/Efficient Effective/Efficient
Spring TAsSpring TAsJING’s impact on student writing is noticeable when tracking re-writes.
Agree Disagree2 1 0 1 25 3 0 0 0
Which feedback method provides the most help to a student in the least amount of time?
6 JING4 Face-to-face consultation
1 Rubric1 Writing comments on hard copy
William S. Warner
Notice the lack of improvement?
30 minutes for both?
30 minutes/session30 sessions/term
Unhelpful (students) Helpful
2 1 0 1 2Autumn 10 students 0 1 2 4 3Spring 17 students 1 0 5 4 7
For night owl or procrastinator?
William S. Warner
Video LecturesVideo Lectures
I suggest that you watch the video lecture on…Half watched the video lectures
Unhelpful % Helpful2 1 0 1 2
Autumn(40) 0 0 2 63 35Spring (34) 0 0 9 35 56
William S. Warner
SpringSpringFeedback TutorialsFeedback Tutorials
80% watched Principles of paraphrasinghttp://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=paraphrasing APA Format for Referencinghttp://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=apa_exposed
Unhelpful % Helpful 2 1 0 1 2
Autumn 1 3 13 33 50Spring 0 2 5 36 58
William S. Warner
Social Social MediaMedia HalfHalf (75) students found (75) students found
Unhelpful Very helpful2 1 0 1 2
Website 1 0 18 20 12 Writing Wrongs blog 0 0 12 28 15
Student Journal 0 0 10 11 7
William S. Warner
• Develop protocol Read first – not on the fly Balloon comment Color code highlight
• Green – good• Yellow – suggest/consider• Red - error
• I suggest you watch the video lecture on cohesion, which explains how to make transitions betweens paragraphs.
• Save document on Fronter
William S. Warner
RecommendationsRecommendations
ConclusionsConclusions
Integrate JING across curriculumRequire video tutorials (e.g., EndNote)Develop social media for peer-reviewExplore MOOC automated feedback
William S. Warner