|
ARQ Workshop on this
CAT l List of Flashlight CATs
l Flashlight Evaluation
Handbook Table of Contents
These
materials are for use only by institutions that subscribe to
The TLT Group, to participants in TLT Group workshops that
feature this particular material, and
to invited guests. The TLT Group is a non-profit whose
existence is made possible by subscription and registration
fees. if you or your institution are not yet among
our subscribers,
we invite you to
join us, use these materials, help us
continue to improve them, and, through your subscription,
help us develop new materials! If you have questions
about your rights to use, adapt or share these materials,
please ask us (info @ tltgroup.org).
This course research design (or Classroom
Assessment Technique: CAT) is patterned after a study done
some years ago by Jon Dorbolo of Oregon State University. As
a young instructor, Jon taught "Introduction to Philosophy"
for the first time. Every time he assigned a reading or
other work, he asked students to fill out a form that asked
about how difficult the work was, and how interesting it
was.
The bad news: he discovered that almost every reading was
judged by a majority of students to be boring.
Better news: it was not the case that a few students liked
everything while a majority liked nothing. Instead each
student had some readings they liked.
Best news: There was a pattern in their
preferences. One group of students liked readings A,
C, F and so on, while another group liked B, D ... and a
third group liked E, G ..... To Dorbolo the
meaning of these patterns was obvious. Students had different
views of the meaning of life that were influencing their reactions
to the readings.
That was the clue he needed. Dorbolo decided to redesign the
course for the next term, allowing students to choose from
seven different tracks of readings. One track, for example,
was focused mainly on religious philosophy. A second track
focused on utilitarianism and another on existentialism.
Although each track was geared to a different set of student
assumptions, all tracks were designed to teach similar
skills of philosophical reasoning. Students spent some time
in their own tracks, and some time discussing or debating
issues with students in other tracks.
Lessons from this story:
-
Finding out that students aren't (yet)
very interested in the assignments can provide valuable
clues for how to get them more interested, if you can
make inferences about how there's a mismatch between
what they want and what you offer.
-
Technology has opened up some new
options for teaching a course in which there are several
groups of students, each of which wants something
different.
Building your own study: We have created
a couple of Flashlight
Online templates that you could adapt ("Engaging
Assignments').
-
Version A asks only about homework
assignments, and asks students how much time they spent
on that assignment.
Handout;
Preview of Survey.
-
Version B can be used to ask about any
course activity (homework or in-class activities); it
also asks students to describe one thing about that
activity which influenced them to spend more time (or
less time) on it.
Handout;
Preview of Survey
Once your data is in, take a look not just at the total
responses to each reading or assignment, but also at who
likes what. Are there patterns? How much you take
advantage of those patterns to create assignments and
classwork more likely to engage all your students?
PS. If you'd like to see a course designed for students with
different preferences,
click here to explore some of
Dorbolo's
course materials.
Alias for this web page:
http://bit.ly/Dorbolo
|
