Skip to main content

Home/ EME6635Su07TheoryPapers/ Contents contributed and discussions participated by Allan Jeong

Contents contributed and discussions participated by Allan Jeong

Simple Middle Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics
Allan Jeong

eme6635fall07 » PositiveInterdependence - 0 views

eme6635fall07.wikispaces.com/PositiveInterdependence

shared by Allan Jeong on 20 Sep 07 - No Cached
  • seek further information
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 20 Sep 07
       
      In particular, students do not seek out and report empirical data or findings to present evidence (and hard numbers and statistical findings) to establish the veracity of a claim or argument. So what you are really suggesting here is that each student should be assigned to read a research article and report its empirical findings to strengthen (or to disprove) the arguments posted to the debate.
  • Each student would have ownership of an argument because they would have some portion of responsibility to its
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 20 Sep 07
       
      This sounds like a pretty good idea, Mark.
  • 1) Resource Interdependence
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 20 Sep 07
       
      FORMATTING THE DOCUMENT: To make the text easier to read, I inserted a two column table immediately below the heading. Then, I inserted all the text under the heading into the second column so that all the text is indented below the main heading.
  • ...17 more annotations...
  • Teamsmanship Ratings
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 20 Sep 07
       
      I would say that this method is used to directly increase individual accountability given that students are asked to evaluate the performance of individual students. Nevertheless, some of the individual behaviors that are assessed and promoted in peer evaluations will indirectly increase inter-dependence. Overall, I guess its a toss up as to which category or function is performed by using this method.
  • A simple worksheet
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 20 Sep 07
       
      Maybe we can use a wiki to compile all the peer ratings into one single worksheet. I think that efficiency is a must here so that students can concentrate on the main task - building and defending their arguments. Any other ideas on how best to implement the peer review process? Another question: How many times do the student evaluate one another during each debate? Is this a summative or formative evaluation?
  • part of their participation
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 20 Sep 07
       
      How would the peer ratings count towards the students' participation score for participating in the debate?
  • Skills such as how to address arguments, rebuttals, or engage in conversation on the board during debate
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 23 Sep 07
       
      Perhaps one can present more social skill tips and/or training over the course of the semester so that students have all the prerequisite social skills by the time they participate in the last and the fourth debate in EME5457. The question is which specific social skills should be addressed in the course without committing too much time on this one activity?
  • Too many debates in a 16 week course
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 23 Sep 07
       
      Just a Point of information: There are a total of four debates in EME5457, dispersed over the 16 week semester.
  • formulate arguments
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 23 Sep 07
       
      I think that there should be a distinction made between an "intellectual skill" versus a "social skill". Formulating arguments and etc. is something I see as an intellectual/argumentation skill (like the "fermenting" skills or roles described by JJ&H). Social skills, on the other hand, is concerned with how to "present" an argument or a challenge without sounding sounding offensive or arrogant - presenting one's ideas in ways that maintains positive relationships between participants (e.g. focus on the issue not on individual personalities, etc.). Social skills are taught to help maintain positive social relationships.
  • the groups who had structured learning contracts
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 23 Sep 07
       
      I like how you stated the findings in terms of what Beichner "found" or "observed" in their study (as opposed to stating the finding in terms of a claim or position statement. This type of statement is more effective in establishing the credibility because it is explicitly linked to the study's findings.
  • instructors should provide guidelines
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 23 Sep 07
       
      This could also help reduce the amount of time students spend on producing a group contract, and therefore, reduce the work load placed on the students. One of my concerns is student's work load (which must be taken into consideration when we discuss any of the solutions proposed in this document. --Allan
  • 6) AUTORATING
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 23 Sep 07
       
      Note that this one is the same concept as that proposed in method #4 "Teammanship Ratings"
  • 12) SCAFFOLDING COLLABORATIVE ARGUMENTATION IN DISCUSSIONS
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 23 Sep 07
       
      This method could be presented or subsumed under the method "Assigning Roles" (Role Interdependence). Using message labeling is one way of implementing roles. Therefore, this entry could be presented under "Implementation Issues".
  • Pre-structured threads lead to more challenges per argument which result in more cognitive conflict which in turn leads to further inquiry by students
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 23 Sep 07
       
      It seems then that we are assuming that "positive interdependence" can be measured and/or defined in terms of how often presented arguments are challenged (therefore, groups are both working and "thinking" together)? I think this is a very useful way of looking at the meaning of the term "positive interdependence". --Allan
  • pre-structured discussion threads"
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 23 Sep 07
       
      Pre-Structured Discussion Threads = Instructor creates one discussion thread for posting Supporting Arguments. The instructor creates a separate thread for posting Opposing Arguments.
  • Lack of explanation or justification was number 8 in the list of weaknesses found in student's essays
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 23 Sep 07
       
      Thanks Pat for linking your analysis back to the weaknesses we identified in week 3. :-)
  • E-mail communications from the encourager and observer might be reserved for when sensitive feedback needs to be given
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 23 Sep 07
       
      Using email to perform this role is a good idea so that the number of message posted to the discussion forum is kept at more manageable numbers. I often perform this role myself by posting messages of this kind to a separate discussion thread located at the top of the forum titled "Instructor comments".
  • The optimum size should be determined on a number of factors
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 23 Sep 07
       
      Other factors include amount of content covered in the lesson, and the number of roles that must be performed to successfully complete the task.
  • ??? OUTSIDE ENEMY INTERDEPENDENCE
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 25 Sep 07
       
      I noticed that this method was not reported here in this group document. Check page 54 of JJH for the description. On impact, I would reference and report the effect size achieved from using "structured controversy" reported in the Johnson 2000 article. On the topic of how to implement this method (already implemented in the debate), maybe we can think of ways to use this method to improve the quality of the after-debate essay? --Allan
  • ??? ENVIRONMENTAL INTERDEPENDENCE
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 25 Sep 07
       
      Each debate team could share a wiki document to summarize and list all their arguments so that everyone is working off one shared artifact (or environment). As a result, the wiki would also serve to establish goal interdependence (creating one joint product, see p 53 in JJH textbook). I don't have any leads on any studies that show what impact this strategy has on the group's performance. However, you could by way of analogy refer to the Cho2002 study where they report performance gains when students focused their joint attention on a group concept map while engaging in a group discussion.
Allan Jeong

http://cscl.wikispaces.com/Summary of Weaknesses - 0 views

cscl.wikispaces.com/Summary+of+Weaknesses

shared by Allan Jeong on 20 Sep 07 - No Cached
  • Weaknesses in the debate
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 20 Sep 07
       
      I think we should focus our efforts on addressing problems #1 and #10. Move your cursor on top of problem 1 and 10 to read my comments.
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 20 Sep 07
       
      I think we should focus our efforts on addressing problems #1 and #10. I analyzed the debate data using my software tool (http://garnet.fsu.edu/~ajeong/DAT) and found the following: 1) 2 of the 19 arguments did not elicit a challenge; 2) only 22 of the 64 challenges elicited a rebuttal or counter-challenge;3) only 5 of the 64 challenges elicited explanations; and only 4 of the challenges elicited suporting evidence. These observations point to some serious weaknesses in the quality of the debate. Move your cursor on top of problem 1 and 10 to read additional comments.
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 20 Sep 07
       
      I think we should focus our efforts on addressing problems #1 and #10. I analyzed the debate data using my software tool (http://garnet.fsu.edu/~ajeong/DAT) and found the following: 1) 2 of the 19 arguments did not elicit a challenge; 2) only 22 of the 64 challenges elicited a rebuttal or counter-challenge;3) only 5 of the 64 challenges elicited explanations; and only 4 of the challenges elicited suporting evidence. These observations point to some serious weaknesses in the quality of the debate. Move your cursor on top of problem 1 and 10 to read additional comments. Also, see additional response data in the figure presented at the bottom of the wiki.
  • Some students in the discussion lacked fermenting skills
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 20 Sep 07
       
      I think this should be one of the main problems we need to address in the group projects. The ScoreSheet tab in the ArchivedDebates.xls in the row titled "Interactivity" shows that only 66% of all message elicited one ore more replies (after I ran the CountPostings function to analyze the messages posted in the "Debates" tab). That is a very high level of interaction compared to what I've seen in other debates. The same sheet also shows that there were 17 different threads (or arguments) posted to the debate. Perhaps there were too many arguments, and that the number of arguments did not allow students to thoroughly examine each argument (given constraints in time and effort)? When I ran the "PerformanceReports" function, the Reports sheet under the column "#Daysw/Postings" showed that only 3 of the 20 students made all their postings in one day (not over multiple days across the week). The high level of interaction could be explained by the fact that so many of the students posted their messages over two or more different days?
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 20 Sep 07
       
      In other words, I take this as meaning that some students never challenged (or post messages with the label BUT) the accuracy or the veracity of the arguments posted to the debates. Given that the debate is a group effort, should we require ALL students to post at least one challenge? Or can we allow students to choose and perform specific roles - some as critiques, and some as idea builders?
  • Poor writing skills
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 20 Sep 07
       
      A doctoral student and I did a study to see if poor grammar affected the number and the types of responses posted in reply to messages containing good vs. poor grammar. We did not find any significant effects of grammar on the mean number of challenges posted in reply to arguments stated with poor vs. good grammar. We also did not find any significant differences in the mean number of explanations posted in reply to each challenge presented with poor vs. good grammar. So in conclusion, grammar does not appear to effect level of critical discourse in the EME5457 online debates. See my powerpoint presentation.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • Low student buy-in to debate format
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 20 Sep 07
       
      This is not a weakness in students' performance. It is a factor that contributes to poor performance. No?
  • Feedback on use of students' skills may not be provided
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 20 Sep 07
       
      This is not a measure of weaknesses in student's performance. Instead, it is a factor that influences students' performance. Or a weakness in the activity's design.
  • Some student do not request information/opinions which would then lead to further discourse
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 20 Sep 07
       
      If we encourage students to invite others to share opposing viewpoints, then we would have to call the activity something else other than a "Debate" given that this is not a behavior you see in most formal debates. Regarldess, it is a good idea given that one of my studies (Jeong, 2006) found that simply using conversational language (e.g. tag questions) can increase the number of explanations posted in reply to each challenge by 70%.
  • Groups in the debate often did not follow a challenge to an argument with evidence
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 20 Sep 07
       
      The most obvious solution here is to provide access to more research findings and journals that present statistical numbers to demonstrate the veracity or strength of given claims. I could present a list of recommended journals and instruct students to find and make reference to at least one article to support a claim or counter claim. Your thoughts?
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 20 Sep 07
       
      There were only five postings that were labeled as EVID out of the 121 total student postings - four of these were posted in response to challenges. How can we get students to support their claims with supporting evidence? The most obvious solution here is to provide access to more research findings and journals that present statistical numbers to demonstrate the veracity or strength of given claims. I could present a list of recommended journals and instruct students to find and make reference to at least one article to support a claim or counter claim. Your thoughts?
  • Students did not weigh all arguments
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 20 Sep 07
       
      This in my opinion is the main weakness in the quality of students' essays. Students need to present both sides of the argument. But even if students do that, I think another contributing factor is that students are at a lost as to how to articulate how one arrives at a conclusion based on all the presented arguments. Possible Solution: Have students collaboratively write an essay/conclusion statement and have student apply any of the tive methods explained in "RankingProposals.doc" found in the Documents folder.
Allan Jeong

http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dhgp3kn5_9gg76mh - 0 views

docs.google.com/View

shared by Allan Jeong on 18 Sep 07 - Cached
  • I liked the fact that you could see all contributions in one screen. even though scrolling is required, it is so much more effective in capturing the collective output from a class than the discussion board which is hard to rack once it exceeds 30 or so entries
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 18 Sep 07
       
      [ ARG] Yes, I agree that this is one of the unique advantages of using Wikis as another tool for group discussions when compared to using threaded discussion boards for the same type of activity. In a Wiki, it is easier to scan the ideas presented before and after each posting. [-BUT] The disadvantage of using Wikis is that (as mentioned later) it is difficult to find and read all the new entries posted to the Wiki. [ BUT] However, one can use the NotifyMe/RSS feed function to receive emails that highlight what changes have been made to the Wiki each time someone clicks the Save button.
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 18 Sep 07
       
      Can anyone think of any additional advantages of Wikis over threaded discussion boards?
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 18 Sep 07
       
      Another advantage is that at the end of the week, we all have one final product that we can print out - a product that reflects or captures all of the work we achieved during the week.
  • I think some of us were confused about how our contributions would be credited
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 18 Sep 07
       
      Yes, I like to hear some suggestions on how to track student participation. Blackboard provides a simple tool to track number of weekly postings. But Wikis don't provide this sort of function (at least not that I am aware of). There was one suggestion, below, that I simply ask students to type in their names in bold font directly into the Wiki. However, handcounting the names could be quite tedious and perhaps is prone to human error. Again, I'd love to hear some creative ideas and solutions to this problem. :-)
  • didn't find it very user-friendly
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 18 Sep 07
       
      Yes, I agree that it does have its quirks. Someone suggested that we try another wiki or try using google docs instead. See google/labs/docsAndSpreadsheets.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Did you feel comfortable adding/deleting/revising the work of other students?
    • Allan Jeong
      Allan Jeong on 18 Sep 07
       
      The responses below clearly show that most of us did not feel comfortable editing the work of other students in class. This would suggest that we are using Wikis merely as another tool for hosting group discussions, and not using it to collaboratively write, edit, and produce a high quality final product. However, one of the students noted that he/she would be comfortable making edits on other students' work if he/she could present his/her justifications and reasons for doing so. Perhaps more edits would be make to produce a higher quality end product is I simply asked or required each student to explain his/her actions within the "Notes about this edit..." textfield located at the bottom of each wiki page during page edits. What do you think?
  • Overall, how did you like the Wiki Activity 2.2?
1 - 4 of 4
Showing 20▼ items per page