• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
EDTEC 795A Case Study
 

EDTEC 795A Case Study

on

  • 2,775 views

EDTEC 795A Case Study with Grace Huang. Performance analysis and solution system

EDTEC 795A Case Study with Grace Huang. Performance analysis and solution system

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,775
Views on SlideShare
2,775
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

EDTEC 795A Case Study EDTEC 795A Case Study Presentation Transcript

  • Case Study No. 5 Rebekka Chapman Presented by Grace Huang & Kathleen Borsos-Wooley October 11, 2006
  • Case Overview
    • Players
    • Scenario
    • Initial Performance Analysis (trainwreck!)
    • Findings: What to see and learn?
    • Related Concepts/Theories
    • Recommendations
    • Conclusions
    • References
  • Who are the Players ? Consumer Retailing Students (100+) Tami Linden - Instructor Faculty Instructional Services Center George Allen- Department Head Help Sara Jane Coffman Lenny Russell
  • Instructor-Tami Linden
    • New professor (new to both teaching and the university) not having success with her students (large class of 100) in a consumer retailing course.
  • Students
    • Students have complained to the department head instructor was strong willed and they didn’t like being given writing assignments.
  • Instructor-Tami Linden
    • Meanwhile, Tami Linden (the instructor) felt that the class was going well and was frustrated that the students aren’t happy.
  • Performance Analysis to date
    • To determine optimals vs. actuals the following steps were taken:
    • Sara Jane Coffman and Lenny Russell (campus Faculty Instructional Services Center) did the following:
    • Interviewed the instructor
    • Observed a class lecture
    • Conducted course instructor evaluation with students (SGID)
  • Findings
    • Findings reveal a trilogy of problems and several instances of incongruence.
    • 1. Departments’ Perspective :
        • Department has perception of instructor’s personality that may not be accurate (strong-willed). Lack of history from department head and faculty (instructor new to university and department)
  • Findings, con’t.
      • 2. Instructors’ Perspective:
        • Lack of confidence in herself (first teaching job).
        • Opinion that students writing is poor. Wants to provide “real world” experience for her students.
        • Charting new territory by asking for writing assignments (no other courses in the department required them).
  • Findings, con’t.
      • 3 . Students’ Perspective :
        • Lack of trust for instructor
        • Relevance Issue: instructor going out of her realm by requiring writing assignments (she claims their writing skills are poor and that they will need good writing skills in their careers). They say “We got A’s in English 101. No other classes in the department have questioned our writings skills.
        • “We aren’t being treated as adults!”
  • PA reveals: Incongruence abounds
    • Disconnects between students, instructor, department head and PT .
      • According to students, instructor strong willed
      • According to PT, instructor approachable and engaging. But students exclaimed “less teaching from the book and more discussion”. PT suggested instructor do more lecturing/ less asking questions of the students.
      • Students said “our writing skills are good”….Instructor said “appalling”!!
  • Results of instructor evaluation by students
    • Outcome of evaluation (student opinions):
      • Give fewer writing assignments
      • Give more direction on assignments
      • Clarify the point system
      • Let class see test average
      • Provide exam reviews
      • Less teaching from the book and more discussion
      • Provide better organization
      • Treat students like adults
      • Get happy (??)
      • Get rid of this instructor (ouch!!! Is it possible for students to have a change of heart with this sentiment?)
  • Positives/ Hurdles Is classroom setting appropriate for the needed collaborative environment? (environment) Instructor willing to make adjustments to improve collaboration Students don’t see value of writing assignments (motivation) Instructor says her teaching strategy is resulting in improved writing skills (skills/knowledge) Students did writing assignments in another class and resent the assignment (relevance and lack of motivation) Instructor has support from University PT’s Instructor new to campus and teaching (lack of history and trust), huge class (skills/knowledge) Instructor desires to succeed (motivation) Hurdles Positives
  • Recommendations
    • More querying needed to clean up incongruencies.
    • For PT
    • For Department Head
    • For Instructor
  • Recommendations for PT
    • Interview a SME – model teacher and share findings with instructor
    • Conduct focus group consisting of a few student volunteers, instructor, PT’ers and department head (Bring the students to the table by including their opinions).
  • Interview with SME
      • PT’er to interview model teacher for insight and suggestions to present to instructor.
      • Need buy-in from students. Donate a class session to addressing the situation and acknowledge recommendations made by the students (in previous evaluation) and model teacher (in interview).
  • Recommended Focus Group Questions
      • Questions to ask Instructor:
        • What would “happy” students look like?
        • What could students say and do to garner your respect?
    • Questions to ask students:
      • What do you see in the instructor that you DO like?
      • What do you see in the instructor that you DON’T like?
      • What could she say and do to garner your respect?
  • Recommendations for Department Head
    • department revisit curriculum for future course offering
  • Recommendations for Instructor
    • Based on feedback from SME (model teacher):
      • instructor must be authentic and address concerns
      • Must find common ground / value of the class
      • needs clearer communication with students
      • needs more clarification regarding the value of the writing assignments
      • Invite a professional (SME) into the classroom who could talk about the importance of good writing
      • Don’t just tell the students their writing is improving, show them by using anonymous examples
      • Review educational theories related to adult learning (ie. ARCS Model,
      • Theory of Flow: Csikszentmihalyi and Zone of Proximal Development & Social Development Theory: Lev Vygotsky, Gagne’s 9 Events of Learning )
      • If environment supports it, have students break into small groups for project work, as opposed to all lecture.
      • Pair up with experienced team teacher
  • Conclusions
    • Initial analysis yielded incongruent findings
    • Called for more analysis
    • SME provided insight and recommendations for instructor
    • Need to find common ground: honest and authentic discussion between instructor and students necessary so all can embrace value of the class
  • References
    • ARC’s Model: John Keller. Retrieved October 9, 2006 from http://www.kn.pacbell.com/wired/vidconf/instruct.html
    • Ertmer,P. & Quinn, D. (2003). The ID Casebook: Case Studies in Instructional Design (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
    • Functional Context (T. Sticht). Retrieved October 9, 2006 from http://tip.psychology.org/sticht.html
    • Gagne’s 9 Events of Learning. Retrieved October 9, 2006 from http://tip.psychology.org/gagne.html
  • References, con’t.
    • Mager, R. & Pipe, P. (1997) Analyzing Performance Problems (3rd ed). Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
    • Rossett, A. (1999). First Things Fast : A Handbook for Performance Analysis (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
    • Van Tiem, D.M., Moseley, J.L., & Dessinger, J.C. (2004). Fundamentals of performance technology: A guide to improving people, process, and performance (2nd ed.). Silver Spring, MD: International Society for Performance Improvement.
    • Zone of Proximal Development: Lev Vygotsky . Retrieved October 9, 2006 from http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_of_proximal_development