• Save
Greg's Visual-Intensive Brief
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Greg's Visual-Intensive Brief






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



1 Embed 18

http://cxcsi.pbworks.com 18


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.

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

Greg's Visual-Intensive Brief Greg's Visual-Intensive Brief Presentation Transcript

  • Assessing “Research” Posters in an Upper-Level C-I Course for Majors A Case Study from Physics and Astronomy Greg Stacy P&A (Important Disclaimer: The presenter is not an expert in poster presentations. Refer to CxC resources!) CxC Summer Institute June 2011
  • The Course: Modern Optics (PHYS 4135)
    • “ Traditional” lecture format (3-credit hrs; no formal lab);
    • Offered every other year ; paired with Observational Techniques (ASTR 4261, which is also C-I certified);
    • Required for astronomy concentrators (i.e., a captive audience), and a “4000-level” elective for other physics concentrators;
    • Average enrollment: 8-14 physics majors.
  • Role of “Research” Poster
    • In place of the usual term paper;
    • Not (necessarily) a poster on personal research activities of the student (Spring 2010: 5/10);
    • Chance for students to pursue a topic not covered in depth in class;
    • Explore latest developments in optics-related research in any area;
    • Multi-disciplinary topics possible/encouraged
    • (e.g., optics in the visual arts).
    View slide
  • “ Ground Rules”/Timeline
    • Class orientation/visit to CxC Communication Studio;
    • Reading assignment(s) on good poster-presentation techniques for the sciences (with some examples and templates)
    • (e.g., C. Purrington, Dept of Biology, Swarthmore College at http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/posteradvice.htm );
    • ~2 weeks before Spring Break:
      • Submit abstract and meet with me to review topic;
      • Distribute/discuss assignment details and evaluation criteria in class;
    • Before Break: submit draft poster electronically (on moodle);
    • One week after Break: submit peer-review comments on draft poster s (via moodle “workshop” application);
    • Following week: Review/discuss peer-review results collectively in class;
    • Revise and submit final poster by last week of class;
    • Last week of class: Display of final posters with oral presentation (with final peer review and evaluation).
    View slide
  • Peer Evaluation Form: Draft-Poster Version “ Anonymous” peer reviewer “ Mandatory” comments Entered via moodle by each student for each member of the class. A “self-assessment” is also required. (see supplementary materials on the wiki.)
  • On-line poster submission and peer assessments via the class Moodle pages Moodle “workshop” applications for on-line assessment.
  • Draft to Final Version and Presentation Draft version + Peer/Instructor critiques + Iterations with CxC Studio personnel Final version
  • Final Poster and Oral Presentations
    • “ Conference-like” 5-minute oral presentation of each final poster
    • (ad-hoc hallway poster session);
    • Final peer evaluation of both the final poster and oral presentation
    • (yet another rubric – see supplementary materials on the wiki);
    • Further incentive for active student engagement:
    • T/F section on the final exam on poster topics (~10% of final-exam grade).
  • Lessons Learned/Future Plans
    • Labor intensive (it’s true!) the first (and second!) time through;
    • Must sacrifice some content for in-class C-I activities;
    • Need a better venue for final poster presentations (?);
    • Well-designed assignment criteria and evaluation rubrics essential (constantly re-evaluating the evaluation process);
    • Need “anonymous” peer review for small classes;
    • Need an “automatic” on-line method for entering peer-review scores and comments, and to collate scores (i.e., moodle);
    • Would like to video-tape presentations in the future.
  • Grateful Acknowledgements
    • CxC studio personnel for class visits, student consultations, and printing of the final posters;
    • Prof. Rick Trebino at Georgia Tech for freely sharing his on-line optics notes (for a very similar course).
  • Modern Optics (PHYS 4135) Spring 2010 Poster Presenters
  • Extra Slides
  • The other C-I component: In-class optics demos Demo #1: Early in the semester – geometrical optics (lenses and mirrors); topics the students should already be familiar with from intro physics. Demo #2: Late in the semester – more advanced topics (i.e., new material), using more sophisticated equipment. (~5-min oral presentations, with peer assessment)
  • Optics Demos Extra-credit Option Submit a short video clip of your optics demo! (with tips and suggestions for the next student who tries it …) Five of ten students submitted short video clips. Long-term objective: Assemble a small library of “reference” video clips for future students. This year’s “People’s Choice Award” (complete with intro sound track!): Bill Freeman's Fresnel Zone Plate Video Clip
  • Quick Outline
    • The Course ( Modern Optics – PHYS 4135)
    • C-I Elements (Visual and Spoken)
    • The Plan (“theory”)
    • The Implementation (“practice”)
    • Lessons Learned to Date
    • Future Plans/Hopes
  • C-I Elements
    • Originally certified Spring 2008, with emphasis on Visual and Spoken modes of communication; Spring 2010 was the second time offered as C-I.
    • Communication Components
    • Two in-class student demonstrations of optical phenomena (with peer/instructor evaluation);
    • One “research” poster (with peer/instructor evaluation of draft and final versions, and of final oral presentation).
  • Moodle “Workshop” Application “… the most complex tool currently available in Moodle …” (!?) (currently under “complete” revision to version 2.0?)
    • Advantages :
    • electronic submission of student work for peer review and assessment;
    • on-line “anonymous” critiques and assessments;
    • flexible assessment-rubric creation options;
    • “ practice” (i.e., training) assessments allowed;
    • self-assessment allowed;
    • numerous grading schemes/options available.
    • Disadvantages :
    • grading scheme(s) rather complex (and unclear, to me …);
    • documentation somewhat lacking in detail and examples;
    • no (obvious) way to use one workshop as a template for another.
  • Sample instructor’s view of submitted assessment scores. Each student carried out an initial self-assessment, and then a follow-up self-assessment recommended after reviewing peer comments. Problem: Not clear (to me) how individual scores are combined to arrive at a “total grade.”
  • Sample Evaluation Summary Teaching moment: How do you interpret a reviewer’s/referee’s scores and comments?