Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Ibis project colleen avedikian
Ibis project colleen avedikian
Ibis project colleen avedikian
Ibis project colleen avedikian
Ibis project colleen avedikian
Ibis project colleen avedikian
Ibis project colleen avedikian
Ibis project colleen avedikian
Ibis project colleen avedikian
Ibis project colleen avedikian
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Ibis project colleen avedikian

161

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
161
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • My blended course design involved shifting some activities that were previously delivered in F2F setting to on - line: chapter quizzes, videos and map assignments. There were 10 modules in all, each based on a topic correlated with the chapters in the assigned text book.  Each module took approximately 1 week to complete (which was the same pace as my F2F classes).   Beginning the third week of class, students met for F2F lecture/discussion twice weekly.  It was expected that students complete readings/assignments/quizzes in lieu of a third class meeting.   Exams were administered F2F. In one class section (SOC 101 06), I required students to participate in discussion boards. This class was my experimental group. The remaining three classes formed my control groups (SOC 101 01, 101 04 and 101 07). Students participating in the experimental group were divided into 5 different discussion boards, comprised of 10 students in each. I posed questions to encourage a deeper understanding and application of sociological concepts, based on Bloom’s Taxonomy. Students were evaluated based on level of participation in discussions, as well as the knowledge demonstrated in their responses.
  • During the last week of the course, students in all four class sections were given a written exam to measure their comprehension and application of the sociological perspective. Students read a specially chosen selection, and were required to analyze the reading utilizing sociological terminology, including the sociological imagination. I compared the scores on this exam, analyzing student averages in both the experimental and control groups to see if there was a difference between groups.
  • The average grade between groups of students differed significantly. The average score of the experimental groups was 8.29 (of possible 10 points) while the average of the non experimental group was 4.95 (with a standard deviation of 3.87). However, class performance varied as well. In terms of final grades, only 29% students in the experimental group earned A for the course. In the other courses, the number of students earning As were 45%, 41% and 51% (sections 01, 04 and 07 respectively). The only F grades were given to students enrolled in SOC 101 06 .
  • Transcript

    • 1. 1 2013 IBIS Grant Final Report Colleen Avedikian, Lecturer Department of Sociology UMass Dartmouth
    • 2.  Introduction to Sociology (SOC 101) is a survey of the fundamental principles of sociology and the basic factors conditioning social behavior. This is a general education course that fulfills the diversity requirement for General Education courses, and either Cluster 4 B or 4C for University Studies requirements. The majority of students enrolled in the course are in their First Year of college. 2
    • 3.  Four blended sections of SOC 101 taught in Fall, 2012  The learning management system: My Soc Lab through Pearson Higher Learning.  Blended activities: on-line chapter quizzes, articles, videos and interactive map assignments  One section of SOC 101 required to also participate in discussion boards (experimental group) 3
    • 4. SOC 101 students who participate in on-line discussion boards will demonstrate a deeper comprehension of the concept “sociological imagination” than students who do not participate in discussion boards. 4
    • 5.  The sociological imagination is the concept of being able to “think ourselves away” from the familiar routines of our daily lives in order to look at them anew. Mills defined sociological imagination as “the vivid awareness of the relationship between experience and the wider society.” It is the ability to see things socially and how they interact and influence each other. To have a sociological imagination, a person must be able to pull away from the situation and think from an alternative point of view (Crossman, 2011). 5
    • 6.  Analyze issues/events using one’s own “sociological imagination.” 6
    • 7.  The assessment of the SLO was through the use an exam, administered at the end of the semester.  Exam grades of students in experimental group (those required to participate in discussion boards) were compared to those in the control groups (three classes not required to participate in discussion boards). 7
    • 8. Student Score 0 - 2 points Student Score 3 - 6 points Student Score 7 - 9 points Student Score 10 points SOC 101 01 3 5 26 17 SOC 101 04 2 9 68 24 SOC 101 07 0 17 8 26 SOC 101 06 * Experimental group 7 0 15 26 8
    • 9.  The average grade between groups of students differed significantly. The average score of the experimental groups was 8.29 (of possible 10 points) while the average of the non experimental group was 4.95 (with a standard deviation of 3.87).  However, class performance varied as well. In terms of final grades, only 29% students in the experimental group earned A for the course. In the other courses, the number of students earning As were 45%, 41% and 51% (sections 01, 04 and 07 respectively). The only F grades were given to students enrolled in SOC 101 06. 9
    • 10.  This project was not able to definitely conclude that student performance was enhanced through the use of technology. Further analysis of the data will be necessary. There may be other independent variables to explain the difference in test scores between the experimental and control groups.  While the test scores were higher for the experimental group, it should be noted many students did not consistently participate in discussion boards. Of the total group, 19% (9 students) did not participate at all in discussion boards 10

    ×