Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

AHTR SoTL Resources: Kelly Donahue-Wallace, Prove It! Publish It! SoTL Case Studies

171 views

Published on

CAA 2018 Presentation, included in "Prove It! Publish It! Art History and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning," session sponsored by Art Historians Interested in Pedagogy and Technology http://bit.ly/2uKheWK

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

AHTR SoTL Resources: Kelly Donahue-Wallace, Prove It! Publish It! SoTL Case Studies

  1. 1. Prove It! Publish It! Case Studies Kelly Donahue-Wallace University of North Texas
  2. 2. Two Case Studies in One “A Case Study in Integrating the Best Practices of Face-to-Face Art History and Online Teaching “ Dr. Kelly Donahue-Wallace and Dr. Jacqueline Chanda Originally published in Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning 7:1 (2005). Reprinted in Formamente: Rivista Internazionale di Ricerca sul Futuro Digitale (Universita Telematica Guglielmo Marconi, Italy) 1:1-2 (2006) Pp. 95-106. (posted to https://unt.academia.edu/KellyDonahueWallace)
  3. 3. Common Assertions in Teaching Presentations • The students learned/retained more/better. • The students were more engaged or got a lot out of the experience.
  4. 4. Case Study #1 Develop the question: Did they learn?
  5. 5. Case Study #1 Start with relevant educational theory: Nelson, R. (2000). "The Slide Lecture, or The Work of Art History in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction." Critical Inquiry 26, 414-434.
  6. 6. Case Study #1 • Design the study: • Studying the effectiveness of three instructional models: • Lecture • Blended: face-to-face lecture plus reinforcement with an online learning object • Online only: online text plus reinforcement with an online learning object
  7. 7. Case Study #1 • Research question: • Which instructional model helps students learn the content better? • Correctness of answers • Quality of answers using appropriate terminology
  8. 8. Case Study #1 • Develop the research method • Experimental Data Collection • Exposing participants to different teaching methods • Three groups: lecture (control), blended, fully online • Answered three short essay questions face-to-face (not online) • Quantitative analysis=how many answered correctly • Content Analysis • Assessing their learning through content analysis of answers to questions. • Quantitative analysis=how many relevant terms they employed
  9. 9. Case Study #1 • Answering constructed questions • Correctly identify what a mihrab niche is? • Correctly explain the typical parts of a mosque? • Correctly explain the role of a minaret?
  10. 10. Case Study #1 • What did we do? • We scored the answers overall as either correct or incorrect. • Correct= correctly identifying the object, parts of the plan, function.
  11. 11. Case Study #1: Correctness of Answers Results Questions Face-to-Face Group Face-to-Face/Online learning object group Totally Online Group Mihrab Niche 83% 83% 100% Plan of Mosque 83% 100% 83% Role of Minaret 66% 100% 100% 77% 94% 94%
  12. 12. Case Study #1 • Content Analysis to Assess Quality of Answers • Looking at use of terms. • For each answer, identified 3 relevant terms that a quality answer would include. • Created coding scheme for the data = identified relevant terms and acceptable alternatives. • Examples of codes: • Mihrab, niche in qibla wall • Qibla wall, wall facing Mecca • Plan, map, floorplan • Tower, spire, elevated structure
  13. 13. Case Study #1 • Content Analysis of Data to Assess Quality • What did we do? • Counted codes (terms) in answers. • Tallied frequency. • Did not count other relevant terms since they were not in our coding scheme.
  14. 14. Case Study #1: Quality of Answers Results Questions Face-to-Face Group Face-to-face/Online Totally Online Mihrab Niche 11 6 13 Mosque Plan 12 18 13 Role of Minaret 9 15 12 59% 72% 70%
  15. 15. Case Study #2 • What did students get out of it?
  16. 16. Case Study #2: Perceptions • Assessing student perception of interactive learning objects in an online art appreciation course. • Streaming videos demonstrating art-making processes • Flash animations • Types: • Self-directed creation of objects • Drag-and-drop self-assessments • Game-like self-assessments
  17. 17. Case Study #2: Perceptions • Research Questions • Which types of interactive learning objects did online students like? • How did online students perceive the impact of interactive learning objects on their learning?
  18. 18. Case Study #2: Perceptions • Research Method • Questionnaire=qualitative and quantitative • Open for 5 days online • Voluntary participation • 46 of 167 students who logged in during the 5 days participated
  19. 19. Case Study #2: Perceptions • Questionnaire • Did they prefer video or Flash learning objects? • Multiple choice • Which types of Flash learning objects did they like? • Multiple choice • Did they believe the learning objects impacted their learning? • Multiple choice • How did they feel about the learning objects? • Constructed, open-ended question
  20. 20. Case Study #2: Perceptions • Results (Quantitative) • Response to whether they believed that the learning objects contributed to their learning experience: 70% yes • Response to which type of learning object students preferred: 51% videos, 45% Flash animations • Response to which type of Flash learning object students preferred: majority preferred self- directed creative exercise.
  21. 21. Case Study #2: Perceptions • Results (Qualitative) • Responses to open-ended question of how students felt about learning objects: • Unexpected recognition of how the interactive components improved learning because they catered to multiple types of learners. • Positive responses to being allowed to self-direct. • Positive responses to instructor’s effort to include these in the course.
  22. 22. Case Study #1 and #2 • Discussion and implications/conclusions: • What do the results show? What conclusions can be drawn? • Students do learn online. (#1) • Students learn a bit more when online and face-to-face combined (blended). (#1) • Students perceive interactive learning objects to be effective in their learning. (#2) • Student appreciate the presence of learning objects for showing interest in their learning. (#2) • How can this study impact the broader field? • Recommendations for actions/changes. • Further research recommendations.
  23. 23. Doing Art History Pedagogy Research • It’s not that hard. • There are people who can help you. • It helps the field develop and grow. • And you can get published in journals like Art History Pedagogy and Practice.

×