Greg's Visual-Intensive Brief


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Greg's Visual-Intensive Brief

  1. 1. 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
  2. 2. The Course: Modern Optics (PHYS 4135) <ul><li>“ Traditional” lecture format (3-credit hrs; no formal lab); </li></ul><ul><li>Offered every other year ; paired with Observational Techniques (ASTR 4261, which is also C-I certified); </li></ul><ul><li>Required for astronomy concentrators (i.e., a captive audience), and a “4000-level” elective for other physics concentrators; </li></ul><ul><li>Average enrollment: 8-14 physics majors. </li></ul>
  3. 3. Role of “Research” Poster <ul><li>In place of the usual term paper; </li></ul><ul><li>Not (necessarily) a poster on personal research activities of the student (Spring 2010: 5/10); </li></ul><ul><li>Chance for students to pursue a topic not covered in depth in class; </li></ul><ul><li>Explore latest developments in optics-related research in any area; </li></ul><ul><li>Multi-disciplinary topics possible/encouraged </li></ul><ul><li>(e.g., optics in the visual arts). </li></ul>
  4. 4. “ Ground Rules”/Timeline <ul><li>Class orientation/visit to CxC Communication Studio; </li></ul><ul><li>Reading assignment(s) on good poster-presentation techniques for the sciences (with some examples and templates) </li></ul><ul><li>(e.g., C. Purrington, Dept of Biology, Swarthmore College at ); </li></ul><ul><li>~2 weeks before Spring Break: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Submit abstract and meet with me to review topic; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Distribute/discuss assignment details and evaluation criteria in class; </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Before Break: submit draft poster electronically (on moodle); </li></ul><ul><li>One week after Break: submit peer-review comments on draft poster s (via moodle “workshop” application); </li></ul><ul><li>Following week: Review/discuss peer-review results collectively in class; </li></ul><ul><li>Revise and submit final poster by last week of class; </li></ul><ul><li>Last week of class: Display of final posters with oral presentation (with final peer review and evaluation). </li></ul>
  5. 5. 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.)
  6. 6. On-line poster submission and peer assessments via the class Moodle pages Moodle “workshop” applications for on-line assessment.
  7. 7. Draft to Final Version and Presentation Draft version + Peer/Instructor critiques + Iterations with CxC Studio personnel Final version
  8. 8. Final Poster and Oral Presentations <ul><li>“ Conference-like” 5-minute oral presentation of each final poster </li></ul><ul><li> (ad-hoc hallway poster session); </li></ul><ul><li>Final peer evaluation of both the final poster and oral presentation </li></ul><ul><li>(yet another rubric – see supplementary materials on the wiki); </li></ul><ul><li>Further incentive for active student engagement: </li></ul><ul><li>T/F section on the final exam on poster topics (~10% of final-exam grade). </li></ul>
  9. 9. Lessons Learned/Future Plans <ul><li>Labor intensive (it’s true!) the first (and second!) time through; </li></ul><ul><li>Must sacrifice some content for in-class C-I activities; </li></ul><ul><li>Need a better venue for final poster presentations (?); </li></ul><ul><li>Well-designed assignment criteria and evaluation rubrics essential (constantly re-evaluating the evaluation process); </li></ul><ul><li>Need “anonymous” peer review for small classes; </li></ul><ul><li>Need an “automatic” on-line method for entering peer-review scores and comments, and to collate scores (i.e., moodle); </li></ul><ul><li>Would like to video-tape presentations in the future. </li></ul>
  10. 10. Grateful Acknowledgements <ul><li>CxC studio personnel for class visits, student consultations, and printing of the final posters; </li></ul><ul><li>Prof. Rick Trebino at Georgia Tech for freely sharing his on-line optics notes (for a very similar course). </li></ul>
  11. 11. Modern Optics (PHYS 4135) Spring 2010 Poster Presenters
  12. 12. Extra Slides
  13. 13. 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)
  14. 14. 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
  15. 15. Quick Outline <ul><li>The Course ( Modern Optics – PHYS 4135) </li></ul><ul><li>C-I Elements (Visual and Spoken) </li></ul><ul><li>The Plan (“theory”) </li></ul><ul><li>The Implementation (“practice”) </li></ul><ul><li>Lessons Learned to Date </li></ul><ul><li>Future Plans/Hopes </li></ul>
  16. 16. C-I Elements <ul><li>Originally certified Spring 2008, with emphasis on Visual and Spoken modes of communication; Spring 2010 was the second time offered as C-I. </li></ul><ul><li>Communication Components </li></ul><ul><li>Two in-class student demonstrations of optical phenomena (with peer/instructor evaluation); </li></ul><ul><li>One “research” poster (with peer/instructor evaluation of draft and final versions, and of final oral presentation). </li></ul>
  17. 17. Moodle “Workshop” Application “… the most complex tool currently available in Moodle …” (!?) (currently under “complete” revision to version 2.0?) <ul><li>Advantages : </li></ul><ul><li>electronic submission of student work for peer review and assessment; </li></ul><ul><li>on-line “anonymous” critiques and assessments; </li></ul><ul><li>flexible assessment-rubric creation options; </li></ul><ul><li>“ practice” (i.e., training) assessments allowed; </li></ul><ul><li>self-assessment allowed; </li></ul><ul><li>numerous grading schemes/options available. </li></ul><ul><li>Disadvantages : </li></ul><ul><li>grading scheme(s) rather complex (and unclear, to me …); </li></ul><ul><li>documentation somewhat lacking in detail and examples; </li></ul><ul><li>no (obvious) way to use one workshop as a template for another. </li></ul>
  18. 18. 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.”
  19. 19. Sample Evaluation Summary Teaching moment: How do you interpret a reviewer’s/referee’s scores and comments?