anjaliahujablog.files.wordpress.com · web viewinitially mentees were not showing much of the...

__________________________________Course Journal

IITB - FDP301X

Workshop on Mentoring Educators in Educational Technology

Under the aegis of

Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya National Mission for Teachers and Teaching (PMMMNMTT), MHRD, GoI

(17th May 2018 to 2nd July 2018)

__________________________________

Prepared by:

Dr. Anjali Ahuja

Asstt. Prof. (Management)DAV Institute of Management, Faridabad

[email protected]

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. You are free to use, distribute the material in any medium or format and remix, transform and build upon the material, for any purpose, even commercial, provided you acknowledge the source and share-alike.To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

[Type text]

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/



mailto:[email protected]

Table of Content

S. No. Topic Page No.

1 FDP Overview 3-4

2 Office Hours 5-8

3 Module 1: Technology, Pedagogy and Content Knowledge in FDP

9-13

4 Module 2: TPACK components reflection in FDP 14-16

5 Module 3: Basics of Mentoring 17-20

6 Module 4: Closing the learning loop on TPACK 21-23

7 Module 5: KirkPatrick Evaluation Model 24-31

8 Module 6: FDP Design Activity Documents 32-33

9 Interactions with Mentees 34-38

10 FDP Design Activity 39-51

11 Peer Evaluation 52-53

12 Self Evaluation Report 54-55


[Type text]




FDP Overview

____________________________________________________________________________

This FDP is focused on blending technology, pedagogy and content (TPACK) in teaching learning process. The skills which were learnt in FDP 101X and FDP 201X would be integrated with technology to design our own FDP. It also includes practising mentorship as an integral part of FDP. Course Handout has been given for more details. The brief of course handout is given below:

Learning Objectives of FDP

1. Getting familiarised with the TPACK model in teaching-learning scenario.

2. Analysing the design of FDP 101x and 201x on bases of TPACK model.

3. Mentoring the assigned groups and helping them in the creation of OER (as part of fulfilment of FDP 201X).

4. Designing own FDP in moodle on any of the topic covered in FDP 101X or 201X using TPACK model.

5. Evaluating own mentorship efforts through self reflection and surveys (to be filled by mentees).

Course Syllabus

Module 1: Technology, Pedagogy and Content Knowledge in FDP

● Overview of FDPs

● TPACK in FDP

Module 2: Effective Mentoring Practices


[Type text]




● Learning Community Model

● Best practices in mentoring online

● Practicum for Mentoring

Module 3: Reflection on Practice

● Eliciting Reflection-on-Practice

● Reflection informing Practice

Activities to be done in FDP

1. Course Journal: Maintain a course journal and submit at the end of the course2. Mentoring: We need to mentor one or two groups of participants of FDP 201X.

The teams have been assigned a task of OER creation. We as mentors have to interact with them at least for 2 twice for 2 hours each during the course and guide them in creating OER and answer their queries regarding technological and pedagogical aspects of the course.

3. FDP Design (RCA): We have to design a FDP in moodle on any of the topic covered in FDP 101X and FDP 201X. This would be a team assignment.

4. Evaluation on Mentoring: Lastly, we have to evaluate our mentoring using Kirkpatrick model by designing a survey (based on rubric provided by IITB) to be filled by mentees. The survey should measure reaction and learning of mentee.

Grading

1. Knowledge Quizzes (30%) 2. Reflection Quizzes (10%)3. Assimilation Quizzes (10%)4. FDP Design Assignment (20%): This would be peer evaluated.5. Evaluation of Mentoring Skills (10%): Using surveys designed by mentors


[Type text]




6. Course Journal (10%)7. Performance of Mentees (10%): Based on scores of mentees on OER Project

Office Hours

____________________________________________________________________________

Office Hours: 17 th May 2018 (2:00 PM to 4:00 PM)

Office hours were accessed through YouTube live streaming of IIT Bombay Studio. The main points discussed in the first office hours are given below:

Rationale of this FDP:o Mentors need to understand the pedagogy behind supporting mentees

through multiple technology features available to them.o Scale FDPs and make it self-sustainable. For this faculty associates should

be capable of locally running these FDPs. Learning objectives of FDP 301X (already discussed) Course Syllabus (already discussed) Course Instructions

o Office hours (6 sessions) will used to facilitate virtual discussion on the course content.

o Resources and activities will be updated in every three days till 1st June.o After June 1, content update would be updated fortnightly.o All graded activities are due by 27th June 2018o Details of activities will be given in the course calendar.

Activities to be done (already discussed) Pass criteria for this FDP is > 75% These successful participants will be invited to attend an advanced workshop on

‘How to facilitate these FDPs locally’ and this pool of teachers would be used to scale FDPs across the country.

Required Efforts


[Type text]




o Online work: At least 8 hours per weeko Office hours: 3 hours per session (6 sessions)o Interaction with mentees: At least 2 sessions of 2 hours each (Mentoring

will start after 27th May 2018). Discussion on content of FDP 101X and FDP 201X was done and we had an idea

about what mentees have been doing in these FDPs. This would actually help us in clarifying their doubts. The content of these FDPs would be made available to us by getting us enrolled in both. After this, we have to spend one week time in observing the course through discussion forum and by analyzing the course content. On basis of this observation, we need to make various reflection points in the course journal.

FDP 301X would be driven by lots of LxTs and LxIs (Interactions) Query Handling: Major queries and points, which would be helpful in FDP, are

mentioned below:o What is TPACK?o How mentees would be assigned?

Primarily mentees would be assigned according to domain. It is more about skills not about content. So even across domains we can guide them in technological and pedagogical aspects.

o Course survey forms would be circulated to collect questions for office hours.

o Issues of Plagiarism and poor peer evaluation Strict measures for plagiarism have been adopted. Even

participants have been removed by IITB from the FDP for adopting such practices.

o FDP Design Activity: Teams will be formed by IITB Choose one topic from various modules of FDP 101X and FDP

201X Decide about Learning Objectives of the Course Use all components of TPACK model in designing the course

o Outcomes of the FDP Mentoring mentees in OER creation Designing of FDP in moodle


[Type text]




Community of learner who will help IITB in scaling and sustaining FDPs in future.

Get skills to integrate MOOCs in own curriculumo How to interact with mentees?

Any medium, like A-view, emails, whatsapp, skype, phone calls etc. Provide list and evidences of methods and medium used for

interactions in course journalo Difference between earlier FDPs of IITB and current FDP 101x and FDP

201x In terms of content no major difference. One major difference is that in earlier FDPs the synchronous

interaction was more about one way transmission of knowledge that is from IITB to the participants through A-views. But in current FDPs two-way synchronous interaction has been initiated where participants at different RCs are grouped and are assigned some local task and then they share their doubts or experiences related to that task within that group.

o 10% marks on basis of Performance of Mentees Full marks will be given to the mentor if the mentee team gets 50%

or above marks in the OER activity. No marks will be given to the mentor if the mentee team gets

below 50%. See whether mentees are adhering to the main points according to

the OER evaluation rubric. Sensitize them on peer evaluation

o Explore FDP 101x and FDP 201x and analyze whether these fit the TPACK model.

o Difference between FDP 101x, FDP 201x and FDP 301x FDP 301x is about equipping us to know what FDP 101x and FDP

201x is. We will go deep down to the designing of these FDPs. We will learn, practice and evaluate our own practice. Use of technology in classrooms.


[Type text]




o Purpose of Office hour: It is not mandatory to join all office hours. If we have doubts, we can ask questions and clarify our doubts from the instructor at IITB through these office hours.

Course Entry Survey

Course entry survey was filled which covered following aspects:

E-mail id, Qualification and Domain Queries related to procedural or technological aspects of the FDP, which were

supposed to be taken up in the office hours on 18th May 2018 Familiarity with the concepts given in FDP syllabus

Office Hours: 18 th May 2018 (2:00 PM to 4:00 PM)

Some of the learnings during office hours:

Course Coverage: Self paced course, graded activities from 1st June, advanced FDP

FDP Design Activity: Team will be designed by IITB across different RCs, so that a larger community can be built; module for this activity has to be chosen from the list decided by FDP team; LMS should be Moodle

Mentor Mentee Interaction: Interaction can be through any medium, put screenshots of discussions in course journal, motivate mentees, guide mentees and need not monitor them, not using A-view this time because of classroom restrictions A view has, mentor’s evaluation will be considered if peer review of mentees go wrong.

Evaluation Scheme: Evaluation of mentorship can be done on the basis of KirkPatrick Model.

Inclusion of domains Course Journal: What u learnt, How the learning from this FDP is going to

influence your practice and record of mentor mentee interaction.

Other office hours on similar lines:

Office Hours: 24th May 2018 (2:00 PM to 4:00 PM)


[Type text]




Office Hours: 25th May 2018 (2:00 PM to 4:00 PM) Office Hours: 31st May 2018 (2:00 PM to 4:00 PM) Office Hours: 1st June 2018 (2:00 PM to 4:00 PM) Additional Office Hours: 12th June (2:00 PM to 4:00 PM)

Reflection

We can use office hours for both online courses as well as physical classroom courses. As time is given to students to meet in the office to clarify their doubts, similarly in online courses, this dedicated time for clarification of doubts is also office hours. During this time period the participants can ask their doubts or queries related to the course.

Module 1: Technology, Pedagogy and Content Knowledge in FDP

________________________________________________________________________________

Learning

Resources on TPACK

Learning from LeDs (Learning Dialogues) on the concept of TPACK:

1. TPACK in 3 minutes: Domains of knowledge: Technology, Content, Pedagogy Sub-domains: PCK (Pedagogy Content Intersection), TCK (Technology

Content Intersection), TPK (Technology Pedagogy Intersection) When all the three domains of knowledge work together it is called

TPACK. TPACK works differently in different contexts.

2. TPACK with Activity:


[Type text]




Questions asked: What affect would this have on teaching and learning?, Can you relate to this? Why? Where do you see yourself in TPACK model?

Scenario 1: Very less technological knowledge that too not connected with content and pedagogy knowledge. Lot of pedagogical knowledge, some content knowledge and there is intersection between these two (PCK).Affect on teaching learning: Generally in traditional teaching where teaching expertise is there, this is the case. Teachers don’t have much of technological knowledge and also they are not able to integrate it in the teaching. They only have knowledge of content and pedagogy and they use different pedagogy to teach different topics. But this will not give them the advantages of online learning.

Scenario 2: Lot of content knowledge and very less pedagogical and technological knowledge. But the intersection area of all three is very small. Affect on teaching learning: This may be the case with an individual who has come to teaching after lot of industry experience. That person has less knowledge of pedagogy and also of technology. Such teacher will not be able to pass on the content knowledge to the students effectively.

Scenario 3: Lot of technological knowledge, some content knowledge and very less pedagogical knowledge.Affect on teaching learning: This may be the case with people belonging to technical background like lab staff. They have lot of technological knowledge but they don’t know how to integrate it in teaching. Also they have no experience of teaching, so no or very little pedagogical knowledge. They have content knowledge related to their field. But they don’t know how to disseminate it effectively to students.

Myself in TPACK Model: If I evaluate myself for different elements of TPACK, I find that content and pedagogy knowledge is more. Technological knowledge is also there but we are not integrating it in our teaching to a greater extent. So, I can’t relate myself to any of the scenario mentioned in the video.

Learning from Learning Extension (LxT) resources on TPACK

1. TPACK Model by Matthew J. Koehler: Seven Components of TPACK Model:


[Type text]




http://tpack.org/tpack2/tpack-explained/

Content Knowledge (CK): Knowledge of the subject Technology Knowledge (TK): Knowledge of the processes, practices or methods

of teaching learning Pedagogy Knowledge (PK): Knowledge of technology, tools and resources Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK): Knowledge of pedagogy that can be

applied for teaching a specific content. Technological Content Knowledge (TCK): Knowledge of technology which is best

suited for addressing subject matter learning in their domain. Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK): Knowledge of how teaching and

learning can be changed when particular technology is used for implementing a particular pedagogy of teaching.

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): Knowledge of pedagogical techniques that use technologies in a constructive way to teach a particular content. This makes content easy to learn. Technology can solve various problems of students also.

Source: http://tpack.org (Reproduced by permission of the publisher, © 2012 by tpack.org)

2. “ What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? ” by Matthew J. Koehler & Punya Mishra

Effective teaching depends on flexible access to the rich, well organized and integrated knowledge from different domains, knowledge of subject matter, knowledge of technology and knowledge of student thinking and learning.

Teaching with technology is a very big challenge. Each technology has its own potentials and constraints. So the suitability of a particular technology depends upon the type of task. Such understanding needs to be development through professional development of teachers.


[Type text]




http://www.citejournal.org/volume-9/issue-1-09/general/what-is-technological-pedagogicalcontent-knowledge

http://tpack.org/

Also, social and institutional factors do not support the efforts of teachers in integrating technology in their work.

This knowledge would not be used until the teachers understand the value of technology use and it goes well with the existing pedagogical beliefs.

An approach is needed which would treat teaching as integration between knowledge of the teacher and how this knowledge can be applied in unique circumstances in their classroom.

This integration effort has to be creatively designed. TPACK is such a framework which will produce effective teaching with

technology. It is built on Shulman’s work on PCK. Education technologies and PCK interact with each other to create this effect.

Resources on Technology integration

Learning from Learning Extension (LxT) resources on Technology integration:

1. Integrating technology in classroom : This is a mini course on technology integration which a teacher can use

for professional development with an objective of giving teachers an overview of the basic considerations related to integration of technology in classroom to meet needs of all learners.

Two models of technology integration are discussed here: TPACK and SAMR. TPACK we have already discussed. SAMR model was developed by Dr. Ruben Puentedura. He says technology allows us to think differently and to do new tasks. S: Substitution: Technology is used as a substitute without any functional change. Eg. Writing essay by hand substituted by typing essay on laptop.


[Type text]




https://www.oercommons.org/courseware/module/8443/overview

A: Augmentation: Technology is used as a substitute with functional improvement. Eg. Writing essay by hand substituted by writing essay using Google Docs. At these two levels i.e. S and A, technology is used only for enhancement.M: Modification: Using technology for significant task redesign. Eg. Instead of writing an essay student can publish a blog on wordpress and can use other resources also to convey the message.R: Redefinition: Technology is used for creation of new tasks which were early inconceivable. E.g. Instead of writing an essay, student can create stories using multimedia and can publish this movie to the world. At these two levels i.e. M and R, technology is used for transformation.

Technology is a tool. Technology integration is using whatever resources we have to best of our abilities. If a lesson can be taught without technology, that’s great; but if it can be taught in a better way by using technology, then we should use it.

Research has proved that student achievement improves when digital and face to face interactions are integrated.

Use of technology depends on various factors like: educational workplace setting, availability of resources and comfort level in using technology.

Teachers can take following steps to embrace technology in their working: Find the right tool, use one tool at a time, evaluate the technology, and use technology to engage students.

Planning and evaluation of technology integration: First identify the teaching and learning needs, then plan for integration, decide on objectives and assessment of learning and finally evaluate the results and revise the plans.

For better working with integration of technology some points should be followed: Be innovative, Access online resources, share ideas with colleagues, dabble with new technologies, take technology related MOOC.

2. How TPACK should change the way we plan our daily lessons? This article describes about curriculum based technology integration. In

this article, examples from six curriculum based learning activity type taxonomies are illustrated.


[Type text]




http://activitytypes.wm.edu/HarrisHofer&Others-InstructionalPlanningUsingLATsTaxonomies.pdf

Article suggests a logical approach for better integration of technologies in teaching. It talks about linking student’s content-related learning needs with particular content-based learning activities (pedagogy) and related educational technologies that will best support the implementation of these activities.

The authors of the article developed learning activity types for six curriculum areas. For each curriculum area different types of activities and the technology that can be used for those activities, have been suggested.

Reflection

After learning about TPACK model, its implementation in management field is my first reflection. I can use this model in teaching marketing management. The pedagogy which can be used in teaching marketing is TPS, which I already use. But now adding technology content to it would be a challenge. I can make a moodle course on marketing to integrate technology with PCK, or I can use wordpress site to upload all my resources and activities for students. This is how I can think of implementing TPACK in my course.

Module 2: TPACK components reflection in FDP

______________________________________________________________________________

LbD (Learning by Doing) on TPACK

Four LbD questions (ungraded) based on LeDs of FDP 101x and FDP 201x were given. For this we need to reflect upon different aspects of TPACK model in FDP 101x and FDP 201x. These LbD checked whatever we learnt about various components of TPACK model i.e. the ‘understand and recall level’ learning.

LxI (Learning eXperience Interaction)


[Type text]




Focus question: How have the different components of TPACK model been reflected in FDP101x and FDP201x?

Two threads were created for discussing this focus question.

Thread 1: LxI for TK, PK and CK

To discuss the instances where technology, pedagogy and content knowledge have been highlighted in FDP 101x and FDP 201x.

After reflecting upon the FDPs, I found these instances:

1. I found PK and TK in LeD 1.1 (From Physical Classrooms to Online Classrooms)of FDP101x because it explains how to shift from one pedagogy to pedagogy and this shift is possible by the use of technology.

2. I found PK and TK in LeD 1.2 (Learning Dialogues) of FDP101x because it first explains about the use of LeDs and then the use of technology (video player) for introducing reflection spot in LeDs and how to write script etc.

3. I found TK in LeD 2.1 to LeD 2.5 (Wordpress for Website Creation) of FDP101x because these videos explains about different features of wordpress, how to use them to make an impressive website.

4. I found CK and TK in LeD 3.1 to LeD 3.4 (Creating your own video resources) of FDP101x because these videos explains about how to create videos or spoken tutorials, how to assign creative common license (TK) and visual presentation skills (CK).

5. I found TK in LeD 4.2 to LeD 4.6 (Moodle in IIT Bombay) of FDP101x because these videos explain various steps involved in designing a course in moodle, how to use different activities and resources in moodle etc.

6. I found TK in LeD 1.7 (Flipped Classroom: How) of FDP201x because it explains the technological aspects (creating videos) for using flipped classroom pedagogy.

7. I found PK and CK in LeD 1.3 to LeD 1.6 (Flipped Classroom) of FDP201x because these videos describe about the two pedagogies: traditional classroom and flipped classroom, their benefits, challenges.

8. I found PK and CK in LeD 2.4 to LeD 2.6 (TPS) of FDP201x because these videos explain the use of Think-Pair-Share pedagogy with examples.


[Type text]




9. I found PK and CK in LeD 2.7 to LeD 2.9 (Peer Instruction) of FDP201x because these videos explain the use of Peer Instruction pedagogy for active learning, how to use this pedagogy and lastly tells about certain guidelines to be followed for effective implementation of this pedagogy.

Thread 2: LxI for TCK, TPK, PCK and TPACK

To discuss the instances where the intersections of these components have been highlighted in FDP 101x and FDP 201x.

After reflecting upon the FDPs, I found these instances:

1. I found PCK in LeD 3.5 and LeD 3.6 of FDP101x because these videos tell about what is peer-review, why it is so important, where it can be used and how to use this pedagogy.

2. I found TCK in LeDs on Digital Bloom’s Taxonomy of FDP201x because these videos talk about the how learning at different levels of bloom’s taxonomy can be created using different technological tools.

3. I found PCK in LeD 1.3 to LeD 1.6 (Hierarchy of Learning Objectives) of FDP201x because these videos tell about the concept of bloom’s taxonomy, different learning levels and what pedagogy should be used in teaching to have more learning at higher cognitive levels.

4. I found TPACK in RCA2 of FDP101x because it calls for the creation of a moodle course. So for that we need to have some content, then some activities (pedagogy) and finally the technical part of designing of the course.

5. I found TPACK in flipped classroom design activity of FDP201x because while designing a flipped classroom activity first we have to think of the content, then the shift to the pedagogy and then finally we use technology to facilitate this shift.

6. I found TPACK in OER creation activity of FDP 201x because this activity also includes the intersection of the three components: content, pedagogy and technology.

Survey on Usefulness and Engagement in Module 1

I found Module 1 to be useful. Useful because it made me understand about the concept of TPACK, why technology integration is required, how we can integrate technology in


[Type text]




teaching learning process, what are the challenges in technology integration and how we can overcome those challenges.

But I did not find Module 1 engaging because there were no activities in module, no reflection points, no discussions etc. It was only about listening to LeDs and going through the LxTs provided and understanding the concept. No active learning strategies are used in this Module.

Module 3: Basics of Mentoring

_____________________________________________________________________________

Learning

Resources on Mentoring

Learning from Videos on Mentoring:


[Type text]




1. How to be a mentor Mentorship is a relationship between two persons, where one is more

experienced (Mentor) and is guiding the less experienced (Mentee). How: Set expectations, set protocols for interactions (when, where and

how), set goals or results of this relationship and track progress of mentee.

Qualities of Mentor: Committed, Patient, Honest, Be reliable and Be open At the end both are benefitted

2. Challenges of teaching online Student engagement: Possible solutions: Asking challenging questions,

setting difficult problems for students, get them working in teams. Differentiated Instructions: Possible solutions: Give attention to students

who are struggling, in office hours; students who are on fast track, give them additional work; deal with differentiated people in different ways.

Volume of Activity: Possible solutions: Do not respond to all posts, show them the model behaviour you are looking for, suggest them about how posts can be improved, help make connections between students and posts.

Quality of Feedback: Possible solutions: Great feedback is the essence of student engagement, give feedbacks on assignments given to students, give feedback about how improvements can be made, feedback should be differentiated from person to person, make sure that student understands the feedback, give feedback promptly

Assessment of Participation: Possible solutions: Assign good % age for participation in the final grade, don’t assess by quantitative aspect of participation whereas assess by the value of the participation.

3. What not to do when mentoringIn this video don’t of mentoring are given with examples in terms of real life scenarios.

Don’t make your mentee feel unwelcomed Don’t overload your mentee with lots of information Don’t fail to make time for your mentee Don’t cancel mentor sessions Don’t fail to listen Don’t discourage your mentee. Give them balanced feedback.


[Type text]




Learning from LxT on Mentoring:

1. Designing Quality Online Discussions This study talks about certain guidelines which we can use as mentors to facilitate effective online discussion. These are:

Align with the objectives: E.g. Suppose the objective is to write a paper. So the discussion should provide opportunity to the student to share their writing and obtain feedback.

Encourage Critical Thinking: Open ended questions in discussions promote critical thinking and generate more interest and engagement for all.

Provide example discussion responses: At the beginning of the course, provide examples of good and bad discussion responses, to the students or provide students a list of response options to choose from.

Add Rubric Criteria: Attach a rubric to provide discussion criteria. This will encourage critical thinking and students will focus on the objectives.

Have students reflect on their learning: Using reflections in discussion forum allow students to view and learn from reflections of others. They are motivated to respond to each other.

Provide non-graded discussions: Such discussions will provide opportunity to students to practice and also to get feedback of their work before submitting it for a grade.

Include small group discussions: This promotes deeper thoughts and reflections for less number of posts. It also encourages a sense of community.

Ask students to share their research: Ask students to share internet or library resources, descriptions, comparisons or current events.

Provide synchronous discussion opportunities: By this they will learn from each other.

LbD on Mentoring

Four LbD questions were asked based on four resources given above.

Reflections on Discussions


[Type text]




https://www.oercommons.org/authoring/26108-designing-quality-online-discussions/view

After observing the participation of learners in discussion forums of FDP101x and FDP201x, following observations are noted:

1. Question: Do you see posts/comments which are deviating from the topic/thread? Note down any 2 instances along with the Course Name and Discussion Thread Topic.

Answer:

Instance 1: In FDP101x (Part 1), under LxI-Week3-2, discussion thread ‘My video resource creation for week3-1963’ posted by 1963, one of the comment is deviating from the topic. The learner has asked for the comments on his video, whereas one of the participants has commented:

“Hi sir I have posted my first lecture on my website please review it the link is given below: https://wordpress.com/page/geetikanidhi.wordpress.com/77”

Instance 2: In FDP201x, under LxI-Week1-DBT, discussion thread ‘Understand and Apply –WordPress – Computer Engineering – JAVA Programming’ posted by shweta, one of the comment is deviating from the topic. The learner talks about the use of WordPress website for her class. One comment by Swati_Ghule is:

“The sequence is correct regarding Led and LbD”

This comment is totally out of context because in the discussion thread there was nothing related to LeD or LbD.

2. Question: Are some of the comments repetitive like “Yes, I agree”, “This is ok” and so on? What would you suggest to avoid such repetition and encourage better comments from participants?

Answer: Yes, there are many instances in FDP101x and FDP201x discussion forums where such comments are repetitively given.

Suggestions:


[Type text]




https://wordpress.com/page/geetikanidhi.wordpress.com/77

To avoid such response, we may ask the participants to give reason for whatever comment they will make in discussion forum. If, they agree or disagree to a particular statement, they can be asked to specify the reason of agreement or disagreement.

Participants can be asked to give qualitative feedback for a particular work or response posted by a learner rather than simply writing: I agree, well said, good work or I disagree etc.

3. Question: What is roughly the proportion of new comments under any thread? Mention at least 3 reasons: Why do you think are similar threads lacking in the novelty of comments?

Answer: Roughly the proportion of new comments under any thread is 1:6. After any new comment, around 6 and sometimes even more, comment on that post only instead of posting a new comment related to their work or their views.

Reasons:

1. May be people do not want to put efforts and time in discussion forum.2. May be they only want to represent their existence.3. May be they are not able to put their point forward properly and so are

commenting only on the related posts.

Module 4: Closing the learning loop on TPACK

________________________________________________________________________________

Learning

How FDP addresses TPACK


[Type text]




This resource contains slides on summary of how different components of TPACK are reflected in FDP101x and FDP201x. I went through the slides and noted following TPACK elements mentioned by instructor:

1. CK in FDPsNo CK in FDPs as it is assumed that faculty is expert in their own content.

2. TK in FDP101x Introduction to Internet WordPress for site creation Video creation using screencast Course creation using moodle

3. TCK in FDP101x Use of WordPress in teaching domain areas Use of Moodle in creating course Creation of OER (Video Resource)

4. PK in FDP201x Hierarchy of learning objectives Flipped classroom Active learning – TPS and PI Evaluation techniques (Done in A-view synchronous session) Constructive Alignment

5. PCK in FDP201x LbDs and LeDs where the pedagogical knowledge is put in context of

subject domain. Helpful resources in Learning Extension Resources for Week 3. Participants creating active learning strategies (TPS and PI) for their own

courses.6. TPK in FDP201x

Digital Bloom’s Taxonomy LxI Week 1 – Discuss how the technology can be used for Bloom’s level of

learning. Breakout sessions during synchronous interaction.

7. TCK in FDP201x Use of Bloom’s digital taxonomy to achieve delivery of their learning

content using technology.


[Type text]




8. TPACK in FDP201x Flipped Classroom activity creation based on topic chosen by participants Final project on OER creation

LxI 2: Final Reflection on TPACK

Focus Question: How different or similar are your answers (on the components of TPACK in FDPs) from the summary on how TPACK is reflected in FDPs?

Similarities:

1. Identification of TK component is similar in three instances: creation of videos, use of moodle and use of WordPress.

2. Identification of TPACK component in two instances is similar: FC activity creation and OER creation.

3. Identification of TCK in FDP201x is similar.4. Identification of PCK in TPS and PI is similar.5. Identification of PCK in LeDs of FDP210x is similar.

Differences:

1. In one instance I have identified CK component also along with TK component in LeD 3.1 to LeD 3.2 (Creating your own video resources) of FDP101x because it talks about visual presentation skills.

2. I have identified TPACK component in one more instance i.e. RCA2 of FDP101x because it calls for the creation of a moodle course.

3. I have not mentioned TK component in ‘Introduction to Internet’.4. I have mentioned TK component in LeD 1.7 (Flipped Classroom: How) of

FDP201x because it explains the technological aspects (creating videos) for using flipped classroom pedagogy.

5. I have mentioned TK component in LeD 1.2 (Learning Dialogues) of FDP101x because it explains the use of technology (video player) for introducing reflection spot in LeDs and how to write script etc.

6. Identification of PK component is quite dissimilar. I have identified it only in LeD 1.1 (From Physical Classrooms to Online Classrooms) of FDP101x. I have not identified PK in FDP201x.


[Type text]




7. I have not identified TCK in FDP101x.8. I have not identified TPK in FDP201x.9. I have not identified PCK in LbDs and LxTs of FDP201x.

Module 5: KirkPatrick Evaluation Model

________________________________________________________________________________


[Type text]




Learning

Resources on KirkPatrick Evaluation Model

Learning from LeD resources on KirkPatrick Evaluation Model:

1. KirkPatrick Training Evaluation Model (created and uploaded by Nigel Lovell-Martin)

This model was developed by Donald KirkPatrick in 1954 to evaluate the effectiveness of training in business and industry.

Evaluation Levels of model: Reaction, Learning (During Training), Behaviour, Result (After Training)

Reaction of the participants to the training. At this level, determine to what degree participants are reacting favourably to the training. For this feedback can be taken.

Learning created by training. At this level, determine to what degree participants have acquired the intended knowledge, attitudes and skills. For this formative assessment can be used.

Transfer of learning at behaviour level. At this level, determine to what degree participants can demonstrate transfer of learning in their work. This can be checked through observation post training.

Targeted outcomes that result from training. At this level, determine to what degree targeted outcomes have been achieved. Here evaluation focuses on specific outcomes.

Planning is done with the “end in mind”. Some researcher proposed 5th level in this model. JJ Phillips proposed

evaluating ROI (return on investment) by comparing results to the cost of training. Whereas, Roger Kaufman proposed evaluation of impact of organization on external environment as 5th level.

2. KirkPatrick Evaluation Models: The Four Levels (created by Supriya Mishra and uploaded by Michael Orey)

Why Evaluate: For improvements, to justify training, to determine the future continuity of the training.

Seven Keys: Analyze your resources, involve your managers, start at level 1 and continue through remaining levels as resources permit, evaluate all the levels.


[Type text]




Why measure Reactions? : Provide feedback for future improvements, it tells trainees that trainers are there for their help, provide quantitative information to set standards for future programs.

Guidelines for evaluating Reactions: Decide what you want to find out, design form to quantify reaction, give opportunity for written comments, get immediate response, encourage for honest responses, establish acceptable standards and take action accordingly.

Evaluation Category example: Program objectives, course material, content relevance, facilitator knowledge, facilitator delivery, facilitator style, program evaluation, breaks and facility.

The questions should be learner centered rather than the trainer centered.

Different scales and methods can be used for taking feedback. Why measure Learning? : Tells about effectiveness of instructor, through

scores of pre-test and post-test tells about the success or failure of instructor in achieving the learning objective.

Guidelines for evaluating learning: Use control groups wherever possible, make sure to get 100% response, evaluate knowledge, skills and attitude before and after the training program. Use a form to measure knowledge and attitude and performance scale to measure skills pre and post training. Finally use results to take appropriate actions.

Conditions necessary to change behaviour: Participant must get opportunity to apply learning, desire to change, must work in conducive environment, must be rewarded for the change.

Guidelines for measuring behaviour: Measure before and after, allow time for behaviour change, use structured interviews or surveys for measuring before and after behaviour, decide who will be polled (participants, his boss, his subordinate or others who know his behaviour), repeat the research if required.

Results: In terms of productivity or the tangible benefits Guidelines for measuring results: Measure on before and after basis, allow

time for results to develop, use control group, repeat at some time interval, do benefit cost analysis.

Learning from LxT resources on KirkPatrick Evaluation Model:


[Type text]




1. Kirkpatrick Model: Four Levels of Learning Evaluation (by Serhat Kurt) Examples of resources and techniques for level one: Online assessment,

Interviews, Smile sheets, Comment forms determined by subjective individual reaction, Post-training program questionnaires, Verbal responses.

Examples of tools and procedures for level two: Exams, interviews or assessments prior to and immediately after the training in order to reduce the possibility of inconsistent in evaluation reports, Observations by peers and instructors.

Examples of assessment resources and techniques for level three: Observations and interviews; surveys and close observation after some time to evaluate significant change, importance of change, and how long this change will last; online evaluations; examinations; 360-degree feedback in which individual’s performance can be reviewed by others, Self assessment, Assessment with key efficiency indicators.

Examples of assessment resources and techniques for level four: Regular evaluation on basis of key business targets.

2. Handout for Train the Trainer Certificate Program (conducted by State of Connecticut)

In this handout, four levels of KirkPatrick Evaluation Model are described

with examples of evaluation tools and methods and relevance and practicability of that evaluation. This is what we have already learned in previous resources.

This handout has different types of sample evaluations forms which have

been used in different training Programs for level 1. All types are focused on some basis questions related to satisfaction and effectiveness of the training program.

Results of Level 1 evaluation of one of the training program have also

been shared. The evaluation for satisfaction has been done on scale, knowledge gained has been evaluated pre and post training and some open ended question for feedback have been asked.


[Type text]




http://www.ct.gov/ctdn/lib/ctdn/ttt_14_m5_handouts2.pdf

https://educationaltechnology.net/kirkpatrick-model-four-levels-learning-evaluation/

3. Applying the Kirkpatrick model: Evaluating an Interaction for Learning Framework curriculum intervention(Megan Paull, Craig Whitsed and Antonia Girardi)

This paper examines the efficacy of KirkPatrick Model as a way to appraise the outcomes of ILF (Interaction for Learning Framework) based curriculum interventions.

ILF is intended to increasing interaction between students. There is need

for evaluation of implementation of this framework. ILF is a six dimensional framework. These dimensions focus on: including

peer interaction in design of the unit, using teaching strategies to facilitate meaningful and structured interactions with peers, telling students about expectations and benefits of these interactions across different cultural groups, encouraging students for content engagement through peer learning, encouraging students to critically reflect on learning process, encouraging students to form community of learners.

ILF based curriculum innovation was implemented in a postgraduate coursework business unit. KirkPatrick Model was applied to test the effectiveness of this innovation. Data was collected through observations, critical dialogues, logged activities, written responses of students about their experience through questions focused on perception of assignment work, group formation methods, observations about class activities, their contact with group members outside class and their inclination for formation of diverse groups in future on a five point rating scale.

Outcomes:

o Level 1 (Reaction): Views about pros and cons of the methods

employed and willingness to participate again in group assessment were taken. Feedback was generally positive.

o Level 2 (Learning): Content of group presentations (assignment

given to students) suggested that many students had developed an understanding of value of diverse perspectives. Outcomes were positive. But it was felt that in future, skills related to reflection, evaluation and collective development of understanding need to be included in the skill development phase.


[Type text]




http://www.iier.org.au/iier26/paull.pdf

http://www.iier.org.au/iier26/paull.pdf

o Level 3 (Behaviour): Responses of students indicated that a limited

contact was occurring outside the class. After 6 months it was observed that many students maintained contact with each other in other units.

o Level 4 (Result): Increased interactions between all students

(positive feedback), enhanced learning (positive feedback), creating social connections (mixed feedback).

KirkPatrick Model proved to be a useful tool in evaluating this curriculum innovation.

FDP Design Sample

Sample moodle course on Peer Interaction is provided to observe various components of course, so that we can decide upon various inclusions in our FDP Design. The link of the sample course is:

http://tuet.gnomio.com/

I accessed the course and self enrolled in it and observed each and every component very carefully.

Reflection on KirkPatrick Model of Evaluation

Focus Question: How can you apply the first two levels (Reaction and learning) of the Kirkpatrick model in evaluating your course/training you plan to offer to other participants?

Answer:

Course: Marketing Management

Topic: Market Segmentation

Module Objective:


[Type text]




http://tuet.gnomio.com/

1. To provide understanding of the concept to students through ‘out-class’ videos.2. To provide them practical exposure to segmentation through TPS and PI.

Outcome:

1. Students will understand the concept.2. Students will be able to apply the knowledge for segmenting the market of a

given product.

Evaluation of Reaction:

1. Feedback from the students will be taken for the Module through questions focused on the effectiveness of the method used, willingness to use such method for other topics, how they feel after completing the module.

2. Through observation the reactions of the students can be evaluated. Their engagement, interactions with peers and responses in the class will depict their reaction.

Evaluation of Learning:

1. For evaluation of learning I would use LbDs for out-class segment. The scores of LbD would provide evaluation of learning.

2. For evaluation of learning in-class, I would give them an assignment to segment the market of a given product and then discuss it with the peers and then finally share the outcomes with the whole class (TPS and PI). By observing the views and discussions of the students, the learning can be evaluated.

Details on FDP Design Activity: Learning

Course Design: What?

o Team activity (3-4 participants)o Duration: 1st to 20th Juneo Design a Moodle course in a MOOC Model.o Topic should be one of the topics covered in FDP101x or FDP201x.


[Type text]




o Each course must have LeDs (Learning Dialogues), LbDs (Leaning by Doing), LxIs (Learner Experience Interaction), LxTs (Learning Extension Trajectories), KQ (Knowledge Quiz), RQ (Reflection Quiz), AQ (Assimilation Quiz) and RCA (Resource Creation Assignment).

o Student engagement of minimum one hour should be there, self enrolment for students must be enabled and [email protected] should be enrolled as teacher in every course.

Course Design: How?

o Grading policy with a total score of 100 should be created.o Progress bar should be enabledo Provide survey to collect feedback of peer reviewers.o Design and implementation of course by team will decide about the success of

this assignment.o Team details will be submitted between 15th to 20th June.

Evaluation of FDP Courses

o Each course will be reviewed by 4 peers between 21st to 26th June.o Peer reviewer will participate in all activities given in the course except RCA.o Peer reviewers will share their feedback in the end.

Module Evaluation Report

o Team has to submit a report between 27th June to 1st July having 5 sections:o Analysis of course engagement (from activity log of peer reviewers)o Analysis of learning (from scores of peer reviewers)o Analysis of learner feedback (from survey report)o Self reflection based on analysis of first three points (our experience)o Work distribution (contribution of each team member)

o This report along with grade sheet and activity log must be uploaded in WordPress site or Google drive and link should be shared with IIT team.


[Type text]




mailto:[email protected]

Evaluation by FDP301x Team

o Self evaluation report and Moodle course will be evaluated by FDP team on following parameters:

o Effective use of LeDs, LbDs, LxIs and LxTs.o Appropriateness of KQ, AQ and RQo RCAo Gradebook Setupo Feedback (from peers)

Score Card

o Peer review process: 25%o Course Design (evaluation by course staff): 50%o Self evaluation Report: 25%

LxI on FDP Design Activity

This thread is meant for discussions with team members for designing of the FDP course.

I created a thread with my team id to meet with my team mates and discuss about activities to be done.


[Type text]




Module 6: FDP Design Activity Documents

________________________________________________________________________________

FDP Design Assignment Handbook: Learning

o Components of FDP Courseo LeDs: Either design own videos (6-8 minutes) using screencast-o-matic or

we can use videos from FDP101x and FDP201x. Videos should have creative common license.

o LbDs: After each LeD give at least one question (LbD) so that participant can assimilate the knowledge acquired from video. The questions have to be designed by the team. It is not allowed to take questions from either of the FDP.

o LxIs: Discussion forums should be added at required places where students can discuss their queries or share their experiences. There must be clear instruction and focus questions for discussion forums.

o LxTs: Additional resources for in-depth knowledge of the topic should be given. Either find own resources or we can use resources from both FDPs. If the material is not under creative common license, do not embed it, only provide the link to the resource.

o Quizzes: AQ based on LxTs, RQ based on LxIs and KQ to measure overall understanding.

o RCA: Provide detailed instructions for RCA, design rubric for evaluation.


[Type text]




o Progress Bar, Feedback and Grading Policy (Already discussed)o Course Evaluation: (already discussed)

o Course will be reviewed by 12 peers.o Each person has to review 3 courses.

o Module evaluation report (already discussed)o Evaluation by FDP301x team (already discussed)o Score card

Category Weightage (%) Sub-Category Weightage (%)

Peer Review Process

25 Peer Reviewed 1st course 7.5

Peer Reviewed 2nd course 7.5

Peer Reviewed 3rd course 10

Course Design(Evaluated by the Course Staff)

50 LeDs 2.5

LbDs 2.5

LxIs 2.5

LxTs 2.5

RQ 2.5

AQ 2.5

KQ 10

Resource Creation Assignment 5

Gradebook Setup 5

Survey/Feedback 15

Self- Evaluation report(Submitted by each course team)

25 Analysis of Course Engagement 5

Analysis of Learning 5

Analysis of Learner Feedback 5

Reflection based on above analysis 5

Workload Distribution 5Source: IITBX

Design Activity Team Details

Google form for the details was filled. The details of the team are as under:

Team Id: 047


[Type text]




Team Leader: Dr. Anjali Ahuja

Team Members: Ms. Suchitra Patil, Mr. Shrishail Chamatagoudar, Ms. Syamala Devi

Topic for FDP Design Activity: Flipped Classroom

Discussion Mentors only

This discussion forum is meant for discussing matters related to mentoring process, like, challenges faced, sharing experiences or technology issues etc. This would help in learning from each other.

Interactions with Mentees

________________________________________________________________________________

Details of Mentees:

Team ID: 1162_004

Team Leader: Khem ChandTeam Member 1: Manoj KumarTeam Member 2: Manish Phuyal

Mail from IITB for details of Mentees:


[Type text]




Interactions with Mentees

The methods used for interaction with Mentees are:

1. Email: Email was used initially only to get the phone numbers of the team members.

2. WhatsApp: After getting the phone numbers of the mentees, I created a WhatsApp group to interact with mentees. Major communication was through this medium.

3. Phone: Third medium used for interaction was phone. This was used for long conversations.

The evidences of mail and Whatsapp are as follows:


[Type text]





[Type text]




The Final Score

Reflection

Initially Mentees were not showing much of the interest. After repeated request they shared the link of their OER . Then I accessed the OER. There were some problems in the access also. I told about this to them. Then they made corrections and I was able to access the OER. After analyzing the OER, I provided them the feedback through Whatsapp and phone calls. They made the changes accordingly and finally they scored very well in the assignment. It was a great experience. There are definitely certain challenges which as mentor, we face. But ultimately in the end we learn from each other.


[Type text]




FDP Design Activity

________________________________________________________________________________

FDP Design Activity started with the mail received from IIT Bombay about team details on June 1.


[Type text]




Team Details:

Team ID: 047Anjali AhujaSuchitra PatilShrishail ChamatagoudarSyamala Devi

Communication Methods:

After receiving the mail, I created a WhatsApp group and invited my team members through ‘IIT FDP 301x’ WhatsApp group and LxI on FDP Design Activity in Module 5, to join ‘FDP design team 47’ group. When all the members joined the WhatsApp group, we decided about following:

Decisions Taken

Team Leader: Anjali Ahuja


[Type text]




Topic: Flipped Classroom

Division of Work (briefly):

Name of the Member Work AllocatedSuchitra Patil LeDs and LbDsSyamala Devi LxTs , AQ and KQ, Course entry surveyShrishail Chamatagoudar LxI and RQAnjali Ahuja Designing of Moodle Course (all

components) and uploading whole content in the course.Designing of RCADesigning Feedback survey of the course

Link of Moodle site: https://fdpdesignteam47.gnomio.com/course/view.php?id=2

Platform used for developing site: Gnomio

Other than WhatsApp communication, emails were used to share the content and phone calls were used for long conversation. Evidences of WhatsApp and email communication are pasted below:


[Type text]




https://fdpdesignteam47.gnomio.com/course/view.php?id=2


[Type text]




Emails:


[Type text]





[Type text]




I forwarded all LeDs received from Ms. Suchitra Patil to remaining two members of the team, so that they can consider those LeDs while designing their respective content (KQ and LxI).


[Type text]




This entry survey was in form of ‘Google form’. I did not include this survey in moodle course. I designed the course entry survey in moodle.


[Type text]




Reflection:

Technology and Tools used in creation of this course:

1. Tool used for making slides- MS PowerPoint2. Tool used for making 3 LeDs (Videos)- Screencast-o-matic3. Tool used for designing course- Gnomio4. Use of Youtube for LxT resources (videos) and one of the LeD.

Details of work done by me:

Technical Part:

1. Designing of structure of course on Gnomio2. Enrolling all teacher including fdpict to the course3. Setting self enrolment option for students.4. Uploading all LeDs, LbDs, LxTs, AQ, KQ, LxI and RQ sent by other team members.5. Setting of Gradebook


[Type text]




6. Setting of Progress Bar7. Setting of Activity completion for all activities8. Setting restrictions on activities9. Designing Feedback survey as per the guidelines of IITB

Content Part:

1. Defining learning objectives of the course.2. Giving brief description of all activities.3. Designing RCA including instructions, Rubrics and setting of whole workshop.

Peer Review of FDP Design Activity

_______________________________________________________________________________

After designing FDP in Moodle and submitting the FDP link at IITB, the next phase is Peer review. Every participant has to review 3 courses. The teams assigned to me were:

1. Team 005: https://flippedclassroomfdp.gnomio.com/course/view.php?id=22. Team 054: https://team-54.moodlecloud.com/login/index.php 3. Team 088: https://myfdp.moodlecloud.com/login/index.php

In the review, we have to self enrol in the course, go through whole content and assignments given in the course (except RCA) and finally provide feedback on the course.


[Type text]




https://myfdp.moodlecloud.com/login/index.php

https://team-54.moodlecloud.com/login/index.php

https://flippedclassroomfdp.gnomio.com/course/view.php?id=2

Review Comments:

1. Team 005: Without enrolment whole content of the course was visible and accessible RQ 1, RQ 2 were wrong. Questions were based on posts in the forum and

there were no posts were there in the discussion forum. RQ 3 is also not correctly framed. Either the question should be reframed

or the answer should be changed. LbD grading is not correct Rubric for RCA has only for out-class segment evaluation. In-class part

can’t be evaluated by this rubric.2. Team 054:

Question 6 and 7 in course entry survey was regarding procedural and content queries and there was no platform given to discuss about those queries. So the purpose of asking those questions was not clear.

Question 9 in entry survey should not be at entry level. It should have been in exit survey.

Course entry survey does not get checked even after completing it. Manual completion was also not there.

Team detail survey was given in the course. But no where the team creation has been mentioned.

Example assessment before own submission is not given but has been mentioned.

RQ 5 is wrong. Every time a learner will post in discussion forum, the number will change. So we can’t decide about its answer beforehand.

Progress bar not found Wrong instructions at some places Gradebook setting is not correct

3. Team 088: Course was visible even without enrolment In discussion forum, there was no permission to add new discussion topic.

We can only comment on other’s posts. First point of Rubric for RCA is not clear. Structure of course is not well planned.


[Type text]




Not easy to navigate through course as at some points sequence is not correct, like, in LxT 2.1, it is mentioned answer AQ. But next to it is LbD 2.2, no AQ.

One question is same in LbD and KQ. Nomenclature of activities at some places is not correct, like LxI is used

for LxT. No focus question given for discussion.

After completing all the three courses, I provide the feedback of these three teams in Google form provided by IITB. It was about rating of course regarding my perception of engagement and perception of learning of the course.

Self Evaluation Report

_____________________________________________________________________________

Learning

After peer review we have to prepare self evaluation report. Our course was supposed to be reviewed by 12 participants. Out of 12, only participants enrolled in the course. On the basis of the activities they performed in the course the evaluation report has been


[Type text]




prepared. The sample for evaluation report has been provided in IIT BombayX. The evaluation report has five sections, as mentioned below:

SECTION 1: ANALYSIS OF ENGAGEMENT What was the gross engagement in the course? [Macro level] What was the engagement pattern of individual LeDs, LbDs, LxIs, and LxTs?

[Micro Level] What is the transition pattern of engagement of learners across LeD, LbD, LxI,

and LxT? SECTION 2: ANALYSIS OF LEARNING

What is the gross learning in the course?[Macro] What is the learning pattern across LbDs and Quizzes? [Micro] What is the transition pattern of learning across LbDs and Quizzes? [Meso

Level] SECTION 3: ANALYSIS OF PERCEPTION

What was the perception of learners about the course? [Macro] SECTION 4: REFLECTIONS ON ANALYSIS

What do gross data about learning, perception and engagement tell about the course?

What does the analysis tell about the course experience? What needs improvement in the current course offering?

SECTION 5: WORKLOAD DISTRIBUTION

Work Load Distribution for Self Evaluation Report

Section Name of the Team MemberSection 1 Dr. Anjali AhujaSection 2 Dr. Anjali AhujaSection 3 Ms. Suchitra PatilSection 4 Ms. Syamala DeviSection 5 All


[Type text]




Link to self evaluation report: https://anjaliahujablog.wordpress.com/self-evaluation-report/

The reflection part is added in the report.


[Type text]




https://anjaliahujablog.wordpress.com/self-evaluation-report/

https://anjaliahujablog.wordpress.com/self-evaluation-report/