During the final week of EDUC5199G, I received my post-course student satisfaction feedback for the Chemistry Bootcamp module that I created. Overall, the feedback that I received was very positive, although I found it rather interesting that the reviews were also pretty different from one another. This process provided me with some really great suggestions for improvement to my course; however, I think it is hard to really get a good sense of what student satisfaction would be with my course when there are only three students. The questions used for the Likert scales are highly relevant but I found that they did not really provide me with any meaningful measurement in my super small class size. I can see how they would be valuable with a larger class though, as it would provide more statistically relevant data as to how satisfied my students are with each of the three Community of Inquiry presences (teaching, social, and cognitive) (Garrison et al., 2000). Also, my students were not chemistry students so they had a challenging time understanding the content itself and, because of this lack of background knowledge, they were unable to fully appreciate where varying opinions and perspectives could be discussed.
All three reviewers agreed that my course was laid out well, highly organized, and easy to follow. Also, they all appreciated the extra resources that I included throughout my module for students who needed extra guidance. The checklists were also mentioned as a strong point as it provided a means of self-assessment to ensure that all activities had been completed in the module before moving on in the course. One of my reviewers noted that my course outline did not include required hardware for the course; as my institution is a bring your own device (BYOD) board, I did not see this as an essential piece of information to include. One reviewer also commented that they thought the order of my module could be improved by moving the safety module towards the beginning of the course. In terms of pedagogy, this module is last in my course as it will place this refresher knowledge closer to the first chemistry lab that would be performed in class. I always like to review safety as close as possible to when my students use and apply the knowledge in the appropriate context.
In terms of the learning activities that I provided in my module, all of the reviewers thought that they were appropriate for the module. They all commented on the Androidify introductory activity; this is one of my favourite ones too as it provides a lot of information to me about how my students see themselves. It allows for creativity and helps to build a social community as well. All of the reviewers also liked the variety of ways that I included discussions within the module; I used Padlet, Google slides, and the Canvas discussion forums. One reviewer commented that posting the assignments within a discussion forum was rather helpful because they could learn from their peers. Another reviewer suggested that I include some kind of discussion activity where students could also see each other visually, such as Flipgrid or Google hangouts. I agree that this would be a great idea and perhaps I could include it as an option for students to present their mindmaps.
I found the lack of agreement over the Quizizz activity to be quite interesting to me. Some liked the quiz whereas others did not. In terms of critical comments here, one reviewer stated that they didn't like the activity because it displayed a leaderboard and they felt a bit embarrassed about their score. This is a valid point and I probably should have included some further instructions for this activity. For example, perhaps I could have students only use their initials or a code name to help make it more anonymous for them. Also, I think it is important for me to explain that this quiz is formative and can be repeated as many times as necessary. I still believe that Quizizz is an appropriate tool to use here, especially since it provides appropriate interleaved retrieval practice for my students (Johnson, 2018). Going forward, I would definitely revise these items in my module.
All three reviewers agreed that my course was laid out well, highly organized, and easy to follow. Also, they all appreciated the extra resources that I included throughout my module for students who needed extra guidance. The checklists were also mentioned as a strong point as it provided a means of self-assessment to ensure that all activities had been completed in the module before moving on in the course. One of my reviewers noted that my course outline did not include required hardware for the course; as my institution is a bring your own device (BYOD) board, I did not see this as an essential piece of information to include. One reviewer also commented that they thought the order of my module could be improved by moving the safety module towards the beginning of the course. In terms of pedagogy, this module is last in my course as it will place this refresher knowledge closer to the first chemistry lab that would be performed in class. I always like to review safety as close as possible to when my students use and apply the knowledge in the appropriate context.
In terms of the learning activities that I provided in my module, all of the reviewers thought that they were appropriate for the module. They all commented on the Androidify introductory activity; this is one of my favourite ones too as it provides a lot of information to me about how my students see themselves. It allows for creativity and helps to build a social community as well. All of the reviewers also liked the variety of ways that I included discussions within the module; I used Padlet, Google slides, and the Canvas discussion forums. One reviewer commented that posting the assignments within a discussion forum was rather helpful because they could learn from their peers. Another reviewer suggested that I include some kind of discussion activity where students could also see each other visually, such as Flipgrid or Google hangouts. I agree that this would be a great idea and perhaps I could include it as an option for students to present their mindmaps.
I found the lack of agreement over the Quizizz activity to be quite interesting to me. Some liked the quiz whereas others did not. In terms of critical comments here, one reviewer stated that they didn't like the activity because it displayed a leaderboard and they felt a bit embarrassed about their score. This is a valid point and I probably should have included some further instructions for this activity. For example, perhaps I could have students only use their initials or a code name to help make it more anonymous for them. Also, I think it is important for me to explain that this quiz is formative and can be repeated as many times as necessary. I still believe that Quizizz is an appropriate tool to use here, especially since it provides appropriate interleaved retrieval practice for my students (Johnson, 2018). Going forward, I would definitely revise these items in my module.
References
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education model. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. Available from: http://cde.athabascau.ca/coi_site/documents/Garrison_Anderson_Archer_Critical_Inquiry_model.pdf
Johnson, R. (2018). Supporting retrieval practice with quizzing technology. In Power, R. (Ed.), Technology and the curriculum: Summer 2018. Surrey, BC, Canada: Power Learning Solutions. Available from https://techandcurriculum.pressbooks.com/chapter/supporting-retrieval-practice/
Comments
Post a Comment