Rachel Bronk's MET

Why did you choose this particular tools?

The story I chose to tell was about my own experience traveling. Google Maps was the right tool for several reasons. In the context of social studies and of traveling, I don’t believe that a story necessarily has to be sequential in order to understand it. Google Maps affords both a sequential or non-sequential viewing experience that can be determined by the viewer and facilitated by the ordered plots along the left side of the map (a sequential experience) or the scattered location plots on the map itself (a non-sequential experience). In reference to my story, my trip obviously took place in a certain order but to understand my thoughts on a city or to view my images one does not need to view each part in order.

I wanted to express that my travels were not linear events but rather interconnected events that were many individual experiences that also formed a collective whole. Google Maps was the tool that could best represent this due to several features.

1) The ability to colour code locations. Note that blue markers were my first trip and green markers were my second trip with London as the sole yellow marker because it was a part of both trips.
2) The ability to “symbol code” locations. The thumbtacks represented overnight stays whereas the raindrop markers represented daytrips.
3) The ability to draw routes. Google Maps allowed for me to draw my route of travel and also colour code them.
4) The ability to allow for sequential and non-sequential viewership.
5) The ability for me to situate locations on or near a map so that viewers can physically see the locations and the distances between them.

How did the tool impact the manner in which you told your story (perhaps in a way that is different had you just used text or related the story using your voice)?

I certainly could have written an essay about my travels but it was more engaging, meaningful and interesting to tell my story instead through Google Maps. My story feels more personalized through Google Maps because I am able to add my own pictures and since the writing is in snippets based on the location rather than essay style, it felt most comfortable to write in an informal, blog style to make it more personal.

How might you use such tools in your own teaching to produce materials for students?

A story telling approach in the social studies classroom using social media allows for students to create outside of the static Web 1.0 in the dynamic Web 2.0. In reflection, I can already see how a story telling approach in Google Maps would enhance a project that I have already done with students. Previously, I had students complete a “Lonely Planet” assignment where they used Powerpoint to create a slideshow meeting specific criteria about a country that they wanted to visit using their newly acquired information literacy skills. However, even after spending many weeks on this, most students could not situate their country on a map! Had I used Google Maps to have students write a fictional story about traveling in a country of their choosing that demonstrated knowledge about the country, students would be physically creating on top of the map.

Furthermore, Google Maps could be utilized as a much more dynamic way of having students report on summer vacation, field trips or camps

How might students be given access to the same authoring tools?

Thankfully, Google Maps is free to use. All that is required is a Google login which can be individually created by students with only basic information or which can be generically set up by the teacher. A login is essential so that maps can be saved. I think the best way to go here would be a class account so all of the maps are easily accessible.

What kind of impact would you expect to see in your students in terms of motivation, creativity, or any other characteristics?

I would absolutely expect to see students become more motivated because of this tool. I actually really enjoyed creating my story and didn’t look at it as “an assignment that was being forced upon me “. I would expect that students would be more motivated to create in Google Maps because it allows them creativity with respect to what images they can add and how to organize their map points. The nature of the map points would also allow for an otherwise lengthy report to be broken up since students aren’t continuously writing but rather plotting, adding images, writing, coding etc. as they see fit.

The wiki space experience feels much more collaborative and connected than a threaded discussion space experience. Wikis have the advantage of a less defined workspace whereby collaboration is fluid. Individuals can add, delete or modify information regardless of who originally posted it. The “discussion” tab facilitates a layer whereby dialogue can be documented regarding the content of the actual wiki page (not utilized in this activity as a two layered process but is facilitated by wiki nonetheless). What I like about wikis is that a group could initially write 500 words, for example, on their wiki page and then engage in discussion, edit their wiki page and still end up with a 500 word product. This is unlike a threaded discussion whereby content can’t be replaced rather it just keeps getting added like building blocks. The “history” tab in wiki also puts it at an advantage because collaborators can view the exact changes made by group members and can even compare versions or engage a collaborator in private discussion by clicking on their username.

In finding challenges about working in a collaborative wiki space, I reflect on my experience using solely wiki for my ETEC 510 group design project. The fluid nature of wiki and the ease in which edits can be made leaves the potential for collaborators to take edits personally as their work could be there one instant and then gone the next (although it can be restored). I also found that with all of the collaborative and communicative options (ie. User talk, individual discussion pages, actual entry pages, etc.) undertaking a group project in wiki that involves many pages requires a great deal of organization and structure as to how communication should take place (ie. Agree to leave all messages on the discussion page of the main page, each user should color code their edits etc.).

The main reason I enjoy working collaboratively in wikis is that a wiki affords a continuously changing workspace that has first draft, second draft, rough copy, final copy etc. built in. The document itself progressed to a final product – that is the nature of the collaboration. Wikis have a very open sense of communication and even after being absent from a wiki for a while, the “history” tab and discussion pages allow one to jump right back in in a more natural manner than reading through a stack of threaded discussion posts.

For my grade 7 students learning about ancient civilizations, I chose to use a quiz as a formative assessment tool and a test as a summative assessment tool. “Modules 1 and 2 Quiz” is designed both to get students accustomed to taking a timed assessment within the LMS environment and to get students to test how well they have absorbed the information from the first two modules. The quiz is specifically set up such that students can take it multiple times and receive instant feedback on select questions when they submit the entire quiz. While Gibbs and Simpson find that “the quality of [student] learning has been shown to be higher in the assignment-based courses [than in exam based courses]” (p.7), I feel that students do require some exam style assessments in order to focus attention on the important aspects of the subject, give students opportunities to practice skills and consolidate learning and help students to monitor their progress (Gibbs and Simpson, 2004, p.11-12). Additionally, the last question of the quiz provides several examples of short essay questions that may be asked on the test later on in the unit.

“Modules 1, 2 and 3 Test – Ancient Rome” is the summative assessment tool for the first third of the ancient Rome unit. The test utilizes a variety of question formats and, for the short essay questions, draws upon understandings that students would have directly gained from their experience doing other assignments in the previous modules. Programming meaningful feedback is difficult as feedback should tell students “exactly where they have gone wrong and what they can do about it” (Gibbs and Simpson, 2004, p. 18). In order to ensure that feedback is reflective of instructional goals, feedback for short essay questions will be given based on individual answers. This is more time consuming than a stock answer but it will ensure that students know exactly how they are being assessed. In the formative quiz, students have some programmed feedback that gives them prompts about key understandings they need to have in order to answer the question correctly. However, in the summative test, some generalized feedback has been set up based on the total grade for the student but rather than giving qualitative (and unhelpful) feedback such as “good” or “poor”, generalized feedback such as the following has been programmed:

“50-60% – You have not demonstrated an understanding of some of the main ideas about ancient Rome. Next time, make sure you make use of the quiz provided as many of the test questions come from the quiz! The information presented on religion and government in ancient Rome will be important as we move on to the next modules. Please review the questions that you did not answer correctly and choose one of the short essay questions to re-answer and resubmit to me via email for additional marks”

While this is not a replacement for descriptive, individual feedback, it is proactive feedback that focuses on what a student needs to do next time and what they can do presently. It is my hope that feedback that focuses on “moving forward” will be helpful for students in determining what they need to do for next time.

Related to these quizzes is a formative assessment and study tool activity that I have set up in the form of a glossary (“Glossary Entry #1”).  Students are tasked with the following activity:

1. Add an entry to the Ancient Rome Glossary (at the top of the course page underneath the image) with a term, person or structure that pertains to Module 1, 2 or 3.
   Criteria
   • entry should be a minimum of 50 words.
   • entry must not be a duplicate
   • define your entry as it relates to ancient Rome (for example, if you choose to add “immortal” make sure you say who in Rome was immortal and what significance those immortals had on religion, society etc.)
     Once finished, click “edit submission” on this page and type in the name of your entry then click “submit”.
2. Additionally, you will need to add the emperor that you selected for your Facebook profile assignment to the Glossary. As others may have also chosen the same one, you are all responsible for contributing some information.
3. You are required to make comments on at least 1 of the glossary entries of other students in order to improve their entry (see examples under Julius Caesar entry).
4. You are also required to rate at least 1 of the glossary entries and explain the reasoning behind your rating in a respectful manner (ie. 5/5 – the important details of Julius Caesar’s life are clear and his important role in the end of the Republic is explained well. Ie. 1/5 – the dates that Caesar ruled are incorrect and so is the information about which triumverate Caesar was a part of. Also, Caesar is called an emperor but he wasn’t one.)

You will be authoring entries to this glossary as well as adding comments to existing entries. This glossary will serve as a study tool for quizzes and tests as well as a reference tool for assignments.

According to Gibbs and Simpson (2004), “students need to understand criteria in order to orient themselves appropriately to the assignment task” (p.20). While this seems like a given, many assignments do not come with clear criteria which can cause confusion and anxiety. The criteria given for this glossary comes with clear guideline about length, the type of term students should select, what “tasks within the task” they need to complete and examples about how to do something they would not have done before in Moodle (providing ratings/comments). Additionally, tasks are numbered to ensure that students are aware of exactly how many components they need to complete.

This activity has several purposes. First, it sets students up with a tool they can use to study and models efficient organization. Second, it allows for students to take information and present it in their own words and also apply it to other understandings from the unit. Third, it allows for students to improve upon their work and the work of others. By enabling tools that allow for students to add comments and rate entries, students are able to improve an entry by providing additional information and provide peers with formative feedback that lets them know how they can improve their entry. Students, conscious of the fact that their entries will be viewed by both their teacher and peers, may “supervise themselves and improve the quality of their own assignments prior to submitting them” (Gibbs and Simpson, 2004, p.20). This activity allows for the teacher check for understanding, insightful connections and correct information. The teacher will also make comments and add ratings to entries in order to guide students in their learning.

In keeping with the recommendation by Gibbs and Simpson (2004) that frequent assignments are more effective in distributing student effort than infrequent, intensive assignments, many assignments in my unit are provided that see students working individually and collaboratively, within the LMS and outside of the LMS, with audio, visual and text and in a timed and untimed environment.  Hopefully this approach to assessment will have students recognizing the importance of all assessment tasks and not feeling the anxiety associated with an exam-only based learning environment.

References:

Gibbs, G. and Simpson, C. (2005).  “Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning.” Learning and Teaching in Higher Education Accessed online June 24, 2009 http://www.open.ac.uk/fast/pdfs/Gibbs%20and%20Simpson%202004-05.pdf

My LMS is designed for grade 7 students who will be using the LMS to support their combined classroom and online learning. In Moodle, under “Ancient Rome – Module 4 – Government” I have designed an activity that deliberately requires a variety of interactions to take place online. This activity happens in four parts. First, students individually answer the question “Would you rather live in the Roman Republic or Roman Empire? Why? Make sure that you reference both religious reasons and political reasons for your decision”. Students then post this to the “Republic or Empire” discussion forum (visible to “separate groups”). Students are then required to respond to the answers of at least two other students within their small group. Once all members have posted, groups are required to plan a meeting time in their group chat room where they will discuss their ideas further and plan how they will proceed in undertaking the next part of the assignment. Coming back to asynchronous communication tools, students then engage with each other in Google docs, which requires them to collaboratively create a summary of their discussion and also create a pro/con list for living in each the Republic and the Empire. Once finalized, the assignment is submitted based on criteria that looks at evidence of participation (individual mark), clear summary, Republic pros/cons and Empire pros/cons (groups marks).

The assignment challenges my students’ ability to work within both asynchronous and synchronous environments. Students begin the activity in a very structured way – by posting an individual response and then responding to at least two other posts. By having students shift into collaboration through chat and Google docs, their ability to do group work without a face-to-face set up is challenged. The guidelines of the assignment and the prep done by the teacher in outlining expectations for group interactions serve as a support while students negotiate this new setting for academic communication. I think that the tracking tools provided by Moodle assist the teacher greatly with formative assessment and also serve as a reminder to students that their work is indeed being tracked. Discussion posts speak for themselves, chat is programmed to save discussions and the teacher is listed as a collaborator in Google docs so even though the teacher may not watch the entire assignment unfold, there is a chance to periodically check in and see how the assignment manifests. I don’t foresee any issues with this assignment although I know that students will want to work on this in class. I will be very clear with students that the purpose of this assignment is to work in the online context and they should complete assignments as assigned using Moodle’s communication tools and not in class, on the phone etc. I see this as an opportunity to observe students and survey them regarding which methods of communication they found to be most successful.