Student prejudice against peer review

Only half of the students have completed the surveymonkey, so I’m not going to post data yet. Today, however, I’d like to talk about a comment that came in with the surveys submitted so far that I feel really highlights some of the underlying issues at stake for this kind of tool in education.

Here’s what the student said:

Frankly, I don’t think this is a very good tool. Who cares what a bunch of dumb kids think is relevant to the course? I take classes in order to be taught what the relevant information is…please stick to comprehensive lecturing.”

Wow. Well, my first reaction was dismay, obviously. But then I realized that this comment is fantastically useful, is in fact the gold standard comment, because it puts into words something that MORE than one student feels, something that frequently mitigates the success of technology-driven group knowledge assignments. In a school that places a very high premium on student evaluations as part of the tenure and promotion process, this is a non-trivial consideration for faculty who wish to incorporate new technology into their course structure.

The issue at hand is that blogs, wikis, forums, potentially voicethreads and now timelines all attempt to leverage the potential for social networking supposedly inherent in Web 2.0 to achieve pedagogical goals. Their use in this context is predicated on two basic assumptions. Firstly, these exercises try to extend the benefits of discussion-based teaching beyond the classroom; they are thus predicated upon the idea that discussion, as opposed to lecture, is the ideal pedagogical model. Secondly, they assume that the group effect will always be positive, that students exposed to each others’ work are not equally influenced by good and bad student work, but will collectively move towards a group norm that more closely resembles the best work.

It’s pretty clear which side of this discussion I’m on. The student comment on the timeline exercise, however, serves as an important reminder that the students themselves are not necessarily in agreement with these two hypotheses. Indeed, some of our students consider all course time spent listening to peers as filler at best, an active waste at worst. They do not trust their peers as a source of information, and they do not distinguish between what the instructor says, and what the student learns. In other words, the critical process is unproblematic; it is merely a question of receiving quality information in the first place, and not of one’s own ability to find and evaluate that information. Everything else is simply inefficient.

Finally, there is a learning styles issue at stake here as well. Lecture is a traditional format for presenting information, hallowed, suede-patch professors professing away. This has an ideological effect upon those students whose own learning styles correspond to this method of information presentation. By this I mean that since lecture is the traditional structure, and since this structure works for them, it must therefore be the one true right and natural way, the most efficient format. Bolstered by the evidence of centuries of pedagogical tradition, the lecture student can only be skeptical and impatient with claims that other methods are useful or necessary for other students.

Bring in the surveymonkey!

I sent out a surveymonkey to all of the students in both classes today. I thought that it would be good to do this at a point where they have sufficient experience using the timeline tool to respond (well, in my estimation) but far enough from the end of the semester to keep it distinct from the standard course evaluations.

Here are the questions for the survey:

1. Please read the following statements regarding the CLEo timeline tool and indicate the degree to which you agree with each one.
(Options: Strongly agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly disagree)

a. The timeline tool was easy to learn and use.
b. Researching timeline posts enriched my experience of the course.
c. I learned more information researching my post than I posted to the timeline.
d. I learned a lot from other students’ posts during class presentations.
e. I learned a lot from other students’ posts outside of class.
f. Presenting and discussing timeline posts was a productive in-class activity.
g. My research skills in this subject area improved as a result of the timeline assignment.
h. Historical or contextual information is an important component of a literature/film course.
i. I prefer traditional lecture as a source of contextual information.
j. The timeline assignment helped me to feel more engaged with the primary course material.
k. The physical wall was a necessary component to the overall exercise.
l. Using onscreen in-class display of the timeline elements was just as effective as taping printouts to the wall.
m. The purpose of the assignment was clear to me from the beginning.
n. The purpose of the assignment is now clear to me.
o. I would like to use the timeline again in other courses.
p. I consider myself a visual or kinesthetic learner.
q. Participating in a pilot project of this kind was an exciting opportunity.

2. How much time on average did you spend researching and posting to the timeline per assignment ?

a. Less than 30 mins
b. 30 mins – 1 hr
c. 1hr -1.5 hr
d. Over 1.5 hrs

3. Approximately how many sources did you consult per post?

a. 1-5
b. 5-10
c. 10-20
d. 20+

4. How often did you consult a non-internet source, in addition to electronic resources ?

a. Never
b. Occasionally
c. Often
d. Almost always

5. Please use this space to make any additional comments or suggestions not already covered by this survey.

I’ll post the results when they come in.

What’s new in red

Well, we changed the color for the “what’s new” from green to red. Green was very friendly, very appealing — but difficult to see in the lower band, since it was too close to the blue. Red is admittedly less friendly, but shows up very nicely on the lower band.

red_whats_new.jpg

Also, the Ostermonster has fixed the problem with double quotes. We can now use double quotes in the title, source, and more info fields without losing information.

Stars and colors rock!

We’ll find out this week what the students think of the new “what’s new” display. It’s already a great improvement from my point of view, however. Which is particularly interesting in light of the fact that supposedly, from the instructor point of view, the student posts are less about learning new material and more about keeping track of what they’ve done. So that would suggest that the list view would be ideal for me. And it’s useful, certainly. But I like stars and colors better.

Those pesky quotes

We already talked about a problem with double quotes in the title field, here.

It now looks like all of the fields except for the description field eat everything that comes after a double quote if you go back to edit the entry. This is most recently a problem in the “Source” field. Kind of a large-ish problem.

Highlighting entries (a.k.a. “What’s new”)

This is a great example of the shifting priorities of software design based on real-world testing experience.

We initially thought a “list view” would be the best way to view “what’s new” in the site. We found quickly, however, that without the temporal placement relative to other events, the entries were lacking critical context.

But it’s time for the coder to stop pretending to know what he’s talking about from a pedagogy standpoint. :)

I give you, What’s New version 2.0.0.0.0.1! <- Note the room for iterative revisions

What’s new

The default is what has been created in the past 7 days, but this can quickly be modified to use for search filtering. The idea is to leave the non-matching entries there when filtering to provide context rather than showing a limited set of entries, but we may find a need for the latter case where we only want to view a limited set.

Unruly Time

Talking with a colleague in the biological sciences, I encountered a new wrinkle. We have already discussed the question of representing historical time vs. fictional time in the context of my courses. (we haven’t solved it, but we’ve discussed it!)

However, the needs of my colleague are somewhat different. On the one hand, she could use the timeline to represent the history of science, and sees that as a useful and practical supplement to her course material. On the other hand, however, and this is the part she found more exciting — it could be used to represent a particular process or reaction, something that might be measured in seconds or tenths of seconds. The thing is, while the timeline would quite easily accomodate one or the other, it will not so effectively represent both on the same line, because our “zoom” level is fixed, not adjustable. Furthermore, the events from the history of science DO have an absolute date — something was discovered in 1984, for example, and not in 2006 — whereas the specific process to be studied does not have an exact date. It exists IN time, but not at any one specific time. Arbitrarily assigning it a specific time is only an acceptable solution if it is not then coexisting with real-time events.

This got me back to thinking about the idea of having multiple timelines within a course, for different kinds of time, for different processes, for different student projects, etc.  Then the question of how these different lines might interact (or not) comes up — should they be combinable? Could you import events from one to another? Private/public?

Flow chart of Timeline posts

Another flow chart is in. I blogged about the first one here. These are so exciting to look at. This one follows three different posts, each with a distinct type of trajectory. I’m going to link to the map here through a thumbnail, and then discuss it using a transcription, since it won’t fit easily into the blog window.

ryans-outline-for-french-timeline.jpg (Click on the thumbnail for a fullsize image.)

The trajectory of the first post to be described (in green on the map) is listed as follows:

Bloodletting scene in Madame Bovary → 19th-century medical knowledge, tools → List of contemporary North American doctors’ tools and techniques of bloodletting → New post (with picture.)

Let’s follow this one from the beginning. Here is the passage from Madame Bovary:

Charles came into the room. Monsieur Boulanger introduced his man, who wanted to be bled because he felt “a tingling all over.”
“That’ll purge me,” he urged as an objection to all reasoning.
So Bovary ordered a bandage and a basin, and asked Justin to hold it. Then addressing the peasant, who was already pale—
“Don’t be afraid, my lad.”
“No, no, sir,” said the other; “get on.”
And with an air of bravado he held out his great arm. At the prick of the lancet the blood spurted out, splashing against the looking-glass.
“Hold the basin nearer,” exclaimed Charles.
“Lor!” said the peasant, “one would swear it was a little fountain flowing. How red my blood is! That’s a good sign, isn’t it?”

And then here’s the post:

bloodletting_post.jpg

If we look at the flow chart and then compare the post to the source text, we see how this example shows how a very specific point from the text expands to a much larger topic (19th-century medical practices) and then comes full circle to the specific tools and practices of bloodletting.

The second example from the flow chart comes from our discussion of a rather astounding text by Jules Michelet on love. Here is the transcription from the flow chart:

Concept of Marriage in Michelet’s “On Love” → “Marriage is hard to analyze factually. What kind of related trends are we seeing in society? Birth rates? Contraceptives?” → Prostitution “I’m gonna get teased for this in class…” → Civil authorities cracked down on prostitutes to control the spread of syphilis… never mind the moral issues… → New post.

This example follows the opposite trajectory as the post on Madame Bovary, insofar as here the student began with a very general topic (marriage is one of the main topics of Michelet’s text,) and then looked for specific angles from which to understand the context of this (to 20th-century eyes) very odd treatise.

Another interesting aspect of this particular example is the way the student has included their train of thought in the sequence, as a way of explaining first a brainstorming process (birth rates and contraceptives as potential search terms) and then a selection process. Furthermore, the phrase about being teased in class here points to the role of the eventual public presentation in the selection process (note, however, that while the student did think they would get teased, their anxiety was not such that they hesitated to post to the timeline, present in class, or choose this example for their flow chart!)

I am pasting in the text from the resulting post here, rather than a screen shot, since there is no image (perhaps fortunately!)

Syphilis, Morality, and the Law
Jan 1, 1871 – Jan 1, 1903

A major concern during the 19th century was Syphilis. The disease causes the infected person to have (among other symptoms) genital sores and rashes all over the body. In the case of pregnancy and birth, Syphilis can also lead to still births and babies unable to survive very long after birth.

Throughout the West, the 19th century saw a strong focus on controlling sexuality and sexual practices. The disease was associated with immorality in that it was spread through the practice of having sex with multiple people rather than only a spouse.

French police and government administrations were particularly aggressive in trying to tackle this problem. They issued identification cards to prostitutes and conducted “weekly checks for sanity.” Any prostitute failing this examination would be carted off to jail. From the article by Gérard Tilles M.D:

The sanitary control of the prostitutes took place in awfull conditions. The prostitutes identified by the police by individual cards were subjected to weekly medical examination. Once syphilis was suspected, the patients were called in at a special infirmary, created in 1843 and located in the Headquarters of the Paris Police (Pr&eacutefecture de Police) 13. Then, after being controlled by the police, a physician appointed by the Police department conducted a physical examination strictly scheduled, each practitionner having about 1 minute per women at his disposal14.

After this very short examination, the patients regarded as ill, were driven in a police van used for murderers or thieves15 ” to special departments of general hospitals and after february 1836 to the newly created infirmary of the Prison-Hospital Saint-Lazare. In that way, from 1871 to 1903, 725 000 women being of age or not were arrested.

(Testing note — this was entered without an end date, the system inserted 1903 as the end date, which made it a duration event but one that wouldn’t display. All that’s fixed now, but boy…)

(side note #2 — for the same class period, this student posted a picture of the first commercial diaphram from 1882, a direct spin-off from the research path described above.)

The third and final example from this student’s flow chart deals with a post that actually begins with another post — Darwin’s Origin of the Species. I am including that post here, because it’s been up on the wall in the classroom almost since the beginning, and I suspect that the picture was what drew the student’s attention initially :

darwin_post.jpg

Here is the progression from the flow chart:

Darwin’s Origin of the Species in conjunction with Homais’ fascination with science and progress in Madame Bovary. → Louis Pasteur and the “Germ theory of disease.” → New post (with picture of Pasteur.)

So, Homais + Darwin = Pasteur (just kidding!)

pasteur_post.jpg

In this case, all of the most interesting stuff happened in class, and not even in the same class as the post presentation. The student brought Pasteur back in for the discussion of Hippolyte’s gangrenous foot in Madame Bovary, along with a much more complete explanation of the impact of germ theory than is given in the actual post.

Overall, both concept maps submitted so far clearly demonstrate a critical telescoping process, from the larger picture to the detail and back to the larger picture, or inversely, from the detail to the larger picture and back again.

This is really exciting.

Concept map of a timeline entry

I discussed the “ripple effect” self-assessment with my literature class and asked them to choose one of their entries and map out the progression leading to and from the post. I used the ripple effect diagram as an example, but encouraged them to modify it as they wished, the goal being a concept map of their intellectual experience.

Since this was the week before spring break, there are still a few outstanding. ;-) But the first one to come in is brilliant. This is the post that it attempts to diagram:

opium_screenshot.jpg

And here is the student’s representation of what went into — and then came out of — that post.

concept_map_student_12.jpg

I added the numbers in photoshop. As you can see, the student decided that the distinction to be made here was the link between in-class and out-of-class experience. I particularly like the “zoom in” metaphor for the transition from general information to researching a specific topic, in step 3. The student specified that they had not picked up on the importance of the theme of intoxication in the poetry itself (step 4) until they brought in their timeline post and we discussed it in class. Furthermore, though it is not specified here, the larger discussion about 19th-century medical practices and Madame Bovary (step 6) was initiated by another student’s post, which actually contained an image of bloodletting tools.

There’s a very interesting shift in information authority with this exercise. While I am still providing substantial amounts of contextual information in response to the actual discussion of the timeline posts, the students are nonetheless systematically coming in with information that I did not know. That in and of itself is not surprising, of course. I believe that the striking difference comes from the fact that they are thus rendered, on a very small scale, the expert of the day. This is extremely valuable, because it takes a situation where it is very rare for a student to truly surprise me with an observation about a text we are reading together, and transforms it into a situation where that happens weekly, but without undermining my role as primary reader. These are genuinely collaborative moments, happening every week.

Finally, I want to post one more screenshot, because the opium post wasn’t the only piece of information added to the timeline that day by that student.

syringe_screenshot.jpg

This is important, because what the student actually mapped was the whole experience, not just the single post. While steps 3 & 5 ostensibly lead to the post on Baudelaire and opium, they also spin off into a side post about the invention of the syringe, posted at the same time.

Research methods and the timeline

Went to a talk sponsored by our Center for Teaching and Learning yesterday, called “Integrating Penrose Library into Undergraduate Research: Information Literacy and Problem-Based Learning.” Representatives from the library and three faculty guinea pigs talked about their experiences setting up a problem-based research methods session geared specifically to each individual course. The faculty seemed pleased with the outcome, the materials were very convincing, the structure is already in place. The necessary elements for success seemed to be attaching the methods session to a particular assignment, and faculty participation (you can’t just send them off to the library and go have coffee, go figure!)

Ya-hoo! So, after impatiently waiting for the session to be over (impatient only because I was convinced after the first 15 minutes and was eager to get to the “where do I sign up” part) I cornered the library people about the next round of testing on the timeline and asked them to come to my presentation on April 29. At that point, we will be soliciting faculty volunteers for the Fall round of testing. I talked to the library about combining the timeline assignment with training in research methods for the students for the different areas that will (hopefully) participate. Since my experience so far suggests that these weekly/biweekly short research assignments are where  some of the real substance and impact of this assignment lies, I think there’s tremendous potential for us in the structure they’ve put in place.

« Older entries