An Interdisciplinary GE course: From preparation to ... · interactive online advertisement,...

1

Kelvin Lee Department of Communication Studies P C Yuen Department of Computer Science

HONG KONG BAPTIST UNIVERSITY

An Interdisciplinary GE course: From preparation to execution to formative assessment

2

Content

• Background

• Problems

• Solutions

• Results

• Conclusions


3

Professor Yuen Pong Chi Head, Dept. of Computer Science HKBU

Background

Dr. Lee Kai Wah, Kelvin Dept. of Communication Studies HKBU

Research Interests: Human Face Recognition, biometric template protection, video surveillance

Research Interests: Computer Graphics and Animation, Interactive Programming, Visual Design

• COMP1610/DGC1330 – “Interactive Computing for Visual Communication”

• Interdisciplinary GE course jointly offered by the Department of Communication

Studies and the Department of Computer Science.


4

Background

• COMP1610/DGC1330 – “Interactive Computing for Visual Communication”

• Interdisciplinary GE course jointly offered by the Department of Communication

Studies and the Department of Computer Science.

GE Requirements Units

Cores 26

Distributions 1. Arts 2. Business 3. COMMUNICATION/VISUAL ARTS 4. SCIENCE/CHINESE MEDICINE

5. Social Sciences

12


5

Background Pilot Run in Fall Semester 2011

Time

Oct 2009

Dec 2009

Jan 2010

Jun 2010

Sep 2011


6

Background

• Computer evolution

The "ENIAC" - Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer World’s First Computer February 14, 1946

90s Desktop iPhone 4


7

Background


• End user diversification


8

Background



• Application Scope


9

Background



• Application Scope

Visual Literacy

Computing Literacy


10

Problems Enrollment Statistics

Study of Year Number of Students

First 14

Second 8

Third 11

TOTAL 33


11

Problems

Majors Number of Students

English 3

Music 1

Translation 1

Visual Arts 6

Computer Science 5

Communication 11

Social Work 2

European Studies 3

Statistics 1

Enrollment Statistics


12

Problems

Typical Stereotypes

• Visual needs artistic talents • Computing demands strong mathematical skills

Professional -> General Education

How to make it truly interdisciplinary?

No prerequisites, mixed backgrounds of study year and disciplines


13

Solutions

No prerequisites, mixed backgrounds of study year and disciplines

Outcome-based Learning


14

Solutions


• Tangible learning outcomes in labs, assignments and projects

• Visual for interface, Computing for interaction

• Emphasis on understandings, integrations and achievements

• Appreciation of ideas and contemporary applications


15

Solutions

No. Learning Outcomes (LOs) 1 Describe the fundamental principles and high-level concepts of programming.

2 Apply the essential visual communication principles for new media design.

3 Master the core programming concepts and develop applications with high-level block building development environment such as Processing.

4 Design and leverage the visual and interactivity capabilities of various types of new media.

5 Integrate and apply the knowledge learnt to develop new media applications such as interactive online advertisement, interactive games and augmented reality.



16

Solutions

Assessment Schedule

Week Date Lab Assignments Project

1 08 Sept Announce

2 15 Sept Lab

3 22 Sept

4 29 Sept Hand in member list

5 06 Oct Lab

6 13 Oct Lab Announce

7 20 Oct Lab

Hand in proposal

8 27 Oct Hand-in

9 03 Nov Announce Proposal Presentation

10 10 Nov Lab

11 17 Nov Hand-in

12 24 Nov

13 01 Dec Project presentation and Report

submission



17

Solutions

First Lecture highlights the course aims via applications/demonstration related to their daily life.

Explain the technologies and design principles behind those applications

Arouse students’ interests and establish their confidence by learning-by-doing

Typical Stereotypes

• Visual needs artistic talents • Computing demands strong mathematical skills


18

Solutions • Excerpt of Lecture 1 note


19

Solutions

Identify a common platform with Visual and Computing capability for practice - Processing

Pinpoint the essential links between the topics discussed in each lecture

Discuss how visual communication theories can be implemented from the computational point of view

Integrative assessments demand both sides of knowledge: Visual and Computing

Professional -> General Education

How to make it truly interdisciplinary?


20

Solutions Developed by Casey Reas and Benjamin Fry of Aesthetics and Computation research group of MIT in 2001. http://www.processing.org


21

Solutions

Lab sessions : in a progressive mode

Assignments : demand knowledge built from lab sessions

Group Project : learn-by-examples, encourage creativity

Examination : Basic principles and theories, analysis and understandings

Rubrics : Labs, Assignments and Project

Integrative Assessment Methods : multiply perspective & synthesis


22

Solutions Assignment One : Interactive Puzzle

COMS Faculty Forum March 16, 2012

23

Solutions Assignment Two : Interactive Tapping Game


24

Solutions Assignment Rubrics


25

Results: Project Showcases • A basic working code template with primitive graphics and design is

provided – Angry Bird variant


26

Solutions Project Rubrics


27

Results: Project Showcases

Title : Sticky Notes Students : Chow Tsz Tung (PRA), Lee Shuk Yee (PRA)

Title : Crazy Bakery

Students : Mo Pian (PRA), Xu Jiaying(PRA) Title : Naughty Boy Students : Au Ka Ho (MUS), Chu Ting Fung (COMP)

For more showcases, please check the website at

http://www.comp.hkbu.edu.hk/~comp1610/showreel.html


28

Results: Formative Review Exercise Conducted by Centre for Holistic Teaching and Learning

Qualitative and quantitative studies of learning experience Learning Experience Inventory – Course (LEI-C): learning

experience, interests and reflections

Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ): study the changes in students’ approaches to learning attribute

Focus group interviews


29

Results: Formative Review Exercise Learning Experience Inventory – Course (LEI-C)

S1 S2-3 S4 S5 S1,5-6 S2,4 S1-4 S1-2 S1-3,5 S4 S1-2

C15 C16 C18 C19 C20 C21 C4 C5 C10 C11 C14 C8 C9 C6 C12 C13 C7

ARTS AVA BUS COMM SCISCI/

COMM

Category 1 3.80 3.94 3.92 3.44 3.88 4.33 3.93 3.77 3.00 4.19 4.00 3.78 3.85 4.13 3.87 3.84 3.66 4.05 3.56 3.96 3.96 3.76

Category 2 3.84 4.00 3.98 3.69 3.88 4.46 3.99 3.67 2.92 4.06 3.91 3.83 3.86 4.17 3.86 3.86 3.64 4.00 3.55 4.14 3.96 3.82

Category 3 3.69 3.87 3.80 3.35 3.75 4.29 3.80 3.58 3.04 3.81 3.76 3.84 3.60 4.04 3.68 3.61 3.39 3.84 3.46 3.87 4.10 3.64

Category 4 3.81 3.91 4.08 3.63 3.75 4.42 3.78 3.52 2.95 4.00 3.90 3.78 3.70 4.10 3.76 3.69 3.72 4.04 3.54 3.95 3.77 3.65

Category 5 3.61 3.61 3.98 3.56 3.50 4.21 3.54 3.55 2.88 3.69 3.86 3.76 3.58 3.98 3.70 3.60 3.40 3.75 3.64 3.84 3.79 3.50

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Me

an S

core

Mean Scores of LEI-C Category 1-5 by Course Unit and Faculty (2011-2012 Semester 1)


30

Results: Formative Review Exercise Learning Experience Inventory – Course (LEI-C)

S1 S2-3 S4 S5 S1,5-6 S2,4 S1-4 S1-2 S1-3,5 S4 S1-2

C15 C16 C18 C19 C20 C21 C4 C5 C10 C11 C14 C8 C9 C6 C12 C13 C7

ARTS AVA BUS COMM SCISCI/

COMM

Category 1 3.80 3.94 3.92 3.44 3.88 4.33 3.93 3.77 3.00 4.19 4.00 3.78 3.85 4.13 3.87 3.84 3.66 4.05 3.56 3.96 3.96 3.76

Category 2 3.84 4.00 3.98 3.69 3.88 4.46 3.99 3.67 2.92 4.06 3.91 3.83 3.86 4.17 3.86 3.86 3.64 4.00 3.55 4.14 3.96 3.82

Category 3 3.69 3.87 3.80 3.35 3.75 4.29 3.80 3.58 3.04 3.81 3.76 3.84 3.60 4.04 3.68 3.61 3.39 3.84 3.46 3.87 4.10 3.64

Category 4 3.81 3.91 4.08 3.63 3.75 4.42 3.78 3.52 2.95 4.00 3.90 3.78 3.70 4.10 3.76 3.69 3.72 4.04 3.54 3.95 3.77 3.65

Category 5 3.61 3.61 3.98 3.56 3.50 4.21 3.54 3.55 2.88 3.69 3.86 3.76 3.58 3.98 3.70 3.60 3.40 3.75 3.64 3.84 3.79 3.50

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Me

an S

core

Mean Scores of LEI-C Category 1-5 by Course Unit and Faculty (2011-2012 Semester 1)

Category 1 What I am to learn?

Category 2 How to go about learning it?

Category 3 How well did I learn it?

Category 4 How I feel about my learning?

Category 5 Reflecting on my learning?


31

Results: Formative Review Exercise Study Process Questionnaire - (SPQ)

SPQ1 conducted in week-2 and SPQ2 week-12

Deep Learning Surface Learning

Focus is on “what is signified” Focus is on the “signs”

Relates previous knowledge to new knowledge Focus on unrelated parts of the task

Relates knowledge from different courses Information for assessment is simply memorized

Relates theoretical ideas to everyday experience Facts and concepts are associated unreflectively

Relates and distinguishes evidence and argument Principles are not distinguished from examples

Organize and structures content into coherent whole

Task is treated as an external imposition

Emphasis is internal, from within the student Emphasis is external, from demands of assessment


32


29.82 26.59

31.33

26.53

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

Deep Approach Surface Approach

Me

an S

core

Approach

SPQ1 & SPQ2 Comparison: Deep Approach and Surface Approach

SPQ1 SPQ2


33


14.76 15.61

12.35 14.00

15.50 15.83

12.29 14.22

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

Deep Motive Deep Strategy Surface Motive Surface Strategy

Me

an S

core

Motive and Strategy

SPQ1 & SPQ2 Comparison: Sub-Scales

SPQ1 SPQ2

Deep Surface

Motive Intrinsic interest Fear of failure

Strategy Maximize meaning Narrow target, rote learn


34

Results: Formative Review Exercise Focus Group Interviews

• What students most appreciated “This course is very interesting”; “The professors are very helpful”; “And it is a great pleasure to do the assignment”; “We can use our assignment for our phones”.

• Recommendations from students Workload is a bit heavy. “I am a year three student, and I feel the workload of this course is comparable to level 3 courses”. There is a gap between learning and assessment. “The final project is very difficult and the regular assignment is easy. What we have learnt from the class is not adequate for us to work out the final project.”


35

Results: Formative Review Exercise Focus Group Interviews

• All three students recommended that the instructors could elaborate on some knowledge point and consider students’ prior knowledge.

• “Some of us do not have computer science background. In terms of math, the instructor would say “this function is to make…”. However, we do not understand why. When we make the program, it causes difficulty because we did not understand why. In our final project, we know we have learned this, but we could not apply. I hope the teacher could elaborate.”


36

Results: Online TE

Positive Comments COMP1610 / DGC1330


37

Results: Online TE

Negative Comments COMP1610 / DGC1330


38

Conclusions

Wonderful experience in team teaching

Need to select and filter materials appropriate for the student standards and also fulfill the interdisciplinary nature

Revise the assessments to balance the work load and learning

Future planning with more hands-on lab sessions


39

Thank You! Q&A


An Interdisciplinary GE course: From preparation to ... · interactive online advertisement,...

Documents

Transcript of An Interdisciplinary GE course: From preparation to ... · interactive online advertisement,...