Talk:Abigail's Portfolio Page

From KNILT
  • Your design portfolio page (20%)
  • Your portfolio page reports all the required instructional analysis work (i.e., selecting topic, defining learning outcomes, learner analysis, etc) and design plans (e.g., your major design rationale for using certain learning methods and media, instructional sequencing, instructional curriculum maps, reflections).

You did an excellent job on your portfolio page! You really put a lot of work into it and it shows! The information was also very well written! The navigation was very easy to follow. You included all of the key components mentioned above in the evaluation criteria.

Your course (80%)

  • Learning outcomes (10%): Expected learning outcomes have been properly identified for the course focusing on “big ideas” related to the selected topic (i.e., ideas that can transform teachers’ understanding of and approaches to learning); and communicated using clear, performance-based terms (e.g., Gagne, p. 134);

Learning Objectives are clearly stated. Am I correct in assuming that there are two? “students will understand the need for questioning in the classroom” and “be able to identify the reasons for including questioning in their teaching”

  • Content-goal consistency (10%): The content and learning experience afforded by the course can help learners achieve the identified learning outcomes, sufficient and necessary.

I feel that you did an excellent job selecting articles that really supported your learning goals. Also, great job extracting the key points from the Cotton article and combining them in one easy to read and understand summary. Your links all worked. The inquiry based learning article was the perfect length. Just long enough to get the point across without boring the reader.

  • Instructional sequencing (20%): Specific learning objectives have been sequenced in a way that can facilitate the learning of the content, addressing prerequisites before proceeding to major concepts, highlighting connections.

I found the answer to this on your portfolio page. Your objectives within unit one are closely related and provide the prerequisite information needed to complete the course successfully.

  • Engagement and interaction (20%): Use effective strategies (e.g., prompts, headings, questions, scenarios, activities) to motivate learners, attract attentions, and promote reflection and interaction.

I’m not sure what he meant with this so I will answer based on my perception. Your page was very attractive. You included graphics. I liked that your sections were clearly divided and labeled accordingly. Your labels were of a different size and font type than the information. The arrows used to draw attention to the different headings were a nice touch. I have been trying to do that on my page but I couldn’t figure out how to do it! The questions you used in the learning activities section were relevant to the objectives and were thought provoking. One question: were students to only answer # 3 in the talk section or were they to address all questions in that area? It kind of seemed like the only question that needed to be answered in writing was 3.

  • Technical quality (10%): Text and pictures are informative and easy to read. Navigation links are properly designed and highlighted to facilitate easy browsing.

The links were all posted in a different coloring making them easy to identify. They all worked. I have a question about the navigation however, this may be a professor question. When I clicked on the link by your name on the main page it took me directly to your design project with the units and all listed. I had to follow a link back to the portfolio page to access the task analysis, initial learning objectives, concept map, etc. The link was properly labeled and it worked. My question is which page should we see first since we are being graded on both. The portfolio page came first so should we send people to that page first and then direct them to the design project or what?

  • Extended resources (10%): External, useful resources are linked, recommended, and acknowledged.

Your resources were clearly posted. They were relevant and useful to the learning objectives. You also included links within your assignment to outside sources.

So the purpose of this peer evaluation is to provide feedback and suggestions. My only suggestion would be to separate your units into separate pages. Perhaps that would help keep the learner focused on one unit at a time. By limiting access to one unit at a time perhaps that would influence the level of understanding and retention since the learner will only have access to one set of objectives at a time. I hope that made sense! Overall, you did a great job! I am impressed. I have taken some notes and will use them to help make my page better!

About your ICM -- Jz833665 21:07, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Hi Abi,

If I've understood your ICM right, your units 1 and 2 should be integrated into one as they both address basically the same issue: Good questioning. I'm not sure what are the main resources you're using to explain good questioning in classroom. As I know, the major research finding on this issue is related to the cognitive levels of different kinds of questions: fact-seeking, explanation-seeking, transfer questions, etc.

A review: [[1]]

Learning to Question, Questioning to Learn: Developing Effective Teacher Questioning Practices (Paperback) by Marylou Dantonio (Author), Paul C. Beisenherz (Author): [[2]]

As well, related to your unit 3, it is important to understand the "how" in the context of classroom discourse: teacher question is embedded in the sustain, temporal discourse in classroom; its role therefore should be understood in the evolving context of conversation. The IRE pattern is something the teacher should go beyond. See my note on IRE in the week 11-12 view.

I'm not sure what will your unit 4 focus on...

Jianwei, I have changed things around a bit after additional reading on the topic. Before I rework my ICM, I would really appreciate some feedback. Thanks, Abi 4/22