SciFER PROGRAM FOR 2005

All seminars are held in the Science Meeting Room, Carslaw 535, from 1-2 pm unless otherwise stated.

SEMINARS in SEMESTER 2, 2005

Date Speaker/s Title

November 8 Journal Club The Approaches to Teaching Inventory: A critique of its development

Please read the following article before the meeting:

The Approaches to Teaching Inventory: A critique of its development
Jan H. F. Meyer and Malcolm G. Eley
British Journal of Educational Psychology
You may also find it useful to read:
Confirmatory factor analysis of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory
Michael Prosser and Keith Trigwell
British Journal of Educational Psychology
We have experienced some difficulties accessing these papers on occasions. So if the direct links do not work please try the following:
Both papers are available from the British Journal of Educational Psychology through ejournals at the University Library. Go to the ingentaconnect link. On the journal home, there should be a blue highlighted area with a link to fast track articles. Both articles can be accessed from this page.)

If you still have difficulties please contact cetaylor@bio.usyd.edu.au or kplacing@mail.usyd.edu.au.

October 11 John O'Byrne MasteringPhysics and the tutorial benefits of on-line assignments

MasteringPhysics is a significant new internet-based 'assignment' system, that facilitates assessment, but whose real value is as a tutorial tool for students. MasteringPhysics guides students through problems that may require textual, numerical or symbolic input, making it valuable for many types of problem used in teaching physics. The system provides hints and adjusts its feedback in response to student answers.

MasteringPhysics was introduced as a trial for one stream of first year physics students during the second semester of 2004 and has been adopted more widely in 2005. The system has worked well and is favoured by the students, but did not have a significant impact on overall student performance in 2004, at least in part because students did not integrate it effectively into their approach to learning.

I will demonstrate the system and discuss the pros and cons

September 13 Daniel Sze, Paul Ginns and Mike Prosser Concurrent validity of approaches to study instruments
Download presentation

Approaches to study are key constructs in the Student Learning Framework, a body of theory and research which holds that students' approaches to study are contingent upon both their prior experiences and perceptions of current learning contexts. There is now a considerable body of evidence linking students' self-reports of their approaches to study with measures of academic achievement. However, there has been considerably less investigation of the concurrent validity of different approaches to study instruments; that is, the extent to which self-reports on the core constructs of Deep, Surface and Achieving approaches (e.g. Biggs, 1987), and Meaning, Reproducing, and Achieving orientations (e.g. Entwistle & Tait, 1990) are correlated within the same group of students.

Our study sought to test the concurrent validity of two recent versions of widely used approaches to study instruments. We administered the shortened Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ; Fox, McManus, & Winder, 2001) and the Revised Approaches to Study Inventory (RASI; Entwistle, McCune, & Hounsell, 2002) to two groups of first-year medical students located in two different learning and cultural contexts (n= 128 and 103 respectively). Using correlational analysis, we examined the extent to which students' self-ratings on similar and dissimilar scales were correlated. Our preliminary results suggest the constructs measured by the two instruments have substantial amounts in common. In the presentation, we will explain the issue of concurrent validity and how it can be measured. We will describe the results of the analyses, and discuss the issues surrounding the validation and use of such instruments.

September 13 Derek Muller Project update
Download presentation

Derek began his PhD in July, 2004. He is investigating the use of multimedia for teaching higher level physics topics like quantum tunnelling. Quantum mechanics is a vast and steadily growing research area that holds much promise for future technological developments. It also provides the most complete scientific picture of the universe from the smallest scale upwards making it of interest not only to physicists but to everyone.

July 8 Sheila Tobias Fostering Creativity in the Science Mathematics Classroom: Toward a Research Agenda

Special SciFER meeting: to be held on Friday 8 July, 3.00 pm - 4.00 pm, Carslaw Room 535

SEMINARS in SEMESTER 1, 2005

Date Speaker/s Title

Sheila Tobias, author of "Overcoming Math Anxiety," "They're not dumb, they're different", "Breaking the Science Barrier," "The Hidden Curriculum: Faculty-Made Tests in Science" (among others) believes that fostering creativity in the math/science classroom will become a priority for industrial nations as Innovation plays an ever more critical role in global economic competition. After reviewing what is known in the standard creativity literature generally, she wishes to engage her audience in developing a research agenda on the topic.

How do pupils' "creativity" in science and mathematics express itself?
At what age is it appropriate to encourage "creativity" in science/math as against (or in conjunction with) mastery of fact and theory?
Is there, must there be a conflict between "creativity" and "mastery?"
What metrics (tests) for creativity can be constructed?
Identifying and disseminating best practices.

July 3-6 HERDSA conference, The University of Sydney

(*) = Report on a Faculty of Science Teaching Development Grant Project.
(**) = Report on a Teaching Improvement Fund Grant Project.

February 8 Sue Franklin and Mary Peat
School of Biological Sciences Formative assessment and performance: Final paper

This research was presented at the 2004 ASCILITE conference in Perth. The full paper can be found at
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/contents.html

Abstract:
This project developed as a result of some inconclusive data from an investigation of whether a relationship existed between the use of formative assessment opportunities and performance, as measured by final grade. We were expecting to show our colleagues and students that use of formative assessment resources had the potential to improve performance of first year students. This first study, undertaken in semester 1 2002, indicated that there was no apparent relationship between the two even though the students reported how useful they found the formative assessment resources. This led us to ask if there was a transition effect such that students were not yet working in an independent way and making full use of the resources, and/or whether in order to see an effect we needed to persuade non-users of the resources to become users before investigating if use can be correlated with improvement in performance. With the 2002-3 NextEd ASCILITE Research Grant we set out to repeat our project and to look at use and usefulness of resources in both first and second semester, to encourage non-users to become users and to investigate the relationship between use and performance. Now our story has a different ending - to be revealed at this SciFER meeting!

March 8 Katrina Bosward and Gerard Marcus
Faculty of Veterinary Science Using the online systems and tools to empower staff

Further reading
Paper presented at ASCILITE 2004
Implications for the design of online case based learning activities based on the student blended learning experience
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/pdf/marcus.pdf

Abstract:
Gerard and Katrina talked about the valuable role of online resources and systems and how they can empower staff and the learning process. Katrina will give a case in point and talk about her experiences in delivering a learning activity to third year vet students and the evolution of this activity from paper to online.

April 12 Mark Freeman and Paul Blayney
Faculty of Economics and Business Promoting interactive in-class learning environments: A comparison of an electronic response system with a traditional alternative

Abstract:
Interaction and peer learning with in-class questions is a common pedagogical solution to the large class problem. Hake (1998) shows students in interactive courses significantly improved achievement over those in traditional classes. Electronic response systems can be used to capture and aggregate student responses to in-class questions and allow for immediate feedback to students. Draper and Brown (2004) and Judson and Sawada (2002) concludes that pedagogical design is the key to student learning and not the technology. However, previous research has not compared alternative response systems when classes are already interactive. If classes are interactive the introduction of an electronic response system may be an expensive and unnecessary alternative. The objective of this paper is to explore the effects of using alternative response methods while holding constant a constructivist pedagogical design. In this study interactive in-class questions and peer learning are used each class. The response method alone is changed, alternating between a handheld audience electronic response system and a traditional show of hands. A significant preference for using the electronic response system exists. It appears that this technology provides an additional incentive to engage, interact and understand. Anonymity is explored as a plausible explanation for these findings.

June 14 Charlotte Taylor Conference report and Future directions for SciFER

Enhancing Student Success Conference April 2005, University of Newcastle
Charlotte will give an overview, and her impressions, of two of the presentations from this conference. The Faculty of Science was represented with a poster on the Graduate Attributes website, which generated a gratifying amount of interest.

The presentations on enhancing student success were based generally in first year, but could have applications for us across all years of our degree programs. We have been thinking about some of these issues for quite a while, but have tended to leave them for later, perhaps because they are too hard?
Helping international students to increase their success at university - from Adelaide University
Peer mentoring programs across the campus - the experiences at UNSW

The future of SCIFER - what have we achieved and where are we going?

Charlotte will try to give a brief summary of where we've got to, based on our initial directions and plans. She also want us to discuss what we're going to do next - we need to move on to 'greater things'!
Some questions for discussion:
What do people want from SciFER? More of the same or something different?
Are we getting results from our funding of projects?
How do we start to get external funding?
How does the Scholarship Index funding help us?
How do we work with the Teaching Development area (funded by the Dean through the Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee) and the Research area (funded by the Dean through SciFER) - are they the same, are they both part of SciFER?
How do we fit into the RQF?

Please bring your comments along to the meeting, or email them to Charlotte.

Return to SciFER front page

SEMINARS in SEMESTER 2, 2005
Date	Speaker/s	Title
November 8	Journal Club	*The Approaches to Teaching Inventory: A critique of its development*
Please read the following article before the meeting: The Approaches to Teaching Inventory: A critique of its development Jan H. F. Meyer and Malcolm G. Eley British Journal of Educational Psychology You may also find it useful to read: Confirmatory factor analysis of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory Michael Prosser and Keith Trigwell British Journal of Educational Psychology We have experienced some difficulties accessing these papers on occasions. So if the direct links do not work please try the following: Both papers are available from the British Journal of Educational Psychology through ejournals at the University Library. Go to the ingentaconnect link. On the journal home, there should be a blue highlighted area with a link to fast track articles. Both articles can be accessed from this page.) If you still have difficulties please contact cetaylor@bio.usyd.edu.au or kplacing@mail.usyd.edu.au.
October 11	John O'Byrne	*MasteringPhysics and the tutorial benefits of on-line assignments*
MasteringPhysics is a significant new internet-based 'assignment' system, that facilitates assessment, but whose real value is as a tutorial tool for students. MasteringPhysics guides students through problems that may require textual, numerical or symbolic input, making it valuable for many types of problem used in teaching physics. The system provides hints and adjusts its feedback in response to student answers. MasteringPhysics was introduced as a trial for one stream of first year physics students during the second semester of 2004 and has been adopted more widely in 2005. The system has worked well and is favoured by the students, but did not have a significant impact on overall student performance in 2004, at least in part because students did not integrate it effectively into their approach to learning. I will demonstrate the system and discuss the pros and cons
September 13	Daniel Sze, Paul Ginns and Mike Prosser	*Concurrent validity of approaches to study instruments* Download presentation
Approaches to study are key constructs in the Student Learning Framework, a body of theory and research which holds that students' approaches to study are contingent upon both their prior experiences and perceptions of current learning contexts. There is now a considerable body of evidence linking students' self-reports of their approaches to study with measures of academic achievement. However, there has been considerably less investigation of the concurrent validity of different approaches to study instruments; that is, the extent to which self-reports on the core constructs of Deep, Surface and Achieving approaches (e.g. Biggs, 1987), and Meaning, Reproducing, and Achieving orientations (e.g. Entwistle & Tait, 1990) are correlated within the same group of students. Our study sought to test the concurrent validity of two recent versions of widely used approaches to study instruments. We administered the shortened Study Process Questionnaire (SPQ; Fox, McManus, & Winder, 2001) and the Revised Approaches to Study Inventory (RASI; Entwistle, McCune, & Hounsell, 2002) to two groups of first-year medical students located in two different learning and cultural contexts (n= 128 and 103 respectively). Using correlational analysis, we examined the extent to which students' self-ratings on similar and dissimilar scales were correlated. Our preliminary results suggest the constructs measured by the two instruments have substantial amounts in common. In the presentation, we will explain the issue of concurrent validity and how it can be measured. We will describe the results of the analyses, and discuss the issues surrounding the validation and use of such instruments.
September 13	Derek Muller	*Project update* Download presentation
Derek began his PhD in July, 2004. He is investigating the use of multimedia for teaching higher level physics topics like quantum tunnelling. Quantum mechanics is a vast and steadily growing research area that holds much promise for future technological developments. It also provides the most complete scientific picture of the universe from the smallest scale upwards making it of interest not only to physicists but to everyone.
July 8	Sheila Tobias	*Fostering Creativity in the Science Mathematics Classroom: Toward a Research Agenda*
Special SciFER meeting: to be held on Friday 8 July, 3.00 pm - 4.00 pm, Carslaw Room 535
SEMINARS in SEMESTER 1, 2005
Date	Speaker/s	Title
Sheila Tobias, author of "Overcoming Math Anxiety," "They're not dumb, they're different", "Breaking the Science Barrier," "The Hidden Curriculum: Faculty-Made Tests in Science" (among others) believes that fostering creativity in the math/science classroom will become a priority for industrial nations as Innovation plays an ever more critical role in global economic competition. After reviewing what is known in the standard creativity literature generally, she wishes to engage her audience in developing a research agenda on the topic. How do pupils' "creativity" in science and mathematics express itself? At what age is it appropriate to encourage "creativity" in science/math as against (or in conjunction with) mastery of fact and theory? Is there, must there be a conflict between "creativity" and "mastery?" What metrics (tests) for creativity can be constructed? Identifying and disseminating best practices.
July 3-6	HERDSA conference, The University of Sydney
() = Report on a Faculty of Science Teaching Development Grant Project. (*) = Report on a Teaching Improvement Fund Grant Project.
February 8	Sue Franklin and Mary Peat School of Biological Sciences	Formative assessment and performance: Final paper This research was presented at the 2004 ASCILITE conference in Perth. The full paper can be found at http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/contents.html
Abstract: This project developed as a result of some inconclusive data from an investigation of whether a relationship existed between the use of formative assessment opportunities and performance, as measured by final grade. We were expecting to show our colleagues and students that use of formative assessment resources had the potential to improve performance of first year students. This first study, undertaken in semester 1 2002, indicated that there was no apparent relationship between the two even though the students reported how useful they found the formative assessment resources. This led us to ask if there was a transition effect such that students were not yet working in an independent way and making full use of the resources, and/or whether in order to see an effect we needed to persuade non-users of the resources to become users before investigating if use can be correlated with improvement in performance. With the 2002-3 NextEd ASCILITE Research Grant we set out to repeat our project and to look at use and usefulness of resources in both first and second semester, to encourage non-users to become users and to investigate the relationship between use and performance. Now our story has a different ending - to be revealed at this SciFER meeting!
March 8	Katrina Bosward and Gerard Marcus Faculty of Veterinary Science	Using the online systems and tools to empower staff Further reading Paper presented at ASCILITE 2004 Implications for the design of online case based learning activities based on the student blended learning experience http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/pdf/marcus.pdf
Abstract: Gerard and Katrina talked about the valuable role of online resources and systems and how they can empower staff and the learning process. Katrina will give a case in point and talk about her experiences in delivering a learning activity to third year vet students and the evolution of this activity from paper to online.
April 12	Mark Freeman and Paul Blayney Faculty of Economics and Business	Promoting interactive in-class learning environments: A comparison of an electronic response system with a traditional alternative
Abstract: Interaction and peer learning with in-class questions is a common pedagogical solution to the large class problem. Hake (1998) shows students in interactive courses significantly improved achievement over those in traditional classes. Electronic response systems can be used to capture and aggregate student responses to in-class questions and allow for immediate feedback to students. Draper and Brown (2004) and Judson and Sawada (2002) concludes that pedagogical design is the key to student learning and not the technology. However, previous research has not compared alternative response systems when classes are already interactive. If classes are interactive the introduction of an electronic response system may be an expensive and unnecessary alternative. The objective of this paper is to explore the effects of using alternative response methods while holding constant a constructivist pedagogical design. In this study interactive in-class questions and peer learning are used each class. The response method alone is changed, alternating between a handheld audience electronic response system and a traditional show of hands. A significant preference for using the electronic response system exists. It appears that this technology provides an additional incentive to engage, interact and understand. Anonymity is explored as a plausible explanation for these findings.
June 14	Charlotte Taylor	*Conference report and Future directions for SciFER*
Enhancing Student Success Conference April 2005, University of Newcastle Charlotte will give an overview, and her impressions, of two of the presentations from this conference. The Faculty of Science was represented with a poster on the Graduate Attributes website, which generated a gratifying amount of interest. The presentations on enhancing student success were based generally in first year, but could have applications for us across all years of our degree programs. We have been thinking about some of these issues for quite a while, but have tended to leave them for later, perhaps because they are too hard? Helping international students to increase their success at university - from Adelaide University Peer mentoring programs across the campus - the experiences at UNSW The future of SCIFER - what have we achieved and where are we going? Charlotte will try to give a brief summary of where we've got to, based on our initial directions and plans. She also want us to discuss what we're going to do next - we need to move on to 'greater things'! Some questions for discussion: What do people want from SciFER? More of the same or something different? Are we getting results from our funding of projects? How do we start to get external funding? How does the Scholarship Index funding help us? How do we work with the Teaching Development area (funded by the Dean through the Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee) and the Research area (funded by the Dean through SciFER) - are they the same, are they both part of SciFER? How do we fit into the RQF? Please bring your comments along to the meeting, or email them to Charlotte.