SL-Meeting 03

Supervision Meeting 03 (14/12/17)

The following are suggestions and action points minuted by me at the meeting that took place on Thursday afternoon, 14th December 2017 from 15:00 to 16:00 in Room 5041.  The meeting was attended by Caitríona Ní Shé (Supervisor) and myself.

Suggestions/Action Points:

(1) Identify appropriate journal(s) to submit my journal paper before Supervision Meeting 04 (on 16/01/17).

(2) Study the Marksheet and Assessment Criteria in the Applied eLearning Project Handbook for the Journal Paper (pp. 25-27).

Discussion: Literature Review of Functions and Patterns:

(1) I submitted this by email to Caitríona Ní Shé on Monday 11/12/17.  The link in the email to this literature review, titled Function: Conceptual Understanding and Connections with Patterns, is as follows:

http://gerardkilkenny.ie/index.php/year-2/02-project-development/pd3-literature-review-2/

(2) Caitríona told me that she had begun reading this piece of writing on Thursday 14/12/17 and that she was “happy” with what I have written.  She promised to send me written formative feedback shortly.

Discussion:  Applied eLearning Project (Adobe Captivate Tutorial/Presentation on Domain Model)

Note:  I emailed Caitríona the following link of version 1 of the Adobe Captivate Tutorial/Presentation on Domain Model on 11/12/17:

http://gerardkilkenny.ie/index.php/year-2/02-project-development/pd6-development-of-artefact/

Caitríona made the following suggestions:

(1) Delete the GAM Authoring Tool (Evaluation 2a):  Domain Model – Concepts Hierarchy screen.
(2) Delete the instructions in the first row of the Rhumbl spreadsheet.
(3) Delete the keywords in the Rhumbl spreadsheet.
(4) Delete one of the two Rhumbl screenshots:  “Use Rhumbl Maps as a visual aid to authoring learning outcomes”
(5) Perhaps delete the “Spreadsheet of Topics” screen but keep it in my ePortfolio.

Caitríona emphasised the importance of the “Matrix of Topics and Outcomes” screen which she said is a key screen.  I agree with this as this is the screen which identifies the mapping of one learning outcome to several topics.  She said to consider positioning this screen earlier in the tutorial/presentation.

I made the following suggestion:

Use the learning outcomes in the new Draft Specification for Junior Cycle Mathematics (issued November 2017) which can be downloaded as a PDF file at the following link:

http://www.juniorcycle.ie/NCCA_JuniorCycle/media/NCCA/Documents/Curriculum/Maths/JCMathematics_Draft_Specification.pdf

rather than the older syllabus document which is available as a PDF download at the following link:

https://www.curriculumonline.ie/getmedia/4f6cba68-ac41-485c-85a0-32ae6c3559a7/JCSEC18_Maths_Examination-in-2016.pdf

The reason for this suggestion is that one of the key informants (Ciarán Ó Conaill, State Examinations Commission (SEC)) has been managing the JC maths exams for the SEC for the last few years.  Also, the NCCA is currently reviewing this subject specification as part of the JC Reform process and Ciarán has been representing the SEC on that development group, so he’s very clued in to content and learning outcomes of that specification.

Discussion:  Applied eLearning Project (Marksheet and Assessment Criteria)

Queries arose in relation to the following assessment criteria:

INNOVATION:  Demonstrates the required knowledge and skills of an innovative eLearning practitioner in a tertiary education or industry context.
Pass – The project artefact(s) demonstrates a pedagogically sound justification having been made for its design and use of the selected technologies; this may include appropriate, previously untried or uncharted uses of eLearning technologies to support student learning within a specified tertiary education or industry context.

My note:  the artefact can be singular (artefact) or plural (artefacts) according to the text above.

I consider my project to be composed of the following three complementary artefacts:

(1) A Rhumbl Map representation (via a web link) of a domain model comprising a ‘one-to-many’ mapping between learning outcomes and topics.  The ‘sub-artefact’ creation for this Rhumbl Map artefact is an Excel Spreadsheet matrix of topics and outcomes.

(2) A GAM Authoring Tool:  Visual Overview representation (via one or more screenshots) of a domain model comprising a semantic structure of concepts (topics) and relationships between these concepts (topics).

(3) An Adobe Captivate eLearning tutorial, which has the following learning outcomes for the research study participants:

(i) understand what a domain model is by defining and describing it in the tutorial
(ii) understand two types of domain model for post-primary mathematics created using (a) Rhumbl and (b) the GAM Authoring Tool.
(iii) explore one of these two types of domain model (the Rhumbl Map) by interacting with the digital artefact via the Rhumbl web link.
(iv) contextualise the electronic survey that the research study participants will be asked to complete at the end of the tutorial.

Q.1) Are the three complimentary artefacts, as described above, acceptable as my Applied eLearning Project?

Q.2) Why is “secondary education” not included in the text “…specified tertiary education or industry context” that appears above?

“The project artefact(s) demonstrates a pedagogically sound justification…”

I consider the pedagogically sound justification to be as follows:

(1) Rhumbl Map – I will make a strong case for making connections in general (adaptive learning domain model) and between Strands 2, 4 and 5 in particular, using the literature in adaptive learning and mathematics education as appropriate.

(2) GAM Authoring Tool:  Visual Overview – I will make a strong case for the semantic structure of the concepts (topics) and relationships between these concepts (topics) in my mathematics domain model.  I will draw upon the literature in adaptive learning and mathematics education as appropriate.

(3) Adobe Captivate eLearning tutorial – I will draw upon my instructional design skills, while referencing the research and models of instructional design, to design and develop a pedagogically sound eLearning tutorial.

Q.3) Is this a reasonable interpretation of the required “…pedagogically sound justification…”?

PRACTICE RELEVANCE:  Relevance of the artefact is established for the professional development needs/context of the participant and/or to the aims and objectives of the programme.
Pass – The project is intelligently linked to and embedded in the professional development needs of the participant and the tertiary education or industry context in which they are based.
Refer – Links between the applied project and the professional development needs of the sector are poorly drawn with inadequate contextualisation for Masters level.

(a) professional development needs/context of the participant (whoever the participant is?)
(b) professional development needs of the sector (whatever the sector is? – I assume post-primary mathematics education)
(c) aims and objectives of the programme (are these the four programme aims and 12 programme learning outcomes described on pages 8, 9 of the Year 1 Programme Handbook or the following sentence on page 8 of the Year 2 Applied eLearning Project Handbook: “Your research project should aim to contribute to future research direction for eLearning in relation to the needs of your practice, higher education or the industry/training sectors”?)
(d) some or all of the criteria in (a), (b) and (c) above?

Next Meeting:  Thursday 16th January 2017 at 4.30 pm.