CONTEXT VISUALIZATION OF EDUCATIONAL COURSES
Jassem Krzysztof
Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań (POLAND)
Abstract
...
1
INTRODUCTION
In a standard higher education course, knowledge is presented in a linear way. A course usually consists of ordered series of lectures and a lecture consists in presenting ordered series of slides (or whiteboards). The standard approach is claimed by many researchers to be inferior to that of mind mapping or concept mapping. “Through the process of creating and sharing these maps, students garner a depth and breadth of knowledge. As a result, maps provide students with a powerful and collective tool for taking notes in class, preparing for exams, and organizing and sharing complex research” (Douma, Ligierko, 2009).
The use of a mind map helps the teacher to emphasize the central topic of a lecture. Mind maps may demonstrate the relation path between each, even smallest, unit of a course and the central topic. On the other hand, mind maps represent a personal view on a subject. If the teacher’s mind map does not correspond to a student’s mind map, the goal of deepening student’s understanding is not achieved. Pic. 1 shows a map that concerns a course in mind mapping using the TikZ package and the amindmapa TikZ library.
During the lecture the teacher can fold and unfold a mind map in various directions, as shown in Pic. 2. This helps to keep correspondence between a current topic and its visualization.
Concept maps are, as a rule, more objective than mind maps. They organize knowledge by means of concepts (often represented in a hierarchical way) and links (relations) between them. A drawback of concept maps is that they are either too simple to cover the intended ideas, or too complex to be understood by students “on first sight”.
Pic. 3 shows a simplified version of a map. Pic. 4 is a full version of the map.
Concept maps are not intended to be folded and unfolded during a lecture.
The latest idea on using mapping in education is argument mapping. “Argument mapping is concerned with explicating the inferential structure of arguments” (Davies, …). Pic. 5 shows an argument map.
Among the three types of mapping, argument maps seem to be the most appropriate tool to illustrate a live lecture. In order to maintain students’ focus and understanding, presented propositions should logically infer from one another. Such inference is best shown with argument mapping. Similar to mind maps, argument maps may be revealed gradually during a lecture.
A disadvantage of argument mapping is “that it can assume too much. In the educational context, argument mapping exercises can assume that students have a sufficiently clear understanding of a topic or issue and the precise nature of the task at hand. However, this understanding may often be absent”.(Davies)
The idea suggested in this paper is that of using context maps in order to visualize knowledge delivered during an educational course.
2
CONTEXT MAPS
2.1 Motivation
The motivation below a new concept is to take advantages of all mapping approaches.
Similar to a mind map or an argument map (unlike a concept map), the full content of a context map is revealed dynamically. As opposed to a mind map, a context map refers to concepts that are undoubtedly shared by both teachers and students. A context map may represent inference between propositions but does not require students’ prior understanding of a topic under discussion.
2.2 Definition of a Context Map
A context map is a graphical visualization of an educational unit, which consists of the following elements:
1) Set of concepts (not necessarily related to each other) 2) Canvas that visualizes the context of a course
3) Relations between Canvas and each concept – the relation defines why a concept should be
2.3 Using Context Map to Visualize One Lecture
A context map is usually designed to visualize a topic of one lecture. Pic. 6 shows a context map intended for the lecture that summarizes tools for natural language processing. The concepts to be discussed are: Machine Translation, Question Answering, Speech Synthesis, Speech Recognition, Face-to-face Dialogue. Canvas may then be covered by a humanoid scull, the relations between Canvas and the concepts being:
Humanoid Brain – Machine Translation, Question Answering Humanoid Lips - Speech Synthesis
Humanoid Ear - Speech Recognition Humanoid Eye - Face-to-Face Dialogue Picture 7. visualizes is a context map on NLP tools.
2.4 Using Context Maps to Visualize a Course
A context map may also visualize a series of lectures or the whole course. As an example, Canvas for a course on Software Engineering may represent the life of a software system. Any new topic entered during the course is then strictly related to a location on Canvas corresponding to a moment in software lifetime the topic concerns.
Pic. 8 show a context map for a course entitled “Creating IT Systems”. The horizontal axis represents life of an IT system. First, a work team has to be formed. Then, a project vision should be created. Even before the “real work” a leader of the team should know how to manage the people
(peopleware). The technical work starts with project analysis, followed by system modeling, implementation and quality evaluation.
The vertical axis represents “softness” of skills being taught. Soft skills concern the human factor, whereas hard skills are technical. The horizontal location of the concept shows its position in the softness scale.
2.5 Benefits of Context Mapping
The benefits of using context maps for an educational course are following:
1) Each lecture may start with the view on the whole course and only then dig into the current topic, thus demonstrating the placement of the topic in the course
2) It is possible to visualize relations between concepts introduced at different lectures 3) Any time during a course it is possible to fluently back-track to any point in a past lecture 4) The students may interact with a lecturer in choosing in which direction the lecture should
follow
2.6 Tool
prezi (www.prezi.com) is a convenient tool for context mapping. The tool is free of charge for educational purposes if a tool is used on-line. A desktop educational license costs 59 USD per year and allows for off-line usage.
2.7
Students’ opinions
Context mapping was introduced in the middle of a mandatory course “Creating IT systems” (winter semester 2013 / 2014). Before the innovation the lectures were run in a standard way, aimed by MS Powerpoint slides. Context mapping is continued in the summer semester (February – June 2014) for non-mandatory course on Natural Language Processing for the same group of students. This way students can compare both approaches. They have expressed their opinion anonymously in a gamified system CyberAcademy ([5]). Their opinions varied. These are typical student’s mixed opinions after the first innovative lecture:
“Prezi introduces additional interaction between teacher and students. Powerpoint presentations, are however, more systematic, which is more convenient for off-line learning.”
“Prezi is a NEW form of presentation, and therefore looks more interesting and first of all, breaks routine (Personally, however I prefer Powerpoint).”
Gradually, the teacher improved his technical skills and the students appreciated it by high attendance to non-mandatory lectures.
When the teacher, strayed from the context-map presenting it was immediately spotted and commented:
“Although I don’t object the merit of the lecture, I must confess that the Prezi presentation was below usual standard – it was too general and did not help us understand the presented algorithms.
3
CONCLUSIONS
The paper present an idea of context mapping, which originates from similar concepts, such as mind mapping, concept matching and argument matching. The idea consists in addressing concepts shared both in teacher’s and students’ minds. The location of the concept on Canvas refers to common-sense reasoning. Students find the idea “natural”. During two courses run by the author the students realized the need for context-based visual representation only when it was missing.
Reference:
Douma, M., & G. Ligierko. 2009. Creating online mind maps and concept maps. 25th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching & Learning. August 4-7, 2009. Madison, Wisconsin
ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN OPEN-SOURCE SYSTEM FOR
INTRODUCING GAMIFICATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Jassem Krzysztof, Piskadło Bartosz
21
Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań (POLAND) [11-point, italic, centred]
2Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań (POLAND) [11-point, italic, centred]
Abstract
Gamification, namely applying game-like thinking to non-game applications, has been becoming a common practice in business (e.g. in frequent flyers programs or loyalty programs). Although education seems to have a promising future for gamification, the attempts have been few so far and the idea is yet to gain ground. One of the underlying reasons for this is that preparing and running a gamified course is time-consuming.
Iosuo and Epema (2014) suggest using a toolbox, which consists of 7 core tools, for course gamification. The authors hold that the application of such toolbox has a strong, positive impact on students’ attendance. We follow their ideas. Our contribution is an open-source computer system, developed under a working name of CyberAcademy, which helps teachers gamify their courses at minimum time expense.
A prototype of the system was put to use during the fall semester (October 2013 – February 2014) at the Software Engineering course. Currently the system is used for a course on Natural Language Processing.
Our intention is to demonstrate CyberAcademy at EduLearn. We hope that the system will be further developed as an open-source project.
The main idea of the system is straight-forward. The course instructor systematically uploads short tasks to be completed by students. The instructor has to define how each task will be scored: automatically, by the instructor or through peer review. In the last case the solutions are being graded by a fixed number (10 by default) of randomly selected students (excluding the author). The scores for all task solutions are then generated automatically.
Solutions uploaded by students are given rewards (according to their ranking) by experience points and credits. Experience points reflect the student’s progress during a single course. Credits form
virtual currency valid for all courses run within CyberAcademy. Credits serve as a means of trade within system users.
The following gamification techniques are implemented in CyberAcademy: 1. Competition
Students compete for the best score of each task and the best total score 2. Story-telling
Each course comes with a story told by the game master 3. Role-playing
Students and instructors choose their avatars in the story 4. Challenges
Tasks have the form of challenges; It is up to students, which challenges they will take 5. Immediate rewarding
Students are rewarded for their achievements either directly after uploading a solution (in the case of automatic ratings) or immediately after the deadline for rating has expired (in the case of manual rating)
6. Game Levels
Students systematically reach new levels of initiation 7. Positive motivation
Students are never punished for their solutions – each activity is rated with non-negative scores 8. Virtual goods
Students’ avatars improve their skills and gain new gadgets during the course
We have evaluated our method in a simple way. In the winter semester of 2013 the students were offered a choice whether to participate in the gamification program or not. In order to participate in the program students were required to attend lectures systematically and take up new challenges almost every week. The alternative was a standard exam at the end of the semester with no mandatory attendance. Out of 63 students 51 gave preference to the gamification program.
Keywords: Gamification, Open Source Projects, Information Technology Education
4
GAMIFICATION
Wyjaśnić definicję pojęcia. (1/3 strony)
4.1 Gamification Techniques
Omówić podstawowe techniki stosowane w gamifikacji. (1 strona)
4.2 Gamification in Business
Podać kilka przykładów gamifikacji w biznesie (1/2 strony)
4.3 Gamification in Education
Wyjaśnić przyczynę i sens wprowadzenia gamifikacji w edukacji (1/2 strony)
5
GAMIFICATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION
6
CYBERACADEMY – GAMIFICATION SYSTEM FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
6.1 Motivation
Opisać motywację, jaka przyświecała wprowadzeniu system (KJ) (0,5 strony)
6.2 Workflow in CyberAcademy
6.2.1
Instructor’s point of view
Opisać, jak z systemem pracuje wykładowca (prowadzący ćwiczenia) (1 strona)
6.2.2
Stundent’s point of view
Opisać, jak z systemem pracuje (bawi się) student (2 strony) – RYSUNKI!!!
6.2.3 Elements of Gamification used in CyberAcademy
Zaznaczyć, jakie element wymienione w części 1. są stosowane w CYBERACADEMY i w jaki sposób (1 strona)
7
CONCLUSIONS
7.1 Evaluation
Ilu studentów wzięło udział (jak we wstępie)
7.2 Future work
Dalsze możliwości rozwoju systemu (1/2 stronyu)
8
TEGO NIE PISZEMY, TYLKO DLA PRZYPOMINANIA
8.1.1 Sub-subsection: Guidelines for Abbreviations and Acronyms
Define abbreviations and acronyms the first time they are used in the text, even after they have been defined in the abstract. Do not use abbreviations in the title or heads unless they are unavoidable.
8.1.2 Sub-subsection: Guidelines for Figures and Tables
Tables, figures, and graphics should be centred, numbered and accompanied by a legend. Figure captions should be below figures; table heads should appear above tables. Insert figures and tables after they are cited in the text. Use the abbreviation “Fig. 1”, even at the beginning of a sentence.
8.1.3 Sub-subsection: Guidelines for Page numbers and Footnotes
Please, do not add any kind of pagination anywhere in the paper. Avoid using headers and use footnotes [Arial, 8 point] only within the page margins (2,5 cm of white margins).
8.1.4 Sub-subsection: Guidelines for References
The list of the references should be given at the end of the paper. References are numbered in brackets by order of appearance in the document (e.g. [1], [2], [3]). The same reference can be cited more than once in the text with the same reference number.
REFERENCES [Arial, 12-point, bold, left alignment]
[1] Reference [Arial, 10-point, left alignment, upper and lower case]
Prezi wprowadza dodatkową interakcje, która jest fajna, jednak z drugiej strony prezentacje PowerPoint podają treść w bardziej usystematyzowany sposób, co jest ważne kiedy chcemy szybko przelecieć przez prezentację i np. znaleźć interesujący nas fragment.
Prezi jest NOWĄ formą prezentacji, dlatego też zdaje się być ciekawsza i przede wszystkim przełamuje rutynę. (Osobiście jednak wolę Powerpoint :))
Fajnie ogląda się prezentację, która jest swego rodzaju odskocznią od typowego schematu prezentacji.
Prezentacje w Prezi są dużo bardziej dynamiczne,
Uważam, że są prezentacje które lepiej ogląda się, gdy zrobione są w Powerpoint, jak np. te z dużą ilością obrazków i tekstu, czyli prezentacja o diagramach UML. A są takie, jak prezentacja o wizjonerach informatyki ( Gates i Jobs ), gdzie można zmniejszyć ilość tekstu, wprowadzić szablon z Prezi, który będzie pokazywał pewną chronologię i wtedy wykład może być jeszcze ciekawszy, tak jak było to z ostatnim wykładem CI.
O ile do wykładu samego w sobie nie mam zastrzeżeń, o tyle gorzej jest z prezentacją stworzoną przez Pana w Prezi - niestety moim zdaniem jest ona zbyt ogólnikowa, przykłady TDDF oraz BUBF posiadają za mało opisów, aby dało się z nich sobie przypomnieć, jaki był dokładny ich przebieg.
