Greg's Visual-Intensive Brief
- 1. Assessing “Research” Posters in an Upper-Level C-I Course for Majors A Case Study from Physics and Astronomy Greg Stacy P&A (Important Disclaimer: The presenter is not an expert in poster presentations. Refer to CxC resources!) CxC Summer Institute June 2011
- 2. The Course: Modern Optics (PHYS 4135) “ Traditional” lecture format (3-credit hrs; no formal lab); Offered every other year ; paired with Observational Techniques (ASTR 4261, which is also C-I certified); Required for astronomy concentrators (i.e., a captive audience), and a “4000-level” elective for other physics concentrators; Average enrollment: 8-14 physics majors.
- 3. Role of “Research” Poster In place of the usual term paper; Not (necessarily) a poster on personal research activities of the student (Spring 2010: 5/10); Chance for students to pursue a topic not covered in depth in class; Explore latest developments in optics-related research in any area; Multi-disciplinary topics possible/encouraged (e.g., optics in the visual arts).
- 4. “ Ground Rules”/Timeline Class orientation/visit to CxC Communication Studio; Reading assignment(s) on good poster-presentation techniques for the sciences (with some examples and templates) (e.g., C. Purrington, Dept of Biology, Swarthmore College at http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/posteradvice.htm ); ~2 weeks before Spring Break: Submit abstract and meet with me to review topic; Distribute/discuss assignment details and evaluation criteria in class; Before Break: submit draft poster electronically (on moodle); One week after Break: submit peer-review comments on draft poster s (via moodle “workshop” application); Following week: Review/discuss peer-review results collectively in class; Revise and submit final poster by last week of class; Last week of class: Display of final posters with oral presentation (with final peer review and evaluation).
- 5. Peer Evaluation Form: Draft-Poster Version “ Anonymous” peer reviewer “ Mandatory” comments Entered via moodle by each student for each member of the class. A “self-assessment” is also required. (see supplementary materials on the wiki.)
- 6. On-line poster submission and peer assessments via the class Moodle pages Moodle “workshop” applications for on-line assessment.
- 7. Draft to Final Version and Presentation Draft version + Peer/Instructor critiques + Iterations with CxC Studio personnel Final version
- 8. Final Poster and Oral Presentations “ Conference-like” 5-minute oral presentation of each final poster (ad-hoc hallway poster session); Final peer evaluation of both the final poster and oral presentation (yet another rubric – see supplementary materials on the wiki); Further incentive for active student engagement: T/F section on the final exam on poster topics (~10% of final-exam grade).
- 9. Lessons Learned/Future Plans Labor intensive (it’s true!) the first (and second!) time through; Must sacrifice some content for in-class C-I activities; Need a better venue for final poster presentations (?); Well-designed assignment criteria and evaluation rubrics essential (constantly re-evaluating the evaluation process); Need “anonymous” peer review for small classes; Need an “automatic” on-line method for entering peer-review scores and comments, and to collate scores (i.e., moodle); Would like to video-tape presentations in the future.
- 10. Grateful Acknowledgements CxC studio personnel for class visits, student consultations, and printing of the final posters; Prof. Rick Trebino at Georgia Tech for freely sharing his on-line optics notes (for a very similar course).
- 11. Modern Optics (PHYS 4135) Spring 2010 Poster Presenters
- 12. Extra Slides
- 13. The other C-I component: In-class optics demos Demo #1: Early in the semester – geometrical optics (lenses and mirrors); topics the students should already be familiar with from intro physics. Demo #2: Late in the semester – more advanced topics (i.e., new material), using more sophisticated equipment. (~5-min oral presentations, with peer assessment)
- 14. Optics Demos Extra-credit Option Submit a short video clip of your optics demo! (with tips and suggestions for the next student who tries it …) Five of ten students submitted short video clips. Long-term objective: Assemble a small library of “reference” video clips for future students. This year’s “People’s Choice Award” (complete with intro sound track!): Bill Freeman's Fresnel Zone Plate Video Clip
- 15. Quick Outline The Course ( Modern Optics – PHYS 4135) C-I Elements (Visual and Spoken) The Plan (“theory”) The Implementation (“practice”) Lessons Learned to Date Future Plans/Hopes
- 16. C-I Elements Originally certified Spring 2008, with emphasis on Visual and Spoken modes of communication; Spring 2010 was the second time offered as C-I. Communication Components Two in-class student demonstrations of optical phenomena (with peer/instructor evaluation); One “research” poster (with peer/instructor evaluation of draft and final versions, and of final oral presentation).
- 17. Moodle “Workshop” Application “… the most complex tool currently available in Moodle …” (!?) (currently under “complete” revision to version 2.0?) Advantages : electronic submission of student work for peer review and assessment; on-line “anonymous” critiques and assessments; flexible assessment-rubric creation options; “ practice” (i.e., training) assessments allowed; self-assessment allowed; numerous grading schemes/options available. Disadvantages : grading scheme(s) rather complex (and unclear, to me …); documentation somewhat lacking in detail and examples; no (obvious) way to use one workshop as a template for another.
- 18. Sample instructor’s view of submitted assessment scores. Each student carried out an initial self-assessment, and then a follow-up self-assessment recommended after reviewing peer comments. Problem: Not clear (to me) how individual scores are combined to arrive at a “total grade.”
- 19. Sample Evaluation Summary Teaching moment: How do you interpret a reviewer’s/referee’s scores and comments?