2010-12-29 09:23:59, Reply(14), Views(1208), 2010-12-29 13:48:50) Livia
Strength:
．Show the items of questionnaires are good.
Weakness:
．The speaking should more practice.
．Give more explanations would be better.
．The slide 14 is not clear.
Question:
．Would you please explain the slide 14? I have no idea what it is…
, 2010-12-29 14:31:12) |
Comments for Livia’s Presentation | |
|
Strength |
l Good-looking today l PowerPoint was clear and pointed out the procedure step by step. |
|
Weakness |
l The introduction (slide 4) had better alignment l Some words were too nervous to pronounce well, like slide 5 (midst/ future), slide 8 (prompts), slide 13 (executive) l More eye contact and explain in your words would be better. |
|
Question |
How to determine the fives levels of reflection? |
, 2010-12-29 16:13:28) |
Comments for Livia’s Presentation | |
|
Strength |
1. Get a pretty outfit and have cute smile in front of the class. 2. Slide 10 and 19 are great. |
|
Suggestion |
1. Practice speaking the topic and the overall words on the slides more fluently 2. Some pronunciation errors: think(in slide 4). implemented. reflection (in slide 5&15).dimensions (in slide7).adaptive(in slide 16&17).understanding. process(in slide 16). 3. Typing errors: Form(in slide 7).Styles(in slide 11) 4. Agreement.Learner or learners in slide 5 should be listed accordingly. 5. The right side of the steps in slide 6 does not coordinate. 6. Why not just split 5 parts in the circle for five mental self-government dimensions in slide 7? 7. The words are covered by the picture in slide 12. 8. How about putting only one concept in the sentence in the second sentences in slide 16 and the first sentence in slide 18? That’ll be clearer. |
|
Question |
About the reflection part, are they your personal opinions or the authors’? And could you explain the first sentence in slide 18? |
, 2010-12-30 22:47:39) , 2010-12-30 23:52:08) , 2010-12-31 19:23:11) |
Comments for Livia’s Presentation | |
|
Strength |
|
|
Weakness |
|
|
Question |
1.On page.14, you use 3 colors to underline the data, can you explain which on compares to which one, I don't quite understand. |
, 2011-01-03 11:07:03) |
Presenter |
Livia |
|
Strength |
You showed an example of the online reflection on slide 9 and also provided example of the questionnaires which were both helpful. |
|
Weakness |
Too nervous, the presentation was not that fluent. The table on slide 14 is not clear. |
|
Question |
Why the authors want to study on the issue (online learning environment)? |
, 2011-01-03 16:22:18) Livia
|
Strength |
Ø Good descriptions of experimental procedures. |
|
Weakness |
Ø A little reading too much from the slides. Ø There was a bit too much writing on the ppt, perhaps it’s better to explain them more concisely with your own words. |
|
Question |
Ø Could you state the purpose of this study? |
, 2011-01-03 16:56:20) Livia
Strength: Dress up.
Weakness:
1.You have some pronunciation problems, for example, experiment, executive. 2. You must check your PPT before the presentation, the there are a lot of problems about the format.
Q: If you are the researcher, how to design the experimental purpose?
, 2011-01-03 18:45:53) |
Strength |
1. The suit looked great. |
|
Weakness |
1. Hunchback 2. Too nervous. 3. Voice could be louder. |
|
Question |
How much time did the participants fill out the questionnaire? Do you think they all are able to finish the questionnaire? |
|
Strength |
1. There’s a sample of questionnaire on p.13! I like that! which gives me more picture of what you are talking about. 2. Cute picture on p.17! |
|
Weakness |
Eye contact Speed up a bit will be betterJ |
|
question |
When do the students fill up the questionnaire? Before or after the experiment? |
, 2011-01-03 20:58:21) |
Presenter |
Livia 2010/12/29 |
|
Strength |
1. The PPT was well-designed. 2. In my opinion, Livia has improved a lot, especially attendance in class. Hopefully, Livia can keep going. |
|
Weakness |
1. Livia’s voice need speak up loudly. 2. Livia was too nervous. 3. In PPT, the purpose and research questions should be shown. |
|
Question |
In slide 8, did the study explain why “inductive teaching strategy” was used, not “deductive teaching strategy”? |
, 2011-01-03 21:17:57) |
Presenters |
Livia |
|
Strength |
Voice clearly Cute pictures in the slide number 17,18 PPT is well organized |
|
Weakness |
More eye contacts will be better Some pronunciation problems (ex:p.3 methods, p.5 implemented, midst, p.12 Likert, p.13 executive) P.12 the education part, the word is covered by the flag. P.14 the table is a little bit unclear. |
|
Question |
As we can see the education of participants including under graduated and graduated students, so do you think the different education will affect the result? |
, 2011-01-04 16:17:24) Thanks for giving me the advice and guidance, and I will improve my defects next time.
To珈儀: In slide 14 it shows that the category of legislative high means the level of that participant’s legislative thinking style was higher than the levels of his/her executive and judicial thinking styles. If she/he gets the constructive teaching strategy that would mean ‘fit’, otherwise ‘non-fit.’ Hence, learners with high levels in two thinking styles would be suitable for corresponding two kinds of adaptive teaching strategies. Learners with the same level of all three thinking styles would be suitable for all adaptive teaching strategies.
To意涵: Reporting: The learner describes, reports or retells, with minimal transformation, and with no added observations or insights.
Responding:
(1) The learner uses source data in some way, but with little transformation or conceptualization.
(2) The learner makes an observation or judgment without making any further inferences or detailing the reasons for the judgment.
(3) The learner asks a ‘rhetorical’ question without attempting to answer it or considering alternatives.
(4) The learner reports a feeling such as relief, anxiety, happiness, etc.
Relating:
(1) The learner identifies aspects of the data which have personal meaning or which connect with his/her prior or current experience.
(2) The learner seeks a superficial understanding of relationships.
(3) The learner identifies something he or she is good at, something that he/she needs to improve, a mistake he/she has made, or an area in which he or she has learned from his/her practical experience.
(4) The learner gives a superficial explanation of the reason why something has happened or identifies something he/she needs or plans to do or change.
Reasoning:
(1) The learner integrates the data into an appropriate relationship, e.g. with theoretical concepts, personal experience, involving a high level of transformation and conceptualization.
(2) The learner seeks a deep understanding of why something has happened.
(3) The learner explores or analyses a concept, event or experience, asks questions and looks for answers, considers alternatives, speculates or hypothesizes about why something is happening.
(4) The learner attempts to explain his/her own or others’ behavior or feelings using his/her own insight, inferences, experiences or previous learning, with some depth of understanding.
Reconstructing:
(1) The learner displays a high level of abstract thinking to generalize and/or apply learning.
(2) The learner extracts and internalizes the personal significance of his/her learning and/or plans his/her own further learning on the basis of his/her reflections.
To依萍: That is the author’s reflection, and I have the same ideas with the author.
To宜臻: Two people with same abilities will exhibit different performances, because there are different ways of using the same abilities. Each style is neither good nor bad, but only different. Besides, learners can vary their thinking styles to fit different tasks or learning situations
To宜庭: In my opinion, I think guiding teaching strategy is the most suitable for students.
Guiding: Learners are asked to read all supplementary materials and respond to reflection prompts embedded in each paragraph step by step. The reflection prompts are automatically delivered by the online reflection learning system.
To鈞維: In slide 14 it shows that the category of legislative high means the level of that participant’s legislative thinking style was higher than the levels of his/her executive and judicial thinking styles. If she/he gets the constructive teaching strategy that would mean ‘fit’, otherwise ‘non-fit.’ Hence, learners with high levels in two thinking styles would be suitable for corresponding two kinds of adaptive teaching strategies. Learners with the same level of all three thinking styles would be suitable for all adaptive teaching strategies.
To翠鈺: This purpose of study is to figure out when constructive, guiding, and inductive teaching strategies are applied for the legislative, executive, and judicial thinking styles of the learners respectively, the improvement in reflection levels of fit group learners will be better than non-fit group learners. The advantage of online learning is that the learners have possibility to learn any time and anywhere. However, most online learning materials are rarely designed to suit different learners individually.
To正皓: The aim of this study is to explore whether learners’ reflection levels could be improved when the teaching strategies are matched with their thinking styles in an online learning environment. Three teaching strategies, namely constructive, guiding, and inductive, were designed to match with three thinking styles, namely legislative, executive, and judicial respectively. An online reflection learning system with specific reflection prompts and supplementary learning materials was subsequently developed for this purpose.
To昱崧: To explore whether learner’s reflection levels can be improved if teaching strategies are adapted to fit with learner’s thinking styles in traditional classes.
To任珩: The experiment lasted about 20–30 min, and participants were required to finish the experiment in one session.
To祿倢: The students fill up the questionnaire during the experiment, and here is the experimental procedure.
To佳莉: I am sorry, it did not mention about it in this study.
To宜芳: It did not mention a bout it in this study, it just shows that most participants were between 21 and 25 years age (64.57%). Undergraduate students (56.95%) were the majority participants. The majority area of study of the participants was in management discipline (37.22%).