1 / 16

The Preference Matrix As A Course Design Tool

The Preference Matrix As A Course Design Tool. John Paxton Montana State University Universit ät Leipzig Koli Calling Saturday, November 11, 2006. Outline. Introduction Application Evaluation Discussion. I. Introduction. Preference Matrix.

tess
Télécharger la présentation

The Preference Matrix As A Course Design Tool

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Preference Matrix As A Course Design Tool John Paxton Montana State University Universität Leipzig Koli Calling Saturday, November 11, 2006

  2. Outline • Introduction • Application • Evaluation • Discussion

  3. I. Introduction

  4. Preference Matrix • Developed by Stephen and Rachel Kaplan at The University of Michigan • Based on evolutionary psychology • Each individual must build a cognitive map in order to survive • A cognitive map allows recognition, prediction and evaluation

  5. Familiarity Matrix

  6. Preference Matrix

  7. II. Application

  8. Preference Matrix Pedagogy • Connect new knowledge to existing knowledge  “makes sense” • Don’t overwhelm short-term memory  “makes sense” • Material should engage learner  “involvement” • Background of learner must be roughly understood  “involvement”

  9. CS 436 • A senior level course that introduces artificial intelligence • Making sense: clear objectives, clear syllabus, all graded work is related to the objectives, clear presentation • Involvement: engaging assignments, classroom participation

  10. III. Evaluation

  11. Evaluation • Fall 2004 – Spring 2006 • Senior level computer science courses at Montana State University • 2 offerings of CS 436 (33 students) • 17 other offerings (225 students)

  12. Evaluation • How does this course compare with similar technical courses? • What is your level of interest in taking an advanced course? • Did you find this course challenging? • Were the objectives of the course clearly stated?

  13. Evaluation • Were the objectives of the course met? • How important were the lectures? • How important were the assignments/programs? • How important were the tests/quizzes?

  14. Evaluation

  15. Evaluation

  16. IV. Discussion • What are appropriate research methodologies for measuring the impact of the preference matrix in a convincing manner?

More Related