Module Team Records

Authors - Dalia, Helen, Dhruv

Assessment

Summary:

• 6 ILOs were based on last year’s + a few changes

• Different ways we could assess, or activities related to the ILOs were proposed
• Table was made to vote on what should be assessed in the end or not
• Decision taken on how to distribute the marks

Detailed achievements:

The learning outcomes of the module were relooked at and changed to allow for the final mark to be equally graded on group and personal involvement. The assessment was also made more wholistic to accommodate for different goals, pace, and paths that individuals and groups may choose. This meant having reflection and output-based assessments which allow for an individual to get a good grade should they not be able to do either of them.

The marking scheme was also done in a way to maximise fairness in the case of group work that has gone badly or in the case of individuals that have done no work.

Learning:

We learnt that it is important to always go back to decisions made and evaluate whether any change needs to be made. We noticed that we had initially decided asynchronous worked shouldn’t be assessed but then when “mapping out” all the different unfair scenarios that could happen to a group, we realised it would actually be best to assess it.  

What we didn’t do:

• Give a well/exemplary mapped sample of a finished project involving feedback, reflections, thought process, and the journey.
• Yet to finish what to look for when marking a portfolio, how marks are given.  

Next step:

Make clearer criteria for each of the components of the assessment so that whoever will be marking will know what to look for.

Progress that has been made so far can be seen here:  

Miro Board Assessment and ILOs

Platforms/Software for the Module:

Summary:

• We investigated and researched the best tools for time-management and blended learning, with the aim to promote better group working between students on the module.

• Caroline (module lead) explained that she wanted groups to learn to work better together, so we decided that time-management and blended tools would be best placed to allow this.

Detailed achievements:

Output

• The main software options we researched into and tested are as follows:
  • Microsoft Teams
  • Discord
  • GatherTown
  • Miro (main tool used)
  • Airtable

• As a group, we voted between using Microsoft Teams and Discord as the main platform for the module – we did not reach a unanimous conclusion on this, however most people believed that Teams is the best tool for use on the module, mainly due to its familiarity and ability to integrate other team-working tools, such as Miro.

• However, others preferred Discord, which was our main method of communication within our Student Shaper group. If not used for the module, it was decided that Discord could still be used for the overall ImpVis project.

• The information we gathered and our opinions on the best possible software options can be found at this link: Learning Tools Comparison

Learning:

We realised that certain tools, specifically Miro, are most effective when used synchronously. From this, we gathered that effective scaffolding and prompting is necessary to ensure for equal participation within groups.

We were able to demonstrate this within our own meetings as a module team, and when requesting for feedback from our wider Student Shaper group. Using Miro, we were able to receive feedback instantly from all members of our group.

What we didn’t do:

• We did not set up a Microsoft Teams or Discord space, as we had not decided how both would be used and monitored.

• We investigated Teams ChatBots, such as ScrumGenius and their potential to be integrated into our chosen learning tool/software. However, we did not take this forward due to lack of time, and inability to request access to these.

Next step:

• Decide which tools will be used on the module, and how these will be set up and monitored. If Microsoft Teams is chosen, we need to decide on and set up the necessary integrations.

Reflections

Summary:

• Two different types of reflections were deemed important: self and group
• Lists of questions were prepared for each
• The group reflections were tested out on the student shapers team

• Dhruv and Dalia tested out the self-reflections
• Templates were made for the group reflections but still debating whether they will be just for TA use or shown to students too

Detailed achievements:

The reflection component of the module was restructured to go hand in hand with the revised learning outcomes of the module. With students now not giving themselves a grade, we had to design a reflection that allowed examiners to assess the quality of reflections and level of engagement with the module and thus the progress an individual has made during the module. We were able to create templates for group and personal reflections that allowed individuals to set goals for themselves, reflect on the goals, reflect on their group, and give feedback to each other.

Output

• Group reflection: 3 times during the entire module
• Self-reflection: Every two weeks
• Final reflection

Most of our reflections were based off the work and journey we had and not an accurate representation of what the students taking up the module would face. A limitation was that we did not have feedback from the people who were taking up the module.

Learning:

By making the StudentShapers participants take the group reflections, we learnt a lot about what can be improved. We concluded that having the reflection done anonymously would be much more beneficial and effective than doing it on a Miro board while everyone can see. That was because we would be influenced by what others have said.  

We also realised that, if taken seriously, the reflection can be really helpful in terms of improving group work and it adds some intentionality into what we are doing.  

What we didn’t do:

• Sample of filled personal reflections?  

Next step:

Making the finalised google doc forms or the alternative way that we will be doing this.  

Progress that has been made so far can be seen here:  

• Self reflections
• Group reflections

Visualisation resource scaffolding  

Summary:

• Introduced as a new component of group work, assessed as pass/fail (carrying no weighting), to be included in the group portfolio.

• Following the creation of our own example projects, we concluded that the visualisation required a resource for group members without prior knowledge to understand the topic.

• Helen and Dalia worked on this.

Detailed achievements:  

Output

The following is a collection of the resources we created for our example projects, organised chronologically:

• Visualisation resource for ‘Heat Transport Visualisation’ example (by Helen):
  • Note that this resource does not follow a scaffold, but is an in-depth background research into the topic, including calculations.
  • Link to pdf: Heat_Transport_Visualisation_v4.pdf  (link accessible to Imperial students only).

• Visualisation resource for ‘Surfactant Concentration and Surface Tension’ example (by Dalia):
  • This resource followed a more scaffolded approach.
  • Link to Miro Board: Surfactant_Conc_Resource (link accessible to anyone).

• First draft of our resource scaffold and feedback we received from members of our Student Shaper group:
  • Link to Miro Board: Resource Scaffold First Draft (link accessible to anyone).
  • Note that this board also contains a note-taking scaffold (taken from Miro’s library of templates)- could this be a useful method for collective notetaking?

Learning:

• Through the design of our own resources, we identified the following benefits:
  • Students gain a more thorough understanding of their visualisation topic since they must carefully plan and carry out in-depth background research around it.
  • Students with less familiarity or past knowledge will be able to understand the visualisation more effectively - this was particularly observed, after Helen prepared an example resource for Dalia, who had less prior knowledge in her topic (on Heat Transport), and who subsequently was able to understand the visualisation better.
  • Allows students to design more useful ILOs, due to the thorough research they have carried out.

• We started developing a template for structuring the visualisation resources. The biggest challenge was ensuring that the scaffold does not restrict the students’ creativity while allowing them to follow a structured layout, so they do not waste time and end up deviating from the main project. This task has proven to be difficult because there are many ways that this could be done.

What we didn't do:

• Due to time constraints and the inability to meet with Caroline for a discussion, we were unable to develop a finalised version of the resource scaffold. As a result, we were only able to get feedback from our Student Shaper group members.

Next step:

• Making a detailed and finalised scaffold for the visualisation resource.

Module Timeline

Summary:

• Rough module timeline was made
• Divided based on the different reflections and feedback sessions

• Didn’t have time to discuss with module team
• All the team contributed to an analogous timeline for the whole process  

Detailed achievements:

The module timeline is vague and not much time was dedicated on perfecting it as other things were more important at the time such as the assessment and reflections.  

Learning:

We learnt that experience and specifically sharing experiences is important in order to get a complete and comprehensive view. This was obvious when creating the timeline of the project as everyone had to pitch in their ideas.  

Also learnt that missing the expertise can make it quite difficult to plan what would happen in the sessions.

Next step:

• Still need to think up ideas for workshops and how each session will be run.  

• Need to contact people who can help lead that and have more expertise in design and coding.  

Progress that has been made so far can be seen here:  

Timeline of the module

Timeline of the project

Group formation:

Summary:

• Two scenarios were proposed: A (groups work on one project from start to end), B (groups can start from the middle of a project or start and finish wherever deemed sensible)
• Pros and cons for each were written out in a table

• Criteria was made based of that and added into a table to vote on which scenario fits it best
• After voting, it was concluded that scenario B was more favourable

Detailed achievements:

Once it was decided that scenario B would be best, all the cons that it had were evaluated and a table was made with all the issues it has and with ways to mitigate those and action required.  

Most of the unfairness was fixed when the assessment was made. However, there still are some things to do.

Learning:

We learned the significance of thoroughly thinking through different scenarios and evaluating each criterion individually before coming to a unanimous decision on what would be the best thing to do. We also learnt that even once we concluded that scenario B would be better, there still were some cons we had previously mentioned that had to be dealt with.  

What we didn’t do:

- How the groups may be formed? Using the skills matrix?

Next step:

• Need to create a list of all possible skill sets that students would want to work on, and the list of all the possible projects they can work on.
• Provide a flow chart to help with choosing the topic.
• Making the form that students will need to fill to have fairly distributed groups.

Progress that has been made so far can be seen here:  

Miro Board with the tables described above