Response on point of the MoM of the PRSG meeting on 21st October 2016
Prof Suraish Kumar reviewed the feedback forms newly included in the feedback portal, just before the 21st October 2016 meeting. His review comments assess the forms to be ' much better than the existing ones' and OK for use.
He was also keen on the inclusion of 'dynamic' feedback at the experiment level for capturing the 'learning extent of the students'. He suggested a method of feedback capture at the experiment level.
In view of the above, the feedback forms introduced can be considered as approved.
The inclusion of the experiment level 'dynamic'feedback is to be taken up with the consent of the Lab Developers/Institute Integration Coordinators. This question is therefore left to them to take a call.
Detailed analysis of Recommendation:
Context:
The feedback forms proposed and included in feedback.vlabs.ac.in were reviewed by Prof GK Suraish Kumar. A document that analyzes the feedback forms in relation to a standard feedback framework, the objectives of vlabs and other general factors was prepared by VLEAD and shared with him. The document also did a comparative analysis of the earlier forms and the proposed forms.
Recap
To recap, the revised feedback forms introduced into the feedback portal of Virtual labs, were at the 3 levels:
At a Generic Level
At Lab Level
At the Experiment Level
Review Comments
Prof Suraish found these above forms much better than the existing ones. He however suggested that experiment level feed back to assess the "Learning extent of the students " was required to be incorporated.
The question of incorporating experiment level feedback is to do with the experiment technicalities and is a subject that the Lab designers are to address. Prof Suraish felt that the feedback capture must be smooth and periodic. He suggested that this should be captured after every 1 or 2 sections of the experiment done by the student. The questions may also be picked up from the current evaluation quiz at the end of the experiment. His observation was as follows:" ... The only thing I would add is to display the answer irrespective of the student response to the question, and smoothly move on to the next part in the experiment. The emphasis (as you have elaborated) is also on the smoothness of these queries, without making them appear as formal evaluations'. Thus, VLabs would have much better and natural input on the learning. If numbers onstudent testing' are needed for various administrative needs of the project, they have become available too by this process."
"If the student desires his/her `score' at the end of the experiment, let the student explicitly click a button to know it.
In addition, the same questions that exist now as a separate and optional evaluation at the end of each experiment, if suitable, can be the questions that are placed at various parts of the experiment."
This the gist of the review done by Prof Suraish Kumar. For easy reference, the extracts of the mails exchanged with him on this subject [document 1] and the Analysis document [2 above] are made available.
Mail trails with Prof GK Suraissh.txt
AnalysisofDesignofVirtualLabsFeedbackForms (1).pdf
Response on point of the MoM of the PRSG meeting on 21st October 2016
Prof Suraish Kumar reviewed the feedback forms newly included in the feedback portal, just before the 21st October 2016 meeting. His review comments assess the forms to be ' much better than the existing ones' and OK for use. He was also keen on the inclusion of 'dynamic' feedback at the experiment level for capturing the 'learning extent of the students'. He suggested a method of feedback capture at the experiment level.
In view of the above, the feedback forms introduced can be considered as approved. The inclusion of the experiment level 'dynamic'feedback is to be taken up with the consent of the Lab Developers/Institute Integration Coordinators. This question is therefore left to them to take a call.
Detailed analysis of Recommendation:
Context:
The feedback forms proposed and included in feedback.vlabs.ac.in were reviewed by Prof GK Suraish Kumar. A document that analyzes the feedback forms in relation to a standard feedback framework, the objectives of vlabs and other general factors was prepared by VLEAD and shared with him. The document also did a comparative analysis of the earlier forms and the proposed forms.
Recap
To recap, the revised feedback forms introduced into the feedback portal of Virtual labs, were at the 3 levels: At a Generic Level
At Lab Level At the Experiment Level
Review Comments
Prof Suraish found these above forms much better than the existing ones. He however suggested that experiment level feed back to assess the "Learning extent of the students " was required to be incorporated.
The question of incorporating experiment level feedback is to do with the experiment technicalities and is a subject that the Lab designers are to address. Prof Suraish felt that the feedback capture must be smooth and periodic. He suggested that this should be captured after every 1 or 2 sections of the experiment done by the student. The questions may also be picked up from the current evaluation quiz at the end of the experiment. His observation was as follows:" ... The only thing I would add is to display the answer irrespective of the student response to the question, and smoothly move on to the next part in the experiment. The emphasis (as you have elaborated) is also on the smoothness of these queries, without making them appear as
formal evaluations'. Thus, VLabs would have much better and natural input on the learning. If numbers onstudent testing' are needed for various administrative needs of the project, they have become available too by this process.""If the student desires his/her `score' at the end of the experiment, let the student explicitly click a button to know it. In addition, the same questions that exist now as a separate and optional evaluation at the end of each experiment, if suitable, can be the questions that are placed at various parts of the experiment."
This the gist of the review done by Prof Suraish Kumar. For easy reference, the extracts of the mails exchanged with him on this subject [document 1] and the Analysis document [2 above] are made available.