Extreme Questionnaire An experiment was conducted to investigate the effects of replacing the moderately worded SUS with versions with the neutral SUS Wording statements replaced by statements that were worded in an extremely positive or an extremely negative fashion. The System Usability Scale (SUS) The Extremely Positive System Usability Scale (XP-SUS) The Extremely Negative System Usability Scale (XN-SUS) 1. I think that I would like to use 1. I think that this is one of my all1. I think I never want to use the web this system frequently. time favorite web sites. site again. 2. I found the system unnecessarily 2. I found the web site was really 2. I found the web site to be horribly complex. straightforward. complex for no good reason. 3. I thought the system was easy to 3. I thought the web site was 3. I thought the web site was very use. amazingly easy to use. difficult to use. 4. I think that I would need the 4. I think that technical support 4. I think that I would need a permanent support of a technical person to services are just not required for hot-line to the help desk to be able to be able to use this system. the web site. use the web site.* 5. I found the various functions in 5. I found the various pages on the 5. I found all the pages on the web site this system were well integrated. web site worked together very to be an ugly mess. 6. I thought there was too much smoothly. 6. I thought the inconsistency in the web inconsistency in this system. 6. I thought the web site was site would kill it. 7. I would imagine that most people consistent throughout. 7. I found the web site to be completely would learn to use this system 7. I would imagine anybody could use impossible to use. very quickly. the web site like a pro from day 8. I found that this web site was 8. I found the system very one. extremely awkward to use. cumbersome to use. 8. I found the web site was a delight 9. I felt utterly confused by the web site. 9. I felt very confident using the to use. 10.Absolutely nothing about the web system. 9. I felt completely confident using the site worked 10.I needed to learn a lot of things web site. before I could get going with this 10.Everything to know about A set of volunteersI needed was asked to evaluate a website, with one-third CS 321 system. using the website was there for me. Lesson Twenty-Two Questionnaires Page 6 of the volunteers randomly assigned the traditional SUS questionnaire, one-third randomly assigned the XP-SUS questionnaire, and the final one-third randomly assigned the XN-
View full slide show




President’s Dining Room Room C Room B Room A 10:00 AM – 10:50 AM Getting Students to Read: A Roundtable Discussion on the Best Practices of Reading Quizzes Milton Fuentes, Pablo R Casado Nunez Acquiring foundational knowledge is critical to deep learning and course engagement (Lang, 2016). One way students can secure this knowledge is by completing the weekly reading assignments (Hacker, 2010). However, the research suggests that students struggle with reading required assignments (Brown & Tallon, 2015; Maurer & Longfield, 2015; Johnson & Kiviniemi, 2009); a complaint heard often by faculty at MSU. Reading quizzes have been found to assist with this teaching challenge (Lang, 2016; Tropman, 2014; Wang and Selby, 2017). Reading quizzes are pre-class assessments that are “…usually credit-carrying, low-stakes, short tests used not just to assess student comprehension from a preclass preparatory assignment (Gierasch et al., 2015), but mainly to increase the likelihood that students read the assigned material and have some knowledge of the day’s topic” (Wang and Selby, 2017, p. 418). Tropman (2014) surveyed students in her introductory ethics course and an advanced philosophy course and found that students attitudes toward reading quizzes were generally favorable. The students reported that reading quizzes encouraged them to read, contribute toward class discussion, and secure a better grade. Wand and Selby (2017) assert that this strategy can be further enhanced through error analysis, the process of having students consider their incorrect quiz answers and secure the necessary information to ensure a correct understanding of the course material. In this roundtable, faculty will be introduced to the best practices associated with reading quizzes as well consider the advantages and disadvantages of this teaching strategy for their particular teaching approach and discipline. Pedagogical Research: The Role of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) in Studying One’s Own Teaching: Part One Mousumi Bose, Kathy Gainor, Brian Abrams, Reba Wissner Research in pedagogy is essential to maintaining the integrity of educational approaches, improving teaching, and disseminating information on new practices within a field. While ethical issues arise in any research setting, there are unique considerations in the research of educational activities. The Institutional Review Board (IRB) is designed to review research protocols with the purpose of protecting the safety, privacy, and well-being of research participants. In the case of pedagogical research, educational settings, teaching approaches, and potential vulnerability of the learner population are just a few factors that must be carefully examined in the process of IRB approval. These factors can influence protocol development and the level of IRB review a study will receive. Nevertheless, the IRB should not be considered a barrier but rather a rigorous discourse aimed at conducting both ethical and scientifically sound research in pedagogy. The purpose of this panel is to discuss the IRB process in two distinct research studies on the instructors’ own teaching at MSU, and how the IRB review process helped guide these studies towards providing valuable information on learning outcomes. Dealing with Controversial Issues in the Classroom: Healthcare, Abortion, and “You-Fill-in-the-Blank" Hannah Helmy, Marylou Naumoff, Lisa Lieberman How can we encourage students to have productive conversations about topics for which public discourse is often highly politicized, moralistic, and laden with misinformation and “alternative” facts? In this session, we will explore how to engage students in dialogue about topics such as abortion, the right to healthcare, and personal responsibility for health. In particular, we will draw upon our experiences and those of faculty in the room to discuss effective strategies to address misconceptions, acknowledge personal biases (of both faculty and students), and foster fruitful exchanges of information while being inclusive of the diverse viewpoints our students bring to these conversations. We welcome faculty at any level of experience to join us and share their insights. Supporting Underprepared Writers Laura Field, Elizabeth Martin, Jessica Restaino In late Spring 2016, First Year Writing learned that we would be losing our Introduction to Writing course, which is a course that provides some of our underprepared students with an additional semester of college writing instruction. As a program, we found ourselves faced with a population of students who needed additional support with their writing, but who were matriculated into the traditional WRIT105 College Writing classroom. Our project for the ETF program has been to develop a standard syllabus to guide instructors in our program with best practices. In this roundtable, we will discuss our student populations ongoing needs and will share strategies that we developed to begin to support them. Our hope is that attendees will leave with a better understanding of who these students are and some techniques they can implement in their own writing assignments.
View full slide show