Session 6 (4/12)

Today marks the last session of the module. Went into class with a table that Dr. Quek asked us to do. Realised that even though we were all working on the same data, we had very different tables. There are so many details to take note of when presenting our tables. Worse still, many of the papers and journals did not even adhere to the same convention.

We were then told to get into our groups and asked to complete a template. As usual, we split up the work and worked on our own portions. As this was going to be a paper, we needed to, horror horror, make sure that we adhere to APA guidelines. Realised that I still had difficulties with citing online resources, especially when the name of the author(s) is not explicitly mentioned.

After we have submitted our group reports, we were told to do peer review of our course-mates' blogs. My group's understanding is that we should be nuturing and award at least 7 marks per category for the rubric. To my surprise, one group decided to judge our blogs based on their guidelines and I was given only 17/30 while another course-mate only managed to get 9/30. It was no surprise that two of the highest scorers in the class came from this group. I was not angry, but just curious as to which category I fared the worst in. I guess they probably missed the fact that I have one less entry than the rest of the class as I only joined the class from the second session onwards. Wanted to clarify but decided not to. I guess what mattered more to me was that I enjoyed and benefited from the process of blogging, so I should not be too fixated about the score that I got. =)

Just before we ended the session, we were asked to submit an individual reflection. Just completed and emailed to Dr. Quek. I must say that the questions were very thought-provoking and really elicited reflections about my learning for the past two weeks or so. Even though this module did not require me to digest huge stacks of reading and organise them into a paper, I found that I have actually not learnt anything less. In fact, I learnt hands-on how to work on my very own classroom and I am very excited to share my knowledge with my colleagues.

To end, I must say that whatever doubts I have about this module not been relevant to the GE stream have all been long banished, for as Dr. Quek puts it, the learning environment transcends all streams, all dimensions, all domains and all subjects. How apt.

Sesson 5 (2/12)

Time flies and it's down to the second last session. Dr. Quek started the lesson by reviewing what we have learnt in the module so far, which also served as the context for the topic that she was going to talk about.

She showed us a research involving the impact of the use of Classroom Performance Systems in the class done by a beginning researcher and based on the information given, I found it difficult to see the alignment between the rationale, objectives and the research questions of the study. Dr. Quek clarified that the researcher was an amateur and that he had since amended his study. She added that she will pass us a copy of a paper presented by Dr. Sue Trinidad. Furthermore, when we embark on any study, we must first craft the research questions first (which usually takes months), and we must know we can measure the outcomes.

Next, she highlighted that when we are modifying an instrument, we can actually just pick up the relevant scales and not use all the scales in it. Furthermore, we can also combine scales found in different instruments. One example that she showed us was a study done using scales from the WIHIC as well as a scale called material support, which was not from WIHIC. However, she cautioned us that the instruments used must be validated, reliable, adhere to Moos' theoretical framework before we can combine the scales from them. Furthermore, we need to be careful not to combine QTI with the other instruments we have learnt so far, as QTI measures teacher-student interactions.

Karen clarified with Dr. Quek about how we will know how well an instrument measures something, to which Dr. Quek said that the alpha reliability must generally be greater or equals to 0.70. However, she added that if the alpha reliability goes beyond 0.95, then it may be "too good to be true". Piqued by the alpha reliability, I did a Google search and found two websites which seemed to explain it quite well. They are:

http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/Spss/faq/alpha.html
http://www.jalt.org/test/bro_13.htm

From the first website, I also found that we can compute the alpha reliability using the following formula
However, even though an example was given, the explicit calculations to obtain the alpha relaibility were not shown.

As promised, Dr. Quek passed us each a copy of Dr. Sue Trinidad's paper. We were asked to:

• read and identify the gaps found in the dimensions of the classroom



• discuss the improvements made



• evaluate if the gaps and improvements were effectively addressed

However, there were some alignment issues with the printed copy so I went online to find the paper and uploaded the correct version to the Lesson Box. The file was downloaded from http://www.aare.edu.au/05pap/tri05058.pdf.

Even though the write-up was relatively long, it was surprising readable. It also helped that I had three very enthusiastic group mates to chew over and digest the information. However, Dr. Trinidad seemed to use the term Computers in Education and Computers in Teaching interchangeably, which was a huge source of confusion for us. In addition, we had difficulty trying to pick up the information required. When we were done with our group report, Dr. Quek introduced another useful tool, Google Docs, to us. We were asked to create a powerpoint presentation and share it with the rest of the class. In no time, I have gained access to all the other three groups' work! Everything is stored online and I can even see who has modified which document. More importantly, it's free! Power!

We were next introduced to the paired-sample t-test. Even though I had learnt this way back in JC as well as in MED871 and MED872, I struggled when my classmates asked me about it. It seems that most of my classmates did not know this test at all. I guess the greatest test of whether you know something or not is to see if you are able to explain it convincingly to people who do not know it at all. I did a search and found the following:

Statistics Glossary
An example of how the test is used
Degrees of freedom

I guess I really have to re-familiarize myself with my statistics if I want to embark on any research then.

After lunch, we were given WIHIC (both the preferred and actual forms) to do. We then compiled our results in a template given by Dr. Quek, first in our group and then as a class. As the template had provisions for more items in a given scale then were present in our survey forms, we deleted the additional columns, not realising that the formula would be affected. Yuen Han pointed that out later on and as a result, my group had to use the results compiled by them instead. Important lesson learnt!

After we have compiled our results using EXCEL, we copied them into SPSS. The original version installed on our desktops was 15.0, but we realised that the license has already expired. All our hard work went down the drain as we could not even save anything. Luckily, a helpful technician was on-hand to help us install version 16.0 and before long, we were up and running. I think this incident really reinforced Dr. Quek's point about having lessons in NIE instead of Teachers' Network, as resources and infrastructure are much better over at the former, even though Easterner me still thinks NIE is too far!

Anyway, we realised that there were some bugs with SPSS and we had to manually overwrite them. We then churned out the results and exported them to html form, so that we can view them from any web browser without the need for SPSS. My group churned out a total of 12 files (one for each scale, actual preferred, and one for the paired-sample t-test). When I saw what Yuen Han's group has done, I realised that you can actually combine the reports into one neat little html file! Another lesson learnt! Should always play around with the different functions.

After we were done exporting the results, Dr. Quek gave us some homework to do. We needed to extract the results from the reports and compile them into a table. Always nuturing and kind, she added that we can always compare our tables in the next lesson to see if we have done anything wrong. I guess that was really reassuring for me as well as for many of my classmates, who also struggled with SPSS.

P.S: SPSS stands for Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, and the current version is 17.0!

Before we ended the lesson, Dr. Quek reminded us that Thursday will be our last session and we will need to submit a report on that day too. It really seems like yesterday when I barged into the class not understanding a single thing. I really must thank Dr. Quek and my wonderful classmates for helping me catch up. Nice people do exist! I hope all of us will do well for the module. =)

Session 4 (28/11) continued

We headed back to our cosy laboratory after attending the paper sharing sessions.

We got into our groups and were given a case study each to work on, where we had to identify the issues in the given school and eventually decide whether to send our child to that school if given a choice. I thought it was interesting to see things from a parent's perspective, and it certainly brings to question what we value in an education, what we perceive as an ideal learning environment.

On another note, in one of the case studies, it was mentioned that 50% of the teachers in the school had been with the school for more than 20 years. Dr. Quek has always advised us not to stay put in one school for too long as we may grow too comfortable there and resist change. Indeed, I have learnt in another module that we only learn best when we are the edge of competence. However, how long is considered too long? Piqued by this and as brought up by Dr. Quek in class, I did a search on Wubbels and it turned out that Wubbels had indeed done a study and found that:

• Beginning teachers do manage to adopt greater dominant behavior, and this increases for the first 6-10 years of their careers. They gradually feel more secure in the classroom, and exhibit increasing control over the proceedings. After the 10th year, things begin to level out in terms of dominance, though the teacher's cooperative behavior begins to decrease at this point.


• Overall, then, teacher-student relationships steadily improve during the first 6-10 years of a teacher's career, leading to greater student achievement and more positive attitudes. Soon after, however, a change occurs that is both welcome and unwelcome. Teachers appear to decline in cooperation and increase in opposition, a change that negatively affects student attitudes. They also become more strict, however, and this can heighten student achievement.

(Source: Retrieved 29 November 2008 from http://pdonline.ascd.org/pd_online/classmanage/el199704_wubbels.html.)

While running through the search results, I also found this link (http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=KhMAYVDnXboC&pg=PA103&lpg=PA103&dq=wubbels+10+years&source=web&ots=wZX8lMD96a&sig=Z5HIZqEvfUkDsOi6QwKGWwILDFA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result) to be quite interesting. One significant result included here, in my humble opinion, is that a study found no clear evidence of effects of the SOL program on teachers' (who have been teaching between 1 and 10 years) reflective attitude and inclination towards motivation.

All these certainly leads me to think more about my very own teaching career, and how I should always be careful not to rest on my laurels.

P.S: Really looking forward to the next lessons, where Dr. Quek promised more hands-on action and an opportunity to try out SPSS.