The on-line management of pests: discussion forums as a learning/teaching tool
Dr Mike Keller
Applied and Molecular Ecology
Description | Aims | Process | Evaluation | Contact
Description
Integrated Pest Management is a subject designed to provide a comprehensive introduction to the various means of managing insects, plant diseases and weeds in agro-ecosystems. The subject is taught using lectures delivered via video conferencing and with laboratory practicals. In 1998 we trialled a Lotus Notes assisted discussion forum to enhance our subject delivery. A web site was constructed which provided access to general announcements, questions and answers about the lectures and practicals, as well as the discussion forum. Participants can log on at any time, and follow a hierarchical series of contributions on a topic of interest. Discussions can follow saved paths and debate of a particular point can be picked up even after others have moved on to other areas.
We envisaged that using the medium of the on-line discussion forum we could generate student interest and interaction, and encourage students to think about their topics in greater depth.
Aims
1. Encourage student participation in learning, especially the development of informed opinions.
- 2. Encourage unstructured research on a broad practical topic.
3. Provide opportunity for written expression.
4. Provide opportunity for interactions with peers in a relaxed environment.
Process
At the start of the semester students were given instruction on how to use (1) the World Wide Web, (2) the discussion site, and (3) email. Instructions for the discussion site were given to them in printed form and were available on-line at http://www.waite.adelaide.edu.au/Teaching/IPM.
To get the ball rolling we posed a controversial question for the students to discuss on-line : "Would it be possible to eliminate synthetic pesticides from agricultural systems?".
We began with a brain-storming session in which students identified aspects of the problem. This session was designed to be question driven rather than informational, and lasted about 1 hour.
Each student agreed to address one particular aspect of the problem, but all were free to comment on any part of the discussion. They then read the relevant literature and developed an informed position. It was stressed that contributions should be supported by references wherever possible, so that the debate should include personal opinion and objective supporting material.
Students were given three weeks to participate (excluding two weeks of mid-semester break). This was extended by two weeks at the request of the students.
The lecturer did not contribute to the discussion except to correct factual mistakes. The reason for this was to allow students to interact without heavy-handed interference.
Assessment issues
The main points to be considered in assessment were:* Marking should be easily understood.
* Marks should reflect how well the students achieved the aims of the assignment.
* Feedback should be given to students on their intellectual performances as well as the quality of their writing
The most difficult element of the assessment procedure was to devise a method that rewarded optimal participation. The assessment needed to take into account not only the quality of a contribution, but the number of contributions. Additionally, it needed to reflect the responsiveness of the contributions to the on-line discussion, otherwise there was the risk of encouraging a series of insular short essays.
In the final assessment system students were marked on each contribution and the maximum score for each of the following criteria was awarded. By grading on the maximum score obtained the assessment procedure was weighted in favour of students who contributed more postings.
Criteria: Maximum for all entries
* Overall contribution of new information that is relevant to the subject
* Analysis, synthesis and critical thinking
* Responsiveness to other contributors
* Supporting references
In addition to marking the entries, constructive comments were given to explain how marks were evaluated and to suggest improvements. I give a single mark which is the maximum score in each category across all contributions. This gives students an incentive to make extra contributions as they can potentially improve marks each time they join the discussion. Also, there is not necessarily a need to address all criteria in every contribution. I return marks by electronic mail and they are confidential.
Evaluation
An evaluation of the students' feelings and behaviours was undertaken at the completion of the subject. The evaluation aimed to discover how and when the students responded to the on-line discussion, and their impressions of the learning value of the initiative. As a result of this evaluation and the observations of the lecturer, the following problems were uncovered:
Firstly, there was poor participation at the start with a flood of contributions just before the deadline. This exacerbated the already low level of debate/interaction.
Some contributions were virtually stand-alone essays, which inhibited debate.
For the lecturer the main problems were the amount of time required for a class of 70 students, working out what level of intervention was appropriate, and designing appropriate assessment tasks.
Lessons Learned
The following points summarise the lessons learned from this presentation of the subject:
* It is best to choose challenging questions, especially questions that are open-ended and topical. The nature of the topic under discussion is crucial to its educational value. Those problems that involved public debate or that had no clear solution and had accessible resources and references stimulated the best discussion.
* Online discussions seem to work best when they are integrated with other face-to-face activities.
* Many students needed guidance and my students found a series of brief tips on the website, as well as printed material, very helpful.
* Serial deadlines encourage timely discussion and avoids the 'rush at the end'. It also allows students to progressively improve their work as they read and compare other contributions.
* It is very important to provide timely, confidential feedback.
* Organising students into smaller groups helps the process. 70 postings was too many for the students to read.
A more detailed paper is available.
Contact
Dr Mike Keller can be contacted on:
Tel: +61 8 8303 7263,
Fax: +61 8 8303 4095
E-mail: mkeller@waite.adelaide.edu.au
Web: http://www.waite.adelaide.edu.au/~mkeller/IB.html (link inactive 25/2/04)
Adelaide University, Australia 5005
last updated 17/01/00
