Complete thesis - Murdoch University

Student example mind maps is shown as Figures 6.3 and 6.4. These examples (neither bestnor worst) from early in the semester demonstrate students’ ability to come to grips withthe technique – the central idea of a topic is identified, and other concepts radiate fromthis point. These become a component of the learner’s portfolio for the unit, but must beavailable for validation by the teacher at any workshop session, and act as an indicator ofconceptual understanding throughout the unit.Students are also able to monitor their own conceptual understanding through the MCQenvironment. In ENG260, the MCQ 2 is primarily a diagnostic/formative evaluation tool.The students are not mandated to attempt the tests, but a (slight) incentive is provided inthat a few of the questions (20 from a databank of over 500) are included in the final exam.The session continues with students undertaking tasks set for each topic, describing solutionsand issues in achieving these. The class is very interactive – students are expected to havecompleted and logged the reading required, produced mind maps and attempted the tasksbefore the workshop session. The trigger for most discussion, other than the initial topicsummary, is initiated by the student: asking for a task to be worked through, providing asample solution for the class to critique, raising conceptual problems, asking for clarification,etc. The aim is to minimise teaching, while maximising learning.Formal assessment is based on two assignments and an exam as well as a portfolio completedover the semester.The first assignment (worth 10% of the total marks), tackled individually, had as its outcomedemonstration of application of the components of a (simplified) Requirements Specification.Students developed Scope statements, Context and Use Case Diagrams, Sequence Diagrams,State Transition Diagrams etc, each ‘stand-alone’ in terms of context. Feedback also focussedon appropriate use of notation, tools, and process to develop these.The second assignment (worth 15%) required the same artefacts, now placed in the contextof a problem in some domain. A cohesive (still simplified) Requirements Specification wasthe deliverable. This task was team-based, and included the requirement for a critique of thedevelopment process and the group dynamics. In general this assignment acted as an ‘eyeopener’:the need to negotiate with team members, explore alternatives and resolve conflict,co-ordinate tasks and produce a deliverable that had a unified look-and-feel, taxed students.The exam (worth 60% of the total marks) attempted to address all levels of Bloom’s taxonomy:the lowest three levels may be considered as foundational thinking (Ryan and Frangenheim,2000), used as a basis for higher learning levels. A multiple choice section (extractedfrom the MCQ environment) addressed knowledge and asked for definitions, specific facts,2 Described in Appendix A254