Dannecker, Achim
Lade...
E-Mail-Adresse
Geburtsdatum
Projekt
Organisationseinheiten
Berufsbeschreibung
Nachname
Dannecker
Vorname
Achim
Name
Dannecker, Achim
3 Ergebnisse
Suchergebnisse
Gerade angezeigt 1 - 3 von 3
- PublikationStudents struggle in coming back to face-2-face teaching in evidence based good teaching settings(IATED, 2023) Dannecker, Achim; Hanke, Ulrike; Gómez Chova, Luis; González Martínez, Chelo; Lees, Joanna [in: INTED2023. Conference proceedings. Sharing the passion for learning]Triggered by the Corona pandemic and the experience gained with online teaching as a result, questions are increasingly being asked today about the extent to which online teaching should continue to play a role in university teaching in the future. This raises the question of what actually characterizes good university teaching and which teaching formats enable good university teaching. Therefore, in this paper we would like to compile the research results from teaching-learning research regarding the quality of university teaching and from this compile overarching criteria of evidence-based good university teaching. Based on this, we would like to take a look at the research on the effectiveness of online teaching. Our thesis is that online teaching per se has no higher or lower effectiveness than face-to-face teaching, but rather that the quality of teaching formats is ensured by the implementation of the criteria of good teaching, which goes in different teaching formats. This leads to the hypothesis that university teaching can be effective and good in any teaching format if these criteria are taken into account.04B - Beitrag Konferenzschrift
- PublikationStudents struggle in coming back to face-2-face teaching in evidence based good teaching settings(IATED, 2023) Dannecker, Achim; Hanke, Ulrike; Gómez Chova, Luis; González Martínez, Chelo; Lees, Joanna [in: INTED2023 Proceedings]Triggered by the Corona pandemic and the experience gained with online teaching as a result, questions are increasingly being asked today about the extent to which online teaching should continue to play a role in university teaching in the future. This raises the question of what actually characterizes good university teaching and which teaching formats enable good university teaching. Therefore, in this paper we would like to compile the research results from teaching-learning research regarding the quality of university teaching and from this compile overarching criteria of evidence-based good university teaching. Based on this, we would like to take a look at the research on the effectiveness of online teaching. Our thesis is that online teaching per se has no higher or lower effectiveness than face-to-face teaching, but rather that the quality of teaching formats is ensured by the implementation of the criteria of good teaching, which goes in different teaching formats. This leads to the hypothesis that university teaching can be effective and good in any teaching format if these criteria are taken into account. In order to test this hypothesis practically in a study of our own, a face-to-face course designed on the basis of findings about evidence-based good teaching was converted to a purely online format from one day to another. The switch from face-to-face to pure online was made without adapting the course materials or the didactic concept in the core. In this way, the evaluation results of both teaching formats could be directly compared. In addition, the evaluation results of these events were also compared with the evaluation results of all other events at the university in order to determine whether events that take evidence-based criteria of good teaching into account are really evaluated better. Finally, we switched in spring semester 2022 back to face-2-face teaching, again without any changes. What is good teaching anyway? How can we measure what good teaching is? Like many studies, including Ulrich (2020), we would like to define good teaching here: (1) as teaching that is well evaluated by students and (2) as teaching that is conducive to learning. Thus, in the first case, student evaluation results are used to elaborate criteria for good teaching; in the second case, learning success using grades or scores on achievement tests are used as variables for good teaching. To elaborate evidence-based criteria for good teaching, we consulted the syntheses of Schneider and Preckel (2017), of Ulrich (2020), and of Schneider and Mustafic (2015) and use the criteria of good teaching reported there. These have been compiled by the respective authors from meta-analyses. In total the evaluation of four semesters (approx. 800 students) pre COVID19 and three semesters (approx. 600 students) during COVID19 are compared and last post COVID19 the first semester (approx. 200 students). As a first outlook it can be said that the satisfaction during COVID19 remained as good as before, the learning success was slightly lower. Compared to all other courses, the gap became larger in the first semester, but this leveled out somewhat over the three semesters. To an overall higher rating. In the post COVID19 semester this changed. The evaluation became a bit worse as well as the evaluation.04B - Beitrag Konferenzschrift
- PublikationAutomation of Kahoot! by the humanoid robot Pepper – Comparing results from classes – Robot vs. lecturers(2023) Dannecker, Achim; Hertig, Daniel; Gómez Chova, Luis; González Martínez, Chelo; Lees, Joanna [in: INTED2023 Proceedings]Digitization is taking place unchallenged in all areas of life. The accompanying automation is an integral part of this development. This development does not stop in the "classroom" either. Be it that the use of mobile devices is increasingly becoming part of the interaction with students, be it that online offers such as Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) are increasingly used in the context of education or video conferencing systems for teaching such as Adobe Connect. In the future, it would also be conceivable for robots to take over parts of the interaction in the classroom. To check the students' knowledge level or for repetition purposes, there is the possibility to conduct quizzes via Moodle or other platforms. These quizzes are rather traditional and not particularly stimulating, so that there is no great incentive for students to take them unless learning points or similar are awarded. Not everywhere are these types of quizzes used in the classroom. Game-based learning platforms like Kahoot! are finding more and more use in teaching. The quizzes that can be conducted via the Kahoot! web service are more exciting and entertaining for students than those that are possible via Moodle, for example. By conducting quizzes via the web service Kahoot!, they can be made more exciting and entertaining for the students, since, for example, the results after each question are visible to everyone, thus adding a competitive and playful aspect. Nevertheless, if game-based learning platforms such as Kahoot! are used, the quiz progress is generally not commented, but rather "worked through". We have implemented a service that enables the humanoid robot Pepper to do a Kahoot! quiz in class. The service enables Pepper to conduct quizzes independently and with commentary possibilities. Unlike a simple PC, Pepper can use gestures and interactions such as eye contact and changing colors to make the interaction more "human" and emotional. The inclusion of Pepper as the moderator of the quiz might increase its appeal to students and an additional innovative aspect will be added to the quiz. By using the robot, lecturers can be relieved and quizzes that have already been prepared can be conducted without much effort even by people who are not familiar with the subject or inexperienced. The robot is able to keep track of the complete course of the quiz at any time and to comment on it (e.g. now on the first place is…). The execution by "Pepper" would generally have five special aspects: 1. students are given an outlook into the future social interaction of robots and humans. 2. the course of the quiz can be commented by a robot. 3. the quiz can be conducted independently of lecturers. 4. students can experience social interaction with robots themselves and use this experience for the future. We have done several quizzes in different classes with 89 students that experiences Pepper as a moderator and 317 students that experienced lecturers as a moderator. In both settings the students got the same preparation tasks and the same questions within Kahoot! As an outlook it can be seen that the results in both settings a similar in the range of correct answers, time the students need to answer the questions and average of final results.04B - Beitrag Konferenzschrift