By "research tool" I mean he changes aspects of the course each year based on results from the previous year in order to maximize learning. for example, the reason they did weekly quizzes was because there's research showing that regular practice of concepts helps students learn better rather than having them cram for a midterm. I'm not in Dr. Kim's research lab nor am I an intropsych TA, so I can't speak on the specifics, but that's my impression.

And @starfish how is it any different than professors using course evaluations to change the course curriculum every year? He's just trying to find the best way to teach students the course concepts. It's no different than the physics profs making the second midterm easier or attempting a different teaching strategy after everyone has completely failed the first midterm.

Furthermore, even though you and some others dislike online learning, other people do like being able to pause, rewind, search through lecture content and etc.

and as I said, there are live lectures in term two as well as tutorial slots for BOTH terms, so the course is NOT entirely online.

Originally Posted by ooburii

By "research tool" I mean he changes aspects of the course each year based on results from the previous year in order to maximize learning. for example, the reason they did weekly quizzes was because there's research showing that regular practice of concepts helps students learn better rather than having them cram for a midterm. I'm not in Dr. Kim's research lab nor am I an intropsych TA, so I can't speak on the specifics, but that's my impression.

And @starfish how is it any different than professors using course evaluations to change the course curriculum every year? He's just trying to find the best way to teach students the course concepts. It's no different than the physics profs making the second midterm easier or attempting a different teaching strategy after everyone has completely failed the first midterm.

Furthermore, even though you and some others dislike online learning, other people do like being able to pause, rewind, search through lecture content and etc.

and as I said, there are live lectures in term two as well as tutorial slots for BOTH terms, so the course is NOT entirely online.

It's different for two reasons - the first is that he gets publicity/publications/money for it (conflict of interest) and the second is that he didn't take things as they were and then try to improve them based on feedback, he completely changed the way the course was run and then crossed his fingers, and THEN changed it based on feedback. Notably, he changed it more towards a classroom setting, which is initially what they were trying to get away from.

You brought up a good example, actually - the in-class lectures, which were not a part of the course when I took it. I never had any in-class lectures. We had one "review class" 1 hr per week and one "tutorial class". Neither was helpful in any way, so for all intents and purposes, it was entirely online. Our quizzes were three questions each and they were held in the review class; it was not uncommon to end up with 66% on most of the quizzes, with a few 100% and a few 33%. I am aware that the course has changed and I'm not saying that that's a bad thing. My point is simply that he was experimenting with us without our knowledge or consent, while we were paying to take the course (that was REQUIRED for the majority of students enrolled in it), and my learning suffered because of it.

My biggest issue with online lectures is that the prof is essentially reading a textbook for that time. You end up having to pause and rewind and re-listen a lot because there's so much material packed into such a short time, and they're basically just reading it out to you. In a live lecture, there's a much more natural pace, the prof (usually) isn't reading from a textbook or their slides, there's the opportunity to ask questions and the prof can respond to the class' reactions, adjust the way they're explaining things, etc. You can also digest the information better because of the more natural way in which it is presented.

But no, he's not looking at things like that - what live lectures might bring that is lost in the online format. He's simply looking for a cheap way of running a large course that can get him recognition, and the students pay for it.

Originally Posted by starfish

It's different for two reasons - the first is that he gets publicity/publications/money for it (conflict of interest) and the second is that he didn't take things as they were and then try to improve them based on feedback, he completely changed the way the course was run and then crossed his fingers, and THEN changed it based on feedback. Notably, he changed it more towards a classroom setting, which is initially what they were trying to get away from.

You brought up a good example, actually - the in-class lectures, which were not a part of the course when I took it. I never had any in-class lectures. We had one "review class" 1 hr per week and one "tutorial class". Neither was helpful in any way, so for all intents and purposes, it was entirely online. Our quizzes were three questions each and they were held in the review class; it was not uncommon to end up with 66% on most of the quizzes, with a few 100% and a few 33%. I am aware that the course has changed and I'm not saying that that's a bad thing. My point is simply that he was experimenting with us without our knowledge or consent, while we were paying to take the course (that was REQUIRED for the majority of students enrolled in it), and my learning suffered because of it.

My biggest issue with online lectures is that the prof is essentially reading a textbook for that time. You end up having to pause and rewind and re-listen a lot because there's so much material packed into such a short time, and they're basically just reading it out to you. In a live lecture, there's a much more natural pace, the prof (usually) isn't reading from a textbook or their slides, there's the opportunity to ask questions and the prof can respond to the class' reactions, adjust the way they're explaining things, etc. You can also digest the information better because of the more natural way in which it is presented.

But no, he's not looking at things like that - what live lectures might bring that is lost in the online format. He's simply looking for a cheap way of running a large course that can get him recognition, and the students pay for it.

Dr. Kim does not use Intropsych to publish papers or do "traditional" research. Because he teaches the course, he is trying to optimize learning in it. it's a project that he applies existing research to. As I said, I'm not in his lab, and I'm not an IntroPsych TA, so someone else can clarify. but there's no way he could get ethics clearance if there was a conflict of interest situation.

Furthermore, I don't see any issue with him changing the course structure from year to year. I've been in a number of classes where a prof says "last year this didn't work so I'm going to try x". I can't see how it's any different. My entire program got revamped and new courses were introduced that we were the first generation to take. The courses were changing as we took them and they used our feedback and results to improve them for the next year.

Also, you can't mention only the benefits of live lectures without mentioning the benefits to the online system. It's convenient to be able to "go" to class any time you want rather than having to go to a morning class if you're not a morning person, etc. You can pause, rewind and skip through the lecture. There's an online chat room for you to ask questions and you can talk to the intropsych TAs at any time in the lobby. You can search through the lecture notes on the online system and access supplementary videos, games, and readings related to the content. It's a much more extensive learning experience than a class you attend with 400 of your peers where you just sit through a prof reading through their notes (and to be frank, 80% of my first year profs read off their slides). Furthermore, I've taken many other courses where the prof uses prepared slides provided by the publisher and never even attempts to customize the notes for the class, they just teach the chapters in the book. At least intropsych is customized.

Following your logic, should everyone doing education research stay away from trying to improve how students learn? because god forbid they get any credit for their attempt to do so.

I'm confused. First you said that intro psych is a tool for his research and now you're saying it's not?

My initial comments about the course being research were in response to your post. I didn't know before that that he uses the course for research, though I have seen time and time again him get recognized for his "innovative" and "revolutionary" approach. But now you're saying it's not research...so which is it?

If it's research, then I seriously question the ethics of conducting research on unknowing subjects who have no choice in the matter and who are paying to take a course. You might disagree, and that's fine, but I question it and I also wouldn't like being used in that way, particularly when it ended up having a negative impact on me.

The benefits to an online lecture don't really relate to the ethics of it, which is what my original point was, but you could argue that the benefits you listed aren't actually "benefits" - most jobs don't allow you to work from home whenever you want, you can't pause/rewind/skip life, etc. But again, that's really not the point.

I never said that changing the courses from year to year is a bad thing - in fact, I said the opposite. Completely changing a course to the point where you need to spend 6+ years fixing it is a problem, and that problem is compounded if the course was overhauled for experimental/research purposes.

I think the issue goes well beyond psych, though. Everything seems to be moving towards online courses, and I really don't think that's a good thing. I think the harm outweighs any possible benefits. Obviously a lot of people disagree, but as I said before, I'm really glad I'm getting my education done before it's entirely online.

Originally Posted by starfish

If it's research, then I seriously question the ethics of conducting research on unknowing subjects who have no choice in the matter and who are paying to take a course. You might disagree, and that's fine, but I question it and I also wouldn't like being used in that way, particularly when it ended up having a negative impact on me.

As far as my understanding goes, you can consent at the end of your final exam for Dr Kim to use your anonymous data (your grades and performance in the class) to judge how the class performed given the new learning methods he used or whatever. In no way is this unethical as he is explicitly gaining consent. Plus, ethics is mad detailed, man. You need to disclose that participants might get bored, even.

I'm pretty sure he does not use the Intropsych course to collect data to write up papers. Rather, Dr Kim conducts research on what betters learning separately (those would involve recruiting participants separately) and then uses those results in his Intropsych course. And then he asks for consent to see how the changes affected class performance.

I doubt if there was a shred of something unethical in the setup that he would be allowed to go forward with it. That's just my opinion, though.

ETA: In response to the last bit of your post...I agree. I can't imagine all courses being adapted to online modules. It wouldn't be impossible to carry out, but it would be very, very tiresome, I think. I cannot imagine taking Maths and having it be online. I prefer it to be on the board by hand, thankyouverymuch.

starfish, I hope this doens't just sound like hubris, b.c i really mean it, but what you're saying is integral for future students. Future students will inevitably come up against an online course (or many, or perhaps all) and think to themselves "there is something wrong with me maybe?" "I need to change myself to fit this class" or "I'm not cut out for university" or "I'm not smart".

When really, all along it was something one one or two people just thought University should be. That will be a disaster that is going to happen I think. It makes me sad.




(Honestly, psychology has a very very long history of oppression and violence (i mean symbolic/mental and physical, towards others.))

Originally Posted by starfish

I'm confused. First you said that intro psych is a tool for his research and now you're saying it's not?

My initial comments about the course being research were in response to your post. I didn't know before that that he uses the course for research, though I have seen time and time again him get recognized for his "innovative" and "revolutionary" approach. But now you're saying it's not research...so which is it?

If it's research, then I seriously question the ethics of conducting research on unknowing subjects who have no choice in the matter and who are paying to take a course. You might disagree, and that's fine, but I question it and I also wouldn't like being used in that way, particularly when it ended up having a negative impact on me.

The benefits to an online lecture don't really relate to the ethics of it, which is what my original point was, but you could argue that the benefits you listed aren't actually "benefits" - most jobs don't allow you to work from home whenever you want, you can't pause/rewind/skip life, etc. But again, that's really not the point.

I never said that changing the courses from year to year is a bad thing - in fact, I said the opposite. Completely changing a course to the point where you need to spend 6+ years fixing it is a problem, and that problem is compounded if the course was overhauled for experimental/research purposes.

I think the issue goes well beyond psych, though. Everything seems to be moving towards online courses, and I really don't think that's a good thing. I think the harm outweighs any possible benefits. Obviously a lot of people disagree, but as I said before, I'm really glad I'm getting my education done before it's entirely online.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I meant that it's a research tool for improving the courses THEMSELVES. Not all research = publishing papers. This is research to improve the way the course is taught. As Faer said, there is a TREMENDOUS amount of ethics you have to go through to conduct studies, and a significant portion of that is for conflict of interest situations and situations which might hurt or disadvantage participants, so if he was really conducting work for publication then ethics committee would not have let that pass.

You may have been negatively impacted but other students may have benefited from this format. It's no different than if a course that uses multiple choice tests suddenly changed to essay style tests from one year to another. The change might benefit some and hurt others.

I mentioned benefits of online lectures because you listed the advantages of live lectures and I wanted to show the other side. And so what if the real world doesn't have those features? You could easily argue that there are no midterms or multiple choice tests in the real workplace, so that applies to a variety of aspects of university and isn't relevant.

I think the online lectures would be better with a different narrator. This is not a putdown toward JK, but I am sure they could find someone better with a more appealing voice.

He does have some idiosyncrasies with his speech and pronunciation.

He does not annunciate very clearly and does not have the best elocution.

I think they could employ someone with excellent elocutionand a highly pleasant voice.

I am not saying JK is below average in this area, I just think they should use someone who is above average. Perhaps he could study voice qualities and of narration and how they affect students learning.

Hey ooburii,

"A successful project of MIIETL is their recent work with Dr. Joseph Kim, a professor of psychology, to make the IntroPsych course fully online by next September. To fulfill this goal, the imperative lies in effective research according to Ahmad."

http://www.thesil.ca/miietl-paving-n...ch-initiatives

#rekt