View
216
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
April 06, 2006 WIPTE 2006, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
Classroom Presenter –A Classroom Interaction System for Active and Collaborative Learning
Richard Anderson (UW), Ruth Anderson (UVa),
Oliver Chung (UW), K. M. Davis (UW),Peter Davis (UW), Craig Prince (UW),Valentin Razmov (UW), Beth Simon
(UCSD)
Outline Background and motivation
Pedagogical goals
The Classroom Presenter system
Why technology and pen-based input help?
Activities illustrating different pedagogical techniques that technology can support
Impact on students and instructors
Beth Simon to discuss Ubiquitous Presenter
Pedagogical Goals Active student involvement and
interaction in class Learning by doing
Real-time feedback to instructor on the level of student understanding To allow adjustment of material or speed
Give students a stake in their learning Integrate student examples into the
classroom discussion Acknowledge the contribution of diverse
viewpoints
Background:Classroom Presenter
Distributed classroom interaction system Built for use with Tablet PCs
Two main classroom usage scenarios: Presentation tool – instructors annotate slides
in ink (and save it), or use as a virtual whiteboard
Engagement tool – instructors pose problems (on slides) that students respond to by writing on slides and submitting this work anonymously
Classroom Presenter is freely available for educational purposes
Classroom Deployments
Classroom setup: Computer Science
undergraduate courses at Univ. of Washington
15-30 Tablet PCs used Instructor supplied
tablets Wireless environment Public display
Courses in: Software Engineering Digital Design Data Structures Algorithms Tablet PC Computing
Capstone CS Education
Seminar 4th grade Math
Other Deployments UCSC, UMass, Virginia Tech, MIT,
etc. Using student submissions
UCSD Ubiquitous Presenter
Elsewhere Widespread use as a presentation
tool
Why the Technology Is Key Gives instructor instant access to content
from a broad range of students … not just from the few vocal students Increases instructor’s awareness of student ideas
Enables instructor to immediately integrate student content into the lecture discussion Using actual examples of student work improves
feedback Gives students a stake in constructing new
knowledge Public display becomes a medium for sharing ideas
Doing all this anonymously
Why Pen-Based Input Is Key
Flexibility Some disciplines and some activities
naturally need the ability to sketch in free form
Architecture, Math, East Asian Languages, etc. Difficult to support without a pen-based input
device
Personal expressiveness Individual handwriting conveys more than
typed text does
Supporting Pedagogical Goals:Discovery, Eliciting Misconceptions
Deception can be present Ah-ha moments
“I have never understood this before – but it is obvious”
Important to have all students work on the example
Distinguishing Aspects from Related Work Anonymity of student work
Classroom Presenter is designed strictly for feedback in class, not for evaluation
Student submissions In ink: a rich free-form expression Non-aggregated Instructor mediates which student
submissions the class can see Critical role of the public display
Strong emphasis on UI simplicity
Observations onParticipation Rates and Behavior
Observations based (primarily) on data taken from two of the latest courses
Percentage of students present who submitted their work Min: 11%; Max: 100%; Average: 69% Note: Participation is optional!
Some students would do the work without submitting
Resubmissions (with enhancements) are common
Observations on Display-Related Behavior
On average, 6.15 student submissions were displayed per activity Min: 1; Max: 18
Common pattern: show and discuss 1-2 submissions for most of the time, and quickly show the others
Observations onthe Role of Anonymity
Student work was shown on the public display without any identification
Limited information about each submission is provided on the instructor machine
Anonymous display was valued by the students
Some students still believed that the instructor could identify their work
Tagging behavior was commonly observed Students felt gratified to see their submissions
put up
Impact of the Technology On instructors:
Works best for instructors with interactive styles Shift in teaching paradigm:
First define the learning goals Then, decide how to assess if those goals are
achieved Finally, design the necessary activities / content
Challenge of creating activities that are supportive of learning and also can be easily evaluated on the spot (i.e., have low cognitive load)
Wireless in the classroom: ad hoc networking works well (for us)
On students: Observed high rates of participation, ample
classroom discussion => engagement Distraction is possible and does occur Assessing learning outcomes is future work
Summary of Pros and Consof the Technology
Advantages: Lecture capture Material re-use Artifact review Automatic analysis Data mining Enabling distance
education Improved
projection
Disadvantages: Distraction Desk real estate Cost Equity
Conclusions Existing technology can:
Help promote student engagement and openness to diversity of ideas
Enable instructors to quickly gather and give feedback in class
Results apply across subjects and disciplines
Invitation We are interested in finding
additional deployments of Classroom Presenter Especially in disciplines beyond
Computer Science, and at a range of institution types
If interested, contact us.
Your Questions?References: Contact info
Richard Anderson ([email protected]) Valentin Razmov ([email protected])
Classroom Presenter-related Downloads: http://www.cs.washington.edu/education/dl/presenter/ Papers:
http://www.cs.washington.edu/education/dl/presenter/papers.html
Acknowledgements: HP Classroom Presenter is built on top of the
ConferenceXP research platform. This work was supported in part by grants from External Research and Programs, Microsoft Research.