Top Banner
Promoting Interaction in Large Classes with Computer-Mediated Feedback Richard Anderson, Ruth Anderson, Tammy VanDeGrift, Steven Wolfman, Ken Yasuhara ttp://www.cs.washington.edu/research/edtech/
22

Promoting Interaction in Large Classes with Computer-Mediated Feedback Richard Anderson, Ruth Anderson, Tammy VanDeGrift, Steven Wolfman, Ken Yasuhara.

Dec 19, 2015

Download

Documents

Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Promoting Interaction in Large Classes with Computer-Mediated Feedback Richard Anderson, Ruth Anderson, Tammy VanDeGrift, Steven Wolfman, Ken Yasuhara.

Promoting Interaction in Large Classes with Computer-Mediated

Feedback

Richard Anderson, Ruth Anderson, Tammy VanDeGrift,

Steven Wolfman, Ken Yasuhara

http://www.cs.washington.edu/research/edtech/

Page 2: Promoting Interaction in Large Classes with Computer-Mediated Feedback Richard Anderson, Ruth Anderson, Tammy VanDeGrift, Steven Wolfman, Ken Yasuhara.

t

Classroom Presenter

Tablet PC-based presentation system– integrates writing on computer-projected slides– separates instructor’s view of presentation

from class view– basis for classroom technology research

Page 3: Promoting Interaction in Large Classes with Computer-Mediated Feedback Richard Anderson, Ruth Anderson, Tammy VanDeGrift, Steven Wolfman, Ken Yasuhara.

t

Context

• University level

• Focus on large classes (> 50 students)

• Computer Science and Informatics

Page 4: Promoting Interaction in Large Classes with Computer-Mediated Feedback Richard Anderson, Ruth Anderson, Tammy VanDeGrift, Steven Wolfman, Ken Yasuhara.

t

Modern Pedagogy vs. Modern Practice

active learning

participatory

interactive

student-directed

lecture

instructor-dominated

passive

disconnected

Page 5: Promoting Interaction in Large Classes with Computer-Mediated Feedback Richard Anderson, Ruth Anderson, Tammy VanDeGrift, Steven Wolfman, Ken Yasuhara.

In the context of current university practice, how can a technological intervention promote interaction in the

classroom?

Page 6: Promoting Interaction in Large Classes with Computer-Mediated Feedback Richard Anderson, Ruth Anderson, Tammy VanDeGrift, Steven Wolfman, Ken Yasuhara.

t

Design Process

1. Discover what inhibits interaction

2. Understand what makes a good design

3. Design intervention

4. Evaluate

Page 7: Promoting Interaction in Large Classes with Computer-Mediated Feedback Richard Anderson, Ruth Anderson, Tammy VanDeGrift, Steven Wolfman, Ken Yasuhara.

t

Inhibiting Factors

Through participant observation, pilot studies, and literature search, identified:– Student apprehension

– Feedback lag

– Single-speaker paradigm

Page 8: Promoting Interaction in Large Classes with Computer-Mediated Feedback Richard Anderson, Ruth Anderson, Tammy VanDeGrift, Steven Wolfman, Ken Yasuhara.

t

Design Goals

• Address inhibiting factors

• Support student-initiated interaction

• Scale to large classes

• Impose low cognitive load

• Exploit existing classroom structures

Page 9: Promoting Interaction in Large Classes with Computer-Mediated Feedback Richard Anderson, Ruth Anderson, Tammy VanDeGrift, Steven Wolfman, Ken Yasuhara.

t

Slides as a Mediating Artifact

Page 10: Promoting Interaction in Large Classes with Computer-Mediated Feedback Richard Anderson, Ruth Anderson, Tammy VanDeGrift, Steven Wolfman, Ken Yasuhara.

t

Slides as a Mediating Artifact

• In the classroom:– facilitates communication– structures discussion

• Outside the classroom:– used as memory aid– used as study guide

• Across terms– reifies of course knowledge

Page 11: Promoting Interaction in Large Classes with Computer-Mediated Feedback Richard Anderson, Ruth Anderson, Tammy VanDeGrift, Steven Wolfman, Ken Yasuhara.

t

Designed System:Classroom Feedback System (CFS)

Page 12: Promoting Interaction in Large Classes with Computer-Mediated Feedback Richard Anderson, Ruth Anderson, Tammy VanDeGrift, Steven Wolfman, Ken Yasuhara.

t• A class’ full name includes its package.

– for example, java.util.ArrayList or java.lang.String

• Often it is more convenient to use the class name without the package, e.g., ArrayList, String

• The import statement tells the compiler where to find class definitions that don't have a complete package name and aren't in the current package– Classes can be imported individually, or all classes in a

package can be imported– java.lang.* is imported automatically by the compiler– is not like #include in C/C++

import statement

Page 13: Promoting Interaction in Large Classes with Computer-Mediated Feedback Richard Anderson, Ruth Anderson, Tammy VanDeGrift, Steven Wolfman, Ken Yasuhara.

• A class’ full name includes its package.» for example, java.util.ArrayList or java.lang.String

• Often it is more convenient to use the class name without the package, e.g., ArrayList, String

• The import statement tells the compiler where to find class definitions that don't have a complete package name and aren't in the current package» Classes can be imported individually, or all classes in a

package can be imported

» java.lang.* is imported automatically by the compiler

» is not like #include in C/C++

import statement

Page 14: Promoting Interaction in Large Classes with Computer-Mediated Feedback Richard Anderson, Ruth Anderson, Tammy VanDeGrift, Steven Wolfman, Ken Yasuhara.

t

Summer 2002 study:Example slide from lecture on Java packages

Page 15: Promoting Interaction in Large Classes with Computer-Mediated Feedback Richard Anderson, Ruth Anderson, Tammy VanDeGrift, Steven Wolfman, Ken Yasuhara.

t

Page 16: Promoting Interaction in Large Classes with Computer-Mediated Feedback Richard Anderson, Ruth Anderson, Tammy VanDeGrift, Steven Wolfman, Ken Yasuhara.

t

Page 17: Promoting Interaction in Large Classes with Computer-Mediated Feedback Richard Anderson, Ruth Anderson, Tammy VanDeGrift, Steven Wolfman, Ken Yasuhara.

t

Evaluation

Intro. programming course, summer 2002:– 150 students total– 12 with laptops– 9 week course, 3 weeks with CFS

Data: observations, surveys, focus groups, interview w/instructor, electronic logs

Page 18: Promoting Interaction in Large Classes with Computer-Mediated Feedback Richard Anderson, Ruth Anderson, Tammy VanDeGrift, Steven Wolfman, Ken Yasuhara.

t

CFS increased classroom interaction

Spoken interaction pre-CFS

Spoken interaction with CFS

Total interactions with CFS

Total w/out “Got it”

# per class 2.4 2.6 15.9 7.9

p-value .91 .04 .14

Page 19: Promoting Interaction in Large Classes with Computer-Mediated Feedback Richard Anderson, Ruth Anderson, Tammy VanDeGrift, Steven Wolfman, Ken Yasuhara.

t

Contributions

• Slide context as medium for interaction

• Designed system

• Evidence of available student feedback

• Successful “round-trip” interactions

• Novel interaction patterns for computer-mediated communication [Anderson et al., CHI 2003]

Page 20: Promoting Interaction in Large Classes with Computer-Mediated Feedback Richard Anderson, Ruth Anderson, Tammy VanDeGrift, Steven Wolfman, Ken Yasuhara.

t

Future Work

• Broader study/deployment

• Support for instructor-planned interaction

• Archival use of feedback

• Support complex feedback

• Scale to more participation

Page 21: Promoting Interaction in Large Classes with Computer-Mediated Feedback Richard Anderson, Ruth Anderson, Tammy VanDeGrift, Steven Wolfman, Ken Yasuhara.

t

Related Work

• ActiveClass [Griswold, CSCL 2003]

• WILD [Roschelle and Pea, CSCL 2002]

• ClassTalk [Dufresne et al., 2000]

• Active learning [Bonwell and Eison, 1991]

• “CATs” [Angelo and Cross, 1993]

Page 22: Promoting Interaction in Large Classes with Computer-Mediated Feedback Richard Anderson, Ruth Anderson, Tammy VanDeGrift, Steven Wolfman, Ken Yasuhara.

t

Acknowledgments

• UW CSE Education & Educational Technology Research Group

• MSR Learning Sciences & Technologies

• Students and instructors from the study

http://www.cs.washington.edu/research/edtech/