1. 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)

2. My Goals Involve Inform Inspire

3. Outline Background and motivation Pedagogical goals The Classroom Presenter system Why technology and pen-based input help? Activities i llustrating different pedagogical techniques that technology can support Impact on students and instructors Beth Simon to discuss Ubiquitous Presenter

4. Student Attention vs. Time Attention 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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 4 th grade Math

9. Other Deployments UCSC, UMass, Virginia Tech, MIT, etc. Using student submissions UCSD Ubiquitous Presenter Elsewhere Widespread use as a presentation tool

10. Supporting Pedagogical Goals: Breaking the Ice, Engagement

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. Supporting Pedagogical Goals: Feedback to Instructor on Student Understanding

15. Supporting Pedagogical Goals: Active Learning

16. Supporting Pedagogical Goals: Brainstorming, Diversity of Opinions

17. Supporting Pedagogical Goals: Hearing Student Ideas, Closure

18. Unsuccessful Activities

19. 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

20. Observations on Participation 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

21. 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

22. Observations on the 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

23. 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

24. Summary of Pros and Cons of 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

25. 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

26. 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.

27. Your Questions? References: Contact info Richard Anderson (anderson@cs.washington.edu) Valentin Razmov (valentin@cs.washington.edu) 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.