Promoting Interaction in Large Classes with Computer-Mediated Feedback Richard Anderson, Ruth Anderson, Tammy VanDeGrift, Steven Wolfman, Ken Yasuhara Story of a technological intervention in collocated university classrooms. BUT FIRST… What am I presenting with?

 t Classroom Presenter These two points are key for us. Used as the basis for the system I will be describing today. 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

 t Context University level Focus on large classes (> 50 students) Computer Science and Informatics

 t Modern Pedagogy vs. Modern Practice Opportunity for audience participation? WARNING: overgeneralization, but borne out by research active learning participatory interactive student-directed lecture instructor-dominated passive disconnected ~80-90% lectures Thielens, 1987 Our approach: use tech. intervention to help instructors transition from current practice to more interactive classes.

In the context of current university practice, how can a technological intervention promote interaction in the classroom? Instr. Dev. Principle: Compatibility: the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent with existing values, past experiences and needs of potential adopters.

 t Design Process 1.Discover what inhibits interaction 2.Understand what makes a good design 3.Design intervention 4.Evaluate PIPE DREAM! Iterative process: in particular, Ann Brown’s “design experiment” style Still, will address the steps in this order.

 t Inhibiting Factors Through participant observation, pilot studies, and literature search, identified: –Student apprehension –Feedback lag –Single-speaker paradigm Pilot: many (6/12) apprehensive Pilot: sense of lag in discussions; (2/6 paper) Communication literature + Pilot (3/12) Use audience to demonstrate!

 t Design Goals Address inhibiting factors Support student-initiated interaction Scale to large classes Impose low cognitive load Exploit existing classroom structures Digression: slides as mediating artifact

 t Slides as a Mediating Artifact Saljo Technologies are ultimately about the regulation and improvement of human relationships Draw mental arith– paper and pencil – mem Elec calculator -- alg : communicates in familiar symbolic representation HK Jade market : comm burden

 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 Persistent context for communication!

 t Designed System: Classroom Feedback System (CFS) SKIP NEXT SLIDE

 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 DEMO student feedback Slide from summer 2002 study Key features: Simple interface Previous slide for lag Slide context makes complex comm. possible

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

 t Summer 2002 study: Example slide from lecture on Java packages TODO: fix this label!!!

 t

 t

 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 Focusing on JUST the final evaluation in iterative process

 t CFS increased classroom interaction Spoken interaction pre-CFS Spoken interaction with CFS Total interactions with CFS Total w/out “Got it” # per class p-value

 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]

 t Future Work Broader study/deployment Support for instructor-planned interaction Archival use of feedback Support complex feedback Scale to more participation

 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]

 t Acknowledgments UW CSE Education & Educational Technology Research Group MSR Learning Sciences & Technologies Students and instructors from the study