1. California Educational Research Association Annual Meeting Rancho Mirage, CA – December 5, 2008 Hoky Min, Gregory K. W. K. Chung, Rebecca Buschang, Lianna Johnson, William Kaiser The Influence of the Use of an Open- Ended Classroom Response System on Student Outcomes

2. 2 / 29 Overview of Talk Background of research (Greg) Survey constructs (Greg) Analyses (Hoky) Results (Hoky) Implications and next step (Greg)

3. 3 / 29 3 Background Develop a classroom response system UCLA developed (Elec. engineering by Bill Kaiser) – 3I: Individualized, interactive instruction Different from clickers—focus on the process of problem solving, not just the final answer Test the machinery To what extent can teachers make use of real-time student responses? How do students perceive the experience? How does the mode affect student learning?

4. 4 / 29 4 Overview of Research Develop and validate a survey measure of students’ perceptions of processes experience with a classroom response system Examine technical quality of measure Examine relation between perception and outcomes

5. 5 / 29 5 3I—Individualized, Interactive Instruction Use computers to help with immediate feedback and formative assessment Typical lesson Present problem / question / prompt … Students type their response Teacher interprets student responses and adjusts instruction immediately—moves on, reviews, elaborates, discusses, …

6. 6 / 29 6

7. 7 / 29 7

8. 8 / 29 Student’s View

9. 9 / 29 Instructor’s View

10. 10 / 29 All students in session participated, drastically improved interaction Clear and immediate feedback Rate of receiving questions and observing responses to problems is much higher than conventional sessions Method exceeds interactivity of one-on-one from instructor perspective Instructor Perceptions

11. 11 / 29 Interviewed students and gathered written responses during pilot tests Learning, interaction, interest Comfort participating Engagement Developed survey items based on qualitative data Examine technical quality of measure and relation to student outcomes (this study) Student Perceptions

12. 12 / 29 Learning Interaction Interest Comfort participating Engagement Scales

13. 13 / 29 Undergraduate—genetics 59 students 3I used for weekly discussion sessions (9 weeks) Middle school—summer school remedial math 104 students (6th, 7th, 8th grade) 3I used for guided practice sessions (twice over 4 weeks) Minimal instructor training Method

14. Analyses and Results

15. 15 / 29 What We Did…

16. 16 / 29 Research Questions To what extent does the survey measure students’ perceptions on the use of the technology in class? To what extent do students’ perceptions influence their class achievement?

17. 17 / 29 Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) A statistical technique that tests hypotheses, theories, and models as to relationships among variables Latent variables: Theoretical constructs underlying performance or scores on measures Observed variables: Scores or performance on measures

18. 18 / 29 Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Measurement model (confirmatory factor analysis)

19. 19 / 29 Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Structural regression model

20. 20 / 29 Measurement Model (College)

21. 21 / 29 Structural Regression Model (College) Model 1

22. 22 / 29 Structural Regression Model (College) Model 2

23. 23 / 29 Measurement Model (Middle School)

24. 24 / 29 Structural Regression Model (Middle School) Model 1

25. 25 / 29 Structural Regression Model (Middle School) Model 2

26. 26 / 29 Summary of Findings For college and middle-school levels, the survey measures are valid indicators of students’ perceptions of the learning processes evoked from the use of 3I Students’ perception does not predict class achievement Students’ perception and class achievement are both affected by their existing knowledge on the subjects

27. 27 / 29 Implications Why was there no relation between students’ perception of classroom processes and outcomes? Classroom interaction doesn’t matter Poor measure Duration of use too short Ceiling effect with university students Relative coverage of content (with respect to outcome) in 3I sessions was much less than lectures Instructor training

28. 28 / 29 Next Steps Improve instructor support Develop structured problem sets  a priori -- Common errors, possible knowledge gaps behind errors, instructional strategies Experimental design With 3I vs. without 3I (business as usual), control for content Challenging

29. greg@ucla.edu

30. 30 / 29 Perceived Learning The sessions helped to reinforce what I had learned from lectures and the book. It was a good way to solidify any potential questions I may have had regarding specific circuits. Using the computer based tools was a nice alternative to pencil and paper or white-boarding. I think that the answer to this question is based on the type of individual. From my perspective, it is easier for me to take notes on problems and go over it at a later time, individually. I felt some pressure when solving the problems in a group setting.

31. 31 / 29 Perceived Comfort I think that maintaining anonymity is very crucial in the interaction aspect of the discussion. Many, including myself, may feel a little embarrassed asking a "dumb" question but w/ this method, I don't feel that people will hesitate to ask those questions. The whole "instant messaging" system was cool, but seemed impersonal. Also, it felt intimidating to message the professor. It seemed to make more sense if we just asked the questions in person rather than messaging.

32. 32 / 29 Perceived Engagement I was definitely more prone to sit and give my full attention in this section than I am normally in any discussion. I did not fall asleep, where normally I will doze off during normal discussion. I think it's a lot easier to pay attention because I feel like I actually have to do the problem myself, rather than sit back and let some brainy kid figure it out for me, like I will tend to do when I feel lazy normally. Whenever we were assigned a problem to do, I always ended up taking out a piece of paper and pencil to write out the problem. Having the problem on the computer made it harder to see the whole problem because the screen was too small to fit the problem into the screen.

33. 33 / 29 33 Typical Approach Whole-group instruction Difficult to get immediate feedback from students Feedback is usually only from a few students Not all students may be engaged