Interactivity in large lectures using an innovative, appropriate technology

1. Interactivity in large lectures using an innovative, appropriate technology L'interactivité dans les grandes conférences à l'aide d'une technologie innovative et convenable Dr. Stephen BostockAdvisor for Technology and LearningKeele University, UK s.j.bostock@keele.ac.uk

2. Active learning Summary • A framework for thinking about effective learning in large group teaching/lectures- four modes of engagement- with examples • Initial evaluation of an innovative technology supporting the interaction mode Good teaching involves purposeful student activities so that a motivated student cannot avoid achieving the learning outcomes(John Biggs 2003, 2nd ed. Teaching for Quality Learning at University)

3. With one or a few students, interaction/dialogue with a tutor can prompt intellectual activity, provide feedback to tune learning, and require participation. Student Teacher

4. passive role

7. Examples of student activities • Solve a problem • Buzz groups – discuss something • Complete a gapped handout • Read something short with a purpose • Make notes on a topic together • Compare notes made so far • Recap slot: summarize to each other • Answer quiz questions • Write their own questions and answers

8. An activity Discuss in small groups for 3 minutes what student activities you have seen, been part of, or taught with, in large groups.Make a list of them. Une Activité En petits groupes, discutez pendant 3 minutes les activités des étudiants que vous avez vues, dont vous avez fait partie, ou enseignées en grands groupes. En faites la liste.

10. Types of questions with a Personal Response System • Multiple choice quiz/problem solving at start to diagnose initial understanding • Students self-report relevant experience • “Concept check”: Multiple choice quiz on content just delivered • Students self-report level of understanding • Students opt for a revision topic • Combine MCQ with small group discussion (activity), and presentations.

11. Interactivity in large groups • Most students do not volunteer, do not communicate to the tutor • Most volunteers are not chosen to speak and one student’s answers may not be useful to others • Students cannot get individual feedback from the tutor • We need a technology: Personal Response Systems allow all students to make individual responses, maybe anonymously

12. CommuniCube- partially anonymous - manual counting/ estimating - low tech, low risk, no training - cheap (foam £10, printed £1) Response technologies • Electronic voting handsets • anonymous but can opt out • automatic counting and display • electronic: high risk for teacher, training needed • expensive Similar pedagogy

14. First year Psychology

16. Second year Law

17. Modes of engagementin large groups • Traditional lecture: information delivery without feedback, no learning activity beyond listening & note taking • Enhanced presentations: more effective/ memorable information delivery with slides and handouts e.g. PowerPoint, ‘Interactive Whiteboard’ • Student activity: problem solving, small group discussion, etc. • Student – tutor interactivity: feedback to tutor through a ‘personal response system’ and feedback to students on their responses

18. With your CommuniCubePrenez votre CommuniCube Vote for: Et choisissez entre: • Move on to the evaluation reportContinuer à l’évaluation • Say more about interactivityParler encore au sujet de l’interactivité • Say more about electronic Personal Response SystemsParler encore au sujet des systèmes électroniques et personnels de la réponse • Say more about CommuniCubesParler encore en ce qui concerne les CommuniCubes

19. Advantages of Interactivity • Interactivity is good because it demands student learning activity as their part in it • It provides feedback on their understanding, or views, communicated to the teacher • The teacher checks how much is being understood and can modify his/her actions and provide feedback on misconceptions • Students motivated by teacher adjusting to student performance

20. Personal Response Systems PRS • Infrared/radio handsets with unique codes in a set. Codes are detected and numbers fed to software that displays the results, maybe through PowerPoint. • Cost £80-150 per handset, plus detector, plus software, plus anti-theft devices • Sophisticated versions have mini screens for individual feedback • Some ‘interactive whiteboards’ have detectors

21. CommuniCubes • Coloured cards and triangles have been used for voting • Cubes refine the idea and give 5 number choices • Best in a raked lecture hall with benching or seminar with tables • Pedagogic practice similar to PRS but participation is enforced • Anonymous to different degrees • Different uses in seminars • Intellectual Property Rights: Stephen Bostock

22. End of part one

23. CommuniCubes – an initial evaluation • Foam and printed cubes made in Keele university • First semester 2003-4 used in groups of 20-30 in Education, Computer Science and Law; and with 120 in a 2nd year Law lecture • Second Semester 2003-4 used in • 250 1st year Psychology students (10 returns) • 31 students in 2nd and 3rd year in Law tutorials (100% return) • Two questionnaires: on first use and after several sessions

24. On first use • 120 second year law students in a large lecture theatre • Three votes, every 15 minutes or so • At the end (voting with cubes) : Would you like to use the colour cubes again? • Yes 85% • Maybe, depends on the context 13% • No 2% • One blind student used a Braille cube after one minute’s training

25. Questionnaire – on first use (with groups of 20-30 students) • Would you like to use one again?(Y/N/depends on the situation) • What were the good aspects of using a cube? • What were the bad aspects of using a cube? • How could they best be used in this size group?

26. 68%

27. Questionnaire – after several sessions • How do you think use of the cubes has been helpful to your learning (first, second, and third most important reasons) • How do you think use of the cubes has been unhelpful to your learning (first, second, and third most important reasons) • On balance what is the net advantage/disadvantage (scale of 1 to 9) • Would you recommend we use them next year? (yes/no/not sure)

28. 73%

30. After several sessions: 1st year Psychology - reasons helpful Score: high= most important 12. Gave me feedback on my understanding 12. It was fun, made lecture interesting 8. Participation, made me think, contribute, be involved, express an opinion 6. (Mention of) “interactive”

31. After several sessions : 3rd year Law - reasons helpful Score: high= most important 39: Participation, made me think, contribute, be involved, express an opinion 5: Preparation for sessions improved 4: Gave me feedback on my learning

32. After several sessions : 1st year Psychology - reasons unhelpful Score: high= most important 12: Get answer from seeing others’ votes 9: A distraction, irrelevant 7: Slowed things down, wastes time

33. After several sessions : 3rd year Law - reasons unhelpful Score: high= most important 13: Can get the answer from seeing others’ vote 9: Wasted time 8: Had to make a decision too quickly or when undecidedmore data: 2nd year Law

34. Conclusion • Most students found them helpful to learning: modal value is “significant advantage” • A few (able?) students may dislike them • In first year lectures the main reasons were getting feedback on understanding and fun • In second and third year seminars the reason was the enforced participation • The learning gains will depend on appropriate use, of course

35. Vote now • No thanks. • Maybe, I’ll think about it, depends on the cost. (Email me for more information and a web address.) • Yes please.(Indicate your name on the list, and take my card. You can keep a folding cube.)

36. Cost effectiveness? • Effective, according to students • Much cheaper than electronic alternatives • Next step at Keele in 2004-5: • wider use across the university: to build up a body of good practice • a direct comparison with electronic handsets: Are the benefits similar to electronic systems but for lower cost?

37. stop

38. CommuniCubes: Would you like to try them with your students? • Hand them back please! Or • Keep a folding cube (but not a foam cube) and tick your name on the list. I will email you: • Ideas for their use • Buy them from Keele University s.j.bostock@keele.ac.uk • Negotiate a license to produce your own

39. After several sessions : 2nd year Law - reasons helpful Score: high= most important 30: Participation, made me think, contribute, be involved, express an opinion 16. Can express opinion without embarrassment 7: Can see others' opinions 6: Fun, interesting, variety 5: Can work with others sharing your opinion

40. After several sessions : 2nd year Law - reasons unhelpful Score: high= most important 11: Limits the options to respond or discuss 6: Slowed things down, wastes time 5: (Descriptive of the mechanics), shows answer, must count responses

41. One unhappy student • How have the cubes been helpful? • “There isn’t any” (reason) • “Distracted from what we were actually looking at” • “All it did was to show who understood or not – we could do that with raising our hands, there is no need for cubes” • Net dis/advantage? Slight disadvantage (6) • Recommend we use them again? No • A rant about their uselessness and the use not being explained; “Thanks for the attempt though”