Read/Write Lectures

Read/Write Lectures
Fostering Active Participation and Increasing
Student Engagement in the Lecture Hall

Kai Michael Höver, Michael Hartle

Technische Universität Darmstadt
Germany

06/07/2010 | Department of Computer Science | Telecooperation | Kai Michael Höver |

The dilemma of the traditional
lecture format
“The prevalent content tyranny [...] encourages faculty to push
through as much material as possible in a given session“ [1]

§ Traditional lectures are thus commonly used because,
§ they provide a convenient and swift way to impart knowledge [2]
§ a large amount of learning material can be presented in a relatively short
time [2]
§ “the instructor has a great of control and the classroom events are
predictable“ [3]

[1] Prince, M., 2004, Does active learning work? A Review of the Research, A Review of the Research. Journal of Engineering
Education, 93(3), pp. 223-231.
[1] Michel, N., Cater, J. & Varela, O., 2009, Active versus passive teaching styles: An empirical study of student learning outcomes,
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20(4), pp. 397-418.
[3] Miner, F., Das, H. & Gale, J., 1984, An investigation of the relative effectiveness of three diverse teaching methodologies, Journal of
Management Education, 9(2), pp. 49-59.

06/07/2010 | Department of Computer Science | Telecooperation | Kai Michael Höver | Slide 2

Classroom architecture

§ The traditional lecture format
intends an one-to-many
communication
§ The architecture of a lecture
halls supports this intention

Flusser‘s theater communication model [1]

[1] Flusser, V., Bollmann, S. & Flusser, E., 1998, Kommunikologie, Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag


Problems of the traditional lecture

But does the traditional lecture format
really help to impart as much
knowledge as possible?

§ drop of attention after 10-15 minutes [1,2]
➡ students start talking among themselves, chat
➡ browse the Web
➡ play computer games
➡ twitter how boring the lecture is
➡ or even worse: drift off to sleep and snore ;-)

[1] Stuart, J. & Rutherford, R.J.D., 1978, Medical Student Concentration during Lectures, The Lancet (2), pp. 514 - 516.
[2] Hartley, J. & Davies, I.K., 1978, Note-taking: A critical review, Innovations in Education & Training International, 15(3), pp. 207-224.


The traditional lecture format is
paradox
§ lack of student attention [1,2]
➡ 70% of the first 10 minutes
➡ 20% of the last 10 minutes

§ Students fail to retain as much material in comparison to classes
taught in an active environment [3]

The traditional lecture is well suited for pushing
through as much material as possible but with little
success regarding student retention !?

➡ Active-engagement methods in the classroom are important !!! [4]

[1] Stuart, J. & Rutherford, R.J.D., 1978, Medical Student Concentration during Lectures, The Lancet (2), pp. 514 - 516.
[2] Hartley, J. & Davies, I.K., 1978, Note-taking: A critical review, Innovations in Education & Training International, 15(3), pp. 207-224.
[3] Michel, N., Cater, J. & Varela, O., 2009, Active versus passive teaching styles: An empirical study of student learning outcomes, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 20(4), pp. 397-418.
[4] Hake, R., 1998, Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics
courses, American Journal of Physics, 66(1), pp. 64-74.


Systems that address the problem of
students‘ passiveness in lectures (I)

Classroom/Ubiquitous Presenter [1,2]

16 C. Liao et al. PaperCP [3]
Instructor

pen-based Tablet PCs.
Despite the digital solu-
tions’ advantages in data
transfer and archiving,
some drawbacks are
associated with these
systems: a degraded
reading and writing ex-
perience due to limited
screen size and screen Fig. 1. (Left) The original Tablet PC interface of a digital Active
resolution, the cost of the Learning infrastructure. (Right) The new equivalent interface,
PaperCP, based on Anoto technology, which consists of Blue-
devices, and the limita- tooth digital pens and printouts.
tions imposed by battery[1] Anderson, R. & Linnell, N., 2009, Promoting Interaction in Distance
Education, eLearn, 2009(8).
life. To ease the tension
Students
[2] Wilkerson, M., Griswold, W.G. & Simon, B., 2005, SIGCSE '05: Proceedings of
between physical and digital affordances, symposium on Computer science education,
the 36th SIGCSE technical a natural solution is to integrate them to
create a better overall user experience. increasing student access and control in a digital lecturing
Ubiquitous presenter:
Public display
In this paper, we environment. ACM, pp. 116-20. the advantages of physical artifacts
investigate how to combine
[3] Liao, C. et al, 2007, Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2007,
like paper with the convenience of an electronic communication and archiving infra-
Figure 1. Classroom Presenter.The system runs on instructor, student, and public displays, each PaperCP: Exploring the Integration of Physical and Digital Affordances for Active
with its own user interface. In the scenario shown here, the instructor presents a slide Specifically, based on a communication model for Active Learning, we
structure. with an Learning. pp. 15-28.
propose a new Anoto [5]-based paper interface, PaperCP (Paper Classroom Presenter)
activity.The students write solutions to the activity on their Tablet PCs and submit their
answers to the instructor.The instructor can preview the student solutions in a ﬁlm1), for Classroom Presenter, aimed at addressing the interaction and cost-
(Figure strip (shown
on the right of the instructor view) and then selectively show student answers on the public of the fully digital system. Our physical interface allows students to
benefit problems
display for class discussion. use Anoto-enabled slide printouts as an input interface, so that users can still enjoy the

!"#$%&&'$$ $$()(*+,-$*./01234516$7$"869$,:;28<;$

Systems that address the problem"6,#0! L()(! 2! )($2)52O6(! 3(/,+(! 9#)! 'M(,)!
LM,'(O#2)3H! WM(!
of
students‘ passiveness in lectures O&'! L()(! 6,$,'(3! ,-! '()$0! #9! %)#+(00,-:!
',$(! SFAA=T1!
! (II)
+2%2O,6,'7! SFG=! e?R! m8*"! "V;T! 2-3! &02O,6,'7! S+)2$%(3!
!
5(7O#2)31! 6,$,'(3! 0+)((-! 0(-0,',/,'7! '#! %(-! ,-%&'1! 2-3! 2!
!
%)(00&)(E0(-0,',/(!0+)((-!'M2'!')(2'(3!2++,3(-'26!M2-3!+#-'2+'!
§ Livenotes [1] L,'M!'M(!0+)((-!20!%(-!,-%&'TH!!
!
!
§ supports real-time conversation within !
small groups of students during lectures !
! !
§ load PPT file into the whiteboard‘s !
background !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! @,.:4&!AB!8%&!C,D&-/$&3!:3&4!,-$&4E#7&!E/4!$%&!&FG&4,)&-$!
! >&374,H&>!,-!$%,3!G#G&4*!',$%!$%&!,)G/4$&>!H#7I.4/:->!32,>&!
/77:G?,-.!$%&!$/G!2&E$J%#->!#4&#!/E!$%&!'%,$&H/#4>B!
!
*(+#-31!'M(!,-'()92+(!L20!#/()M2&6(3!,-!CDDC!'#!,-+#)%#)2'(!
!
-(L! :)#&%! 2L2)(-(00! 2-3! '#! (-2O6(! 6(+'&)(! 06,3(0! '#! O(!
!
[1] Kam, M. et al, 2005, CHI '05: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems,
,$%#)'(3H! WM,0! '2_(3! 'M(! +2%2+,'7! #9! 'M(! "6,#0! 2-3! $23(! ,'!
Livenotes: A System for Cooperative and Augmented Note-Taking in Lectures. ACM, pp. 531-40.
!
,$%#00,O6(! '#! ,-')#3&+(! Q,/(-#'(0! ,-'#! 2-! &-3():)23&2'(!
!
+6200!#-!2!-#-E'),/,26!0+26(!L,'M#&'!3,0)&%',#-H!P(!'M()(9#)(!
06/07/2010 | Department of Computer Science | Telecooperation | Kai Michael Höver |Q,/(-#'(0! '#! 62%'#%0! 2-3! 9#&-3! 'M2'! ,'! L#)5(3!
$,:)2'(3! Slide 7
!
(99(+',/(67! L,'M! 0,:-,9,+2-'67! :)(2'()! +#$%&',-:! %#L()H!
!

r is responsible for the transfer of the data one for student-initiated content (such as questions and evalu-
tion clients to the server. We are currently ation), and the other for educator-initiated content, especi-
es for compatibility reasons. ally quizzes. The division in two parts separates the logical-
Systems that address the problem of
stem extendable, it is also split into plug-ins
hogonal to the layers. Plug-ins and modules
ly different elements. Additionally, both tabs are less crow-
ded and easier to use by the separation between incoming
students‘ passiveness in lectures (III)
a central core component. This core is awa- feedback and responses to prepared quiz questions. Figure 3
plug-ins and modules and decides whether shows them as tabs in a tabbed pane.
ng requests or not. Whereas each plug-in
§ TVremote (Digital
all modules are mandatory. However, even
replaced by a different implementation of
Lecture Hall) [1]
ctionality.
ionality realized by a module is the authen-
§ Instructor can take
ng purposes, we provide an implementation
polls
password validation, so that any user can
us use, this implementation can be repla-
§ Students can provide
h makes use of an external authentication
nother feedback provided by a module
functionality
bsystem.
§ Students can send
nteraction are handled by plug-ins. The fi-
question or comments
developed allow students to answer multi-
s, to evaluate parameters of the lecture, to
sages such as questions, to retrieve textual
to retrieve the current slide.

clients for use during lectures Figure 3: Educator client for in-lecture interaction
to offer the use of the interaction on note-
nd mobile phones. Figure 2 shows that the
The activated tab shows the students’ text messages at
ent consists ofHäußge, G. & Rößling, G., 2007, ITiCSE '07: Proceedings of the 12th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation
[1] Bär, H., a simple menu and an inter-
the top. The educator can choose a message, show it on the
eraction technology in computer the application, An Integrated System for Interaction Support in Lectures. ACM, pp. 281-285.
and type. Before using science education,
projector and discuss it with the class. The presentation is
authenticate. By doing so they receive a
shown below on the left. A control of a presentation softwa-
led 06/07/2010 | Department of Computer Science | Telecooperation | Kai Michael Höver | Slide 8
token, which is also stored on the ser-
re has to implement a certain interface to be integrated. We
mes the application is started, the token can
used the OpenOffice API, which does not support buttons

Systems that address the problem Various Content Types Available in DyKnow
Figure 2. of

students‘ passiveness in lectures (IV)might choose to write or type these defin
On the other hand, if the teacher orally defined tree terminology such
"parent", and "sibling," the students
their private notes margin. Figure 3 shows the DyKnow interface. The thick in
left-hand pane was drawn by the teacher and the thinner ink was added by a stud
right pane shows the student's private note area. As explained more fully in sec
§ DyKnow [1,2] at the end of class students can print or save their notebook for later review an

§ add private annotations to material
§ pull a student‘s panel and present it on a
public display
§ polling
§ shared workspace
§ monitor students‘ screens to see what they
do e.g. play games Figure 3. DyKnow Collaborative Note Taking Interface

DyKnow teachers often share prepared content with students following a
practice, and disclose" pattern that we call progressive disclosure. This te
encourages students to contribute to the shared artifact notebook, thereby helpi
to think about content as it is being presented. For example, a teacher might pro
class with a DyKnow page that poses a short programming problem. The teach
[1] Berque, D., 2006, An evaluation of a broad deployment of DyKnow software to support note taking and
interaction using pen-based computers, J. Comput. Small Coll., 21(6), pp. 204-16.
[2] Johri, A. & Lohani, V.K., 2008, ICLS'08: Proceedings of the 8th International conference for the learning
sciences, Creating a Participatory Learning Environment in Large Lecture Classes using Pen-Based Computing.
International Society of the Learning Sciences, pp. 398-405.


Limitations of presented systems

§ The opportunities to participate and contribute are very limited
§ Mostly restricted to the exchange of
§ ink strokes
IJKLM
§ text notes/messages DEFGH WXY
ABC STV
NOPQ
R

§ Students react rather than act


Read/Write Lectures: System
Architecture
Student PC Student PC

VNC VNC

Lecturer PC

Projector Projector


The lecturer‘s control panel
connect to a
student‘s screen

freeze screen to
annotate

take control of
student PC


Benefits of the approach

§ Students become real co-creators of a lecture
➡ Read/Write Lecture
§ Broad range to express themselves
§ Economical (system only needs a (wireless) network & projector)
§ Students need to install VNC server software (free, and already
installed with Ubuntu and Mac OS)
§ Students can use their favorite tools when presenting


Future Work

§ Java Webstart VNC server (or)
§ support of remote desktop support already available in the
operating systems (RDP, X11)
§ Add voice support (voice over VNC)
§ Evaluation !


Conclusions

§ We presented a system that extends
possibilities to participate so that they
become co-creators of a lecture
(read/write lecture)
§ The traditional lecture will probably

invested time in minutes
survive, but we need to augment it with
new elements that foster active learning,
participation and student engagement
Ǧ-
§ This is very important as continuos Students with
good marks
learning is very important for learning Ǧ
Students with
success. Thus we need to keep students bad marks
at learning. This can be achieve by
actively engage them and sparking their
days
interest.


Thank you for listening!

Questions?


Read/Write Lectures

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Read/Write Lectures

Similaire à Read/Write Lectures (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Read/Write Lectures