Interactive engagement strategies for large classes
1 like337 views
The document discusses interactive engagement strategies for teaching large, diverse classes, focusing on techniques that foster student participation through activities like two-stage exams and student-generated assessments. It highlights the benefits of collaborative learning in enhancing student understanding and retention of course material while addressing challenges such as group dynamics and assessment quality. Various learning technology tools and their implementations are also reviewed to optimize teaching effectiveness in STEM courses.
![Content Authoring Content Delivery Publisher Simula4ons
Adobe Crea)ve Suite Livescribe Arts File Share Kaltura (*)
UBC Blogs / WordPress
(Content) (*)
Cengage (PIC) (*) Google Cardboard
Ar)culate Studio MediaSite (*) Cengage iLrn
LearnDash
(WordPress) (*)
Macmillan (PIC) (*) Layar
Audacity Microso] Excel
Connect (Content
Management) (*)
Library Online
Course Reserves
(LOCR) (*)
UBC iTunes (*) McGraw-Hill (PIC) (*) Mannequin Simula)ons
Bb Collaborate Voice
Authoring (*)
Microso] PowerPoint Document Cameras Lyryx UBC Wiki (*) Pearson (PIC) (*) Mo)on Control
Camtasia (*) One bucon Studio (*) DropBox
Modern Digital
Image Database
(MDID)
UBC YouTube (*) Sapling Learning (PIC) (*) NeoReality
Collabora)ve Learning
(*) Annota)on System
(CLAS)
Panopto Drupal (*) Moodle (*) Vimeo Wiley (PIC) (*) Phet Simula)ons
Explain Everything Dspace Omeka Vitalsource Praxis
Final Cut Pro Prezi edX (*) Owncloud WebAssign VCER
Entrada Perusall Wikipedia
Hot Potatoes
Respondus Studymate
(*)
Evernote Piazza (*) Wis)a
Jing Snagit
Exam Prep
Database (*)
Plone Workspace (*) PorLolios
Keynote Timeline JS Github Podcasts Zimbra Chalk and Wire
Lectora Google Docs Reflector Zoomify Connect (ePorLolio) (*)
Lightboard (*) VideoScribe (*) HTML 5 Flash Cards SourceTree Pep
iBooks SugarSync
Assessment Response System
Adap)ve Compara)ve
Judgement (ACJ) (*)
Mechanical TA Aplia
Auto Mul)ple Choice
(AMC)
Moodle (*) iClicker (*)
Calibrated Peer Review
(CPR) (*)
Open Badges UBC (*) Kahoot!
Cengage iLrn Pearson MyTest Learning Cataly)cs
Crowdmark PeerScholar Poll Everywhere
Entrada PeerWise (*) REEF polling (*)
Exam Prep DB (*) Remark Top Hat
ExamSo] Respondus Quiz (*)
Form Builder (*) Scantron
Grade Grinder Turni)n (*)
iPeer (*) WebAssign
LearnDash (WordPress)
(*) Webwork (*)
Analy4cs Course Evalua4on Course Admin Other
Arts Datamart
Blackboard Outcomes
Assessment (*)
Cengage iLrn 3D prin)ng
Blackboard Outcomes
Assessment (*)
CoursEval (*) Connect (Grade Center) (*) Google Earth
Connect (Performance Center)
(*)
SEoT Datamart (*) Doodle iStudiez Pro
Google Analy)cs TeachEval (*) Entrada SCORM (*)
IBM SPSS Google Calendar
Tin Can API (Experience
API)
JMP LearnDash (WordPress) (*)
Microso] Excel Moodle (*)
SEoT Datamart (*) One45
Stata Turni)n (*)
Tableau UBC Blogs / WordPress (*)
WebAssign
LEARNING TECHNOLOGY TOOLS - FUNCTIONAL MAP
CONTENT ASSESSMENT
COURSE MANAGEMENT & EVALUATIONINTERACTIONS
Discussion Survey Tool Social Media VC
Connect (Discussions) (*)
Connect (Enterprise Surveys)
(*)
Facebook Adobe Connect
Piazza (*) Connect (Surveys) (*) Figure 1 Bb Collaborate Web Conf. (*)
PulsePress (*) FluidSurveys (*) Google+ BlueJeans (*)
Slack Gravity Forms (WordPress) LinkedIn Google Hangouts
UBC Blogs / WordPress
(Discussion) (*)
LimeSurvey Twicer Lifesize
Qualtrics Skype
Survey Monkey VC (MedIT)
Vovici WebEx
Bold = Integrated Tool
(*) = Supported by LT Hub](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/interactiveengagementstrategies-masterset-170607161201/85/Interactive-engagement-strategies-for-large-classes-27-320.jpg)
![Engagement with PeerWise
Number Multiplier Number Multiplier
Questions 1105 [1.7] 998 [1.6]
Answers 11393 [17.2] 11807 [18.7]
Comments 4901 [7.4] 5509 [8.7]
PW 1 PW 2](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/interactiveengagementstrategies-masterset-170607161201/85/Interactive-engagement-strategies-for-large-classes-51-320.jpg)
Interactive engagement strategies for large classes
- 1. Interactive Engagement Strategies For large and diverse classes (a choose-your-adventure workshop) 14-15 JUNE 2017 LIVERPOOL JMU TEACHING & LEARNING CONFERENCE “VISIONS FOR LEARNING”
- 2. Choose your own adventure Lectures as 2-way conversations Interaction (in / out of class) Assessments (student-generated) Assessments (exams)
- 3. Lectures
- 4. Context - class time (specifically lectures) CC BY-NC 2.0 https://flic.kr/p/f3ynHx! Derek Bruff: Class time reconsidered! http://prezi.com/donq036eunko/class-time-reconsidered/! https://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsld/resources/20reasons.html!
- 6. Weekly rhythm for our 1A class! Poh, M.Z., Swenson, N.C., Picard, R.W., "A Wearable Sensor for Unobtrusive, Long-term Assessment of Electrodermal Ac)vity," IEEE Transac)ons on Biomedical Engineering, vol.57, no.5, pp.1243-1252, May 2010. doi: 10.1109/TBME.2009.2038487
- 7. Weekly rhythm for our 1A class!
- 8. Learning gains on PI !
- 9. 1. Pre class material! © Jorge Royan / http://www.royan.com.ar / CC-BY-SA-3.0, via Wikimedia Commons!
- 10. 1. Pre class material - DIY media!
- 11. 1. Pre class material - DIY media!
- 12. Learning gains on PI !
- 13. Reproduced from Eric Mazur (search “Confessions of a converted lecturer” on YouTube)
- 14. 1! 2! 3! A ball initially at rest is! thrown upwards, comes ! back down & is caught! ! Which of the following is a! plausible graph of the! acceleration of the ball ! with time?!
- 15. Source activity: Simon Lancaster (UEA, UK) Ross Galloway (Edinburgh, UK)
- 16. A large truck collides head on with a small compact car. Which of the following statements is true? 1. The forces on the car is greater 2. The force on the truck is greater 3. The force on the car and truck are equal 4. Can’t specify without knowing mass and speed of vehicles
- 21. R R Hake ! American Journal of Physics: Volume 66, Issue 1, Pages 64-74! http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.18809!
- 22. Freeman et al PNAS www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1319030111 Wieman commentary PNAS ! http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1407304111 “This meta-analysis makes a powerful case that any college or university that is teaching its STEM courses by traditional lectures is providing an inferior education to its students”
- 23. 1. Real (and perceived) workloads! 2. Dealing with resistance ! 3. Suitability of teaching spaces! 4. About ‘covering content’! 5. Loss of (total) control ! ! … and the upsides too. !
- 25. FOSTERING INTERACTION a case study Simon Bates Senior Advisor, Teaching and Learning Academic Director, CTLT Professor of Teaching, Department of Physics and Astronomy
- 26. OVERVIEW Landscape of LT tools and applications My course context Tools matter! Implementation Features
- 27. Content Authoring Content Delivery Publisher Simula4ons Adobe Crea)ve Suite Livescribe Arts File Share Kaltura (*) UBC Blogs / WordPress (Content) (*) Cengage (PIC) (*) Google Cardboard Ar)culate Studio MediaSite (*) Cengage iLrn LearnDash (WordPress) (*) Macmillan (PIC) (*) Layar Audacity Microso] Excel Connect (Content Management) (*) Library Online Course Reserves (LOCR) (*) UBC iTunes (*) McGraw-Hill (PIC) (*) Mannequin Simula)ons Bb Collaborate Voice Authoring (*) Microso] PowerPoint Document Cameras Lyryx UBC Wiki (*) Pearson (PIC) (*) Mo)on Control Camtasia (*) One bucon Studio (*) DropBox Modern Digital Image Database (MDID) UBC YouTube (*) Sapling Learning (PIC) (*) NeoReality Collabora)ve Learning (*) Annota)on System (CLAS) Panopto Drupal (*) Moodle (*) Vimeo Wiley (PIC) (*) Phet Simula)ons Explain Everything Dspace Omeka Vitalsource Praxis Final Cut Pro Prezi edX (*) Owncloud WebAssign VCER Entrada Perusall Wikipedia Hot Potatoes Respondus Studymate (*) Evernote Piazza (*) Wis)a Jing Snagit Exam Prep Database (*) Plone Workspace (*) PorLolios Keynote Timeline JS Github Podcasts Zimbra Chalk and Wire Lectora Google Docs Reflector Zoomify Connect (ePorLolio) (*) Lightboard (*) VideoScribe (*) HTML 5 Flash Cards SourceTree Pep iBooks SugarSync Assessment Response System Adap)ve Compara)ve Judgement (ACJ) (*) Mechanical TA Aplia Auto Mul)ple Choice (AMC) Moodle (*) iClicker (*) Calibrated Peer Review (CPR) (*) Open Badges UBC (*) Kahoot! Cengage iLrn Pearson MyTest Learning Cataly)cs Crowdmark PeerScholar Poll Everywhere Entrada PeerWise (*) REEF polling (*) Exam Prep DB (*) Remark Top Hat ExamSo] Respondus Quiz (*) Form Builder (*) Scantron Grade Grinder Turni)n (*) iPeer (*) WebAssign LearnDash (WordPress) (*) Webwork (*) Analy4cs Course Evalua4on Course Admin Other Arts Datamart Blackboard Outcomes Assessment (*) Cengage iLrn 3D prin)ng Blackboard Outcomes Assessment (*) CoursEval (*) Connect (Grade Center) (*) Google Earth Connect (Performance Center) (*) SEoT Datamart (*) Doodle iStudiez Pro Google Analy)cs TeachEval (*) Entrada SCORM (*) IBM SPSS Google Calendar Tin Can API (Experience API) JMP LearnDash (WordPress) (*) Microso] Excel Moodle (*) SEoT Datamart (*) One45 Stata Turni)n (*) Tableau UBC Blogs / WordPress (*) WebAssign LEARNING TECHNOLOGY TOOLS - FUNCTIONAL MAP CONTENT ASSESSMENT COURSE MANAGEMENT & EVALUATIONINTERACTIONS Discussion Survey Tool Social Media VC Connect (Discussions) (*) Connect (Enterprise Surveys) (*) Facebook Adobe Connect Piazza (*) Connect (Surveys) (*) Figure 1 Bb Collaborate Web Conf. (*) PulsePress (*) FluidSurveys (*) Google+ BlueJeans (*) Slack Gravity Forms (WordPress) LinkedIn Google Hangouts UBC Blogs / WordPress (Discussion) (*) LimeSurvey Twicer Lifesize Qualtrics Skype Survey Monkey VC (MedIT) Vovici WebEx Bold = Integrated Tool (*) = Supported by LT Hub
- 28. CONTEXT First year intro Physics courses P101 / P117 Non-majors Flipped class design Heterogeneous cohort
- 29. TOOLS MATTER Connect discussions vs Piazza
- 30. TOOLS MATTER Connect discussions vs Piazza
- 32. IMPLEMENTATION “No email” policy Give reasons to engage Support TA: to monitor and respond
- 33. A BUNCH OF NICE FEATURES…..
- 47. Selected results & analysis Engagement - how do students use the system? Benefits - what is the impact on learning? Question quality - how good is what students produce? Relevant publications: Scaffolding student engagement via online peer learning - European Journal of Physics 35 (4), 045002 (2014) Student-Generated Content: Enhancing learning through sharing multiple-choice questions. International Journal of Science Education, 1-15 (2014). Assessing the quality of a student-generated question repository - Phys Rev ST PER (2014) 10, 020105 Student-generated assessment - Education in Chemistry (2013) 13 1
- 48. Typical implementation Minimum participation requirements for each of two assessment exercises (PW1, PW2) Write 1 Answer 5 Rate / comment 3 5% course credit Physics 101, Energy & Waves Winter Semester: 3 sections, ~800 students
- 49. Not so typical implementation Writing original questions is a demanding activity Extensive scaffolding exercises Revisited in subsequent tutorials
- 51. Engagement with PeerWise Number Multiplier Number Multiplier Questions 1105 [1.7] 998 [1.6] Answers 11393 [17.2] 11807 [18.7] Comments 4901 [7.4] 5509 [8.7] PW 1 PW 2
- 56. Engagement with PeerWise Generally, students did • Participate beyond minimum requirements • Engage in community learning, correcting errors • Create problems, not exercises • Provide positive feedback Generally, students did not • Contribute trivial or irrelevant questions • Obviously plagiarize • Participate much beyond assessment periods • Leave it to the last minute (sort of….)
- 61. 61
- 62. 62 Question/Explanation Quality Bloom’s Taxonomy of levels in the cognitive domain Score Level Description 1 Remember Factual knowledge, trivial plugging in of numbers 2 Understand Basic understanding of content 3 Apply Implement, calculate / determine. Typically one-stage problem 4 Analyze Typical multi-step problem; requires identification of strategy Evaluate Compare & assess various option possibilities; often conceptual Synthesize Ideas and topics from disparate course sections combined. Significantly challenging problem.
- 64. 64 Question/Explanation Quality Score Level Description 0 Missing No explanation provided or explanation incoherent/irrelevant 1 Inadequate Wrong reasoning and/or answer; trivial or flippant 2 Minimal Correct answer but with insufficient explanation/justification/ Some aspects may be unclear/incorrect/confused. 3 Good Clear and detailed exposition of correct method & answer. 4 Excellent Thorough description of relevant physics and solution strategy. Plausibility of all answers considered. Beyond normal expectation for a correct solution
- 65. 65
- 66. 66 Results (UoE 2010-11) 2 successive years of the same course (N=150, 350)! ‘High quality’ questions: 78%, 79%! Over 90% (most likely) correct, and 3/5 of those wrong were ! identified by students. ! 69% (2010) and 55% (2011) rated 3 or 4 for explanations! Only 2% (2010) and 4% (2011) rated 1/ 6 for taxonomic level. !
- 67. 67 Bottomley & Denny Biochem and Mol Biol Educ. 39(5) 352-361 (2011) 107 Year 2 biochem students 56 / 35 / 9 % of questions in lowest 3 levels. Momsen et al CBE-Life Sci Educ 9, 436-440 (2010) “9,713 assessment items submitted by 50 instructors in the United States reported that 93% of the questions asked on examinations in introductory biology courses were at the lowest two levels of the revised Bloom’s taxonomy” Comparison with literature
- 68. 68
- 69. 69
- 71. IAD Course Organisers Forum – Edinburgh, Oct 2015 Two-stage exams! assessments of, for and as learning ! Simon.Bates@ubc.ca @simonpbates bit.ly/batestalks
- 72. Disclaimers! • Not ours; not new • Similar to elements of well-established pedagogy e.g. TBL • But….. Significant due to ease, effectiveness and take-up
- 74. Overview • Define two-stage exams (UBC style) • Discuss advantages and disadvantages of two-stage exams • Take your questions on logistics of administering them • Describe some research done with two-stage exams at UBC
- 75. Two-stage Exams The basics: Summative assessments During the exam (midterms / final / in-class test) – Students complete then hand in individual exam – Get into groups of 4 to work on a group exam (for about ½ the time of the individual portion) What they look (and sound!) like http://www.cwsei.ubc.ca/resources/SEI_video.html
- 76. Two-stage exams • The Group Exam is identical to the individual exam (+/- one or two “difficult” questions) • Students work on the group exam collaboratively Consensus • The group only gets one exam sheet!
- 77. Two-stage exams at UBC At UBC: now well over 100 courses Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Math, Statistics, Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, Computer Science, Forestry, Pharmacy, Psychology, and Land and Food Systems Many class formats / assessment types 900 student final exams (that was me J ) 450 student 1st year lectures 20 person laboratories 20 student 4th year seminars 5 student graduate classes
- 78. Advantages • Immediate feedback • Models classroom behaviour • Engaged students • Teaching!
- 79. Advantages Your list: • Nearly instant feedback / reflection • More collaboration • Engagement • Responsibility • Different perspectives • Happier students learn better • Develops group work skills • Lower achieving students get extra explanation • Reduces anxiety
- 80. Advantages • Higher achieving students benefit from explaining and reinforcing knowledge • ALL students participate! • Quieter students get a chance to contribute even in large classes • Students like it and believe it helps their learning
- 81. Some Student Comments Phys 250 and EOSC 114 “Some problems, its a good way to find out what you did wrong on the individual exam almost immediately.” “Great idea! The group exams give you a chance to go over your answers to the exam while you still care about the questions.”
- 82. Some Student Comments Phys 250 and EOSC 114 “Discussion over tricky questions facilitate learning immediately and the answer/ concept is stuck in your brain FOREVER!” “You actually learn what you got wrong right away from a student perspective”
- 83. Disadvantages Your list Compressing the grades Group composition Loud students No agreement
- 84. Possible Disadvantages • “Only certain subjects” • Social loafing • Dominant group members • Sidetracked by process • Assigning marks • A & D • Student inexperience with groups! • Time! Shorter exams • Getting “convinced” of wrong answers • Incompatible with curving as standard
- 85. Some Student Comments Phys 250 and EOSC 114 “… That said, there was the issue of excessive discussion in the group exam. That is, there were several times where a part of a question was contentious within our group and the ensuing debate, frequently ended only by calling over <instructor>, often took up so much time that doing the last few questions was hurried and messy.”
- 87. Posi)ve ‘because…’ comments Discussion 48 Learn why you were wrong 37 New perspectives 29 Better grades 21 Instant feedback 16 Review 10 Build confidence 8 Understand questions better 6 Learn techniques from others 6 Other 27 Total 208
- 88. Nega)ve ‘because…’ comments Coming to consensus 21 Time consuming 13 Unbalanced knowledge in group 6 Convinced of wrong answer 3 Realize did poorly individually 3 Worth too much 2 Other 8 Total 56
- 92. Research evidence for effec)veness Gilley, B.H. and Clarkston, B. (2014) Collaborative Testing: Evidence of Learning in a Controlled In-Class Study of Undergraduate Students Journal of College Science Teaching Vol. 43 No. 3
- 96. Resources • Journal articles: – Gilley & Clarkston (2014) Journal of College Science Teaching Vol. 43 No. 3 – Rieger & Heiner (2014) Journal of College Science Teaching Vol. 43 No. 4 – Wieman, Rieger & Heiner (2014) Phys. Teach. Vol 52 • For more information and videos visit: http://blogs.ubc.ca/eoassei/two-stage-exams/ • Misc articles: http://www.macleans.ca/education/multiple-choice-multiple-students/ http://blogs.ubc.ca/catherinerawn/2014/07/22/two-stage-exam-introduction-and-resources/ https://teachingcommons.stanford.edu/teaching-talk/turn-exam-learning-experience-two-stage-exams http://www.artsrn.ualberta.ca/mengel/huco5002014/?p=356
- 97. Resources