• Save
Question & Answer 2.0: A System to facilitate interaction during and after a lecture
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Question & Answer 2.0: A System to facilitate interaction during and after a lecture

on

  • 398 views

Presentation at E-Learn 2010

Presentation at E-Learn 2010

Statistics

Views

Total Views
398
Views on SlideShare
398
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Question & Answer 2.0: A System to facilitate interaction during and after a lecture Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Q&A 2.0 A System to facilitate interaction during and after a lecture ‣ Kai Michael Höver ‣ Jochen Huber ‣ Max Mühlhäuser Department of Computer Science Technische Universität Darmstadt GermanyOct 19, 2010 | Department of Computer Science | Telecooperation | Kai Michael Höver |
  • 2. Lectures, the prevalent teaching formatOct 19, 2010 | Department of Computer Science | Telecooperation | Kai Michael Höver | Slide 2
  • 3. It is important to ask questions... § Asking questions is important for comprehension, personal knowledge construction, and academic achievement [1] § Also valid for preset questions [2][1] Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181-221.[2] Hamaker, C. (1986). The effects of adjunct questions on prose learning. Review of Educational Research, 56(2), 212-242.Oct 19, 2010 | Department of Computer Science | Telecooperation | Kai Michael Höver | Slide 3
  • 4. ... and to answer these questions§ If questions are not answered and students are not able to follow a lecture ➡ students develop a certain helplessness ➡ students loose interest ➡ students stop following Norman, D. A. (2002). The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.Oct 19, 2010 | Department of Computer Science | Telecooperation | Kai Michael Höver | Slide 4
  • 5. Lecture hall 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 VerlagOct 19, 2010 | Department of Computer Science | Telecooperation | Kai Michael Höver | Slide 5
  • 6. Asking questions during a lecture can be a challenge§ Students can easily be overlooked§ It‘s hard to hear a student without a microphone§ Students may be too shy and fear to embarrass themselvesOct 19, 2010 | Department of Computer Science | Telecooperation | Kai Michael Höver | Slide 6
  • 7. Problems with the traditional lecture format § 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] § 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 ResourceDevelopment 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 physicscourses, American Journal of Physics, 66(1), pp. 64-74.Oct 19, 2010 | Department of Computer Science | Telecooperation | Kai Michael Höver | Slide 7
  • 8. Classroom PresenterClassroom [1]/Ubiquitous Presenter [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, [1] Anderson, R.based on Anoto technology, which consists of Blue- PaperCP, & Linnell, devices, and the limita- tooth digital pens andN., 2009, Promoting Interaction in Distance Education, eLearn, 2009(8). printouts. tions imposed by battery Students [2] Wilkerson, M., Griswold, W.G. & Simon, B., 2005, SIGCSE 05: life. To ease the tensionProceedings of the 36th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer between physical andscience education, Ubiquitous presenter: increasing studentthem to digital affordances, a natural solution is to integrate access Public display create a better overall usercontrol in a digital lecturing environment. ACM, pp. 116-20. and experience. [3] Liao, C. et al, 2007, Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT In this paper, we investigate how to combine the advantages of physical artifacts like paper with the 2007, PaperCP: Exploring the Integration of Physical and DigitalFigure 1. Classroom Presenter.The system runs on instructor, student, and public displays, each convenience of an electronic communication and archiving infra- Affordances for Active Learning. pp. 15-28. structure. Specifically, based on a communication model for Active Learning, wewith its own user interface. In the scenario shown here, the instructor presents a slide with anactivity.The students write solutions to the activity on their Tablet PCspropose atheir Anoto [5]-based paper interface, PaperCP (Paper Classroom Presenter) and submit new Oct 19, 2010 | Department of Computer Science |(Figure 1), for Classroom Presenter, aimed at addressing the interaction and cost-answers to the instructor.The instructor can preview the student solutions in a film strip (shown Telecooperation | Kai Michael Höver | Slide 8on the right of the instructor view) and then selectively show student answers on the public benefit problems of the fully digital system. Our physical interface allows students todisplay for class discussion.
  • 9. !"#$%&&$$ $$()(*+,-$*./01234516$7$"869$,:;28<;$ Livenotes LM,(O#2)3H! WM(! "6,#0! L()(! 2! )($2)52O6(! 3(/,+(! 9#)! M(,)! ,$(! SFAA=T1! O&! L()(! 6,$,(3! ,-! ()$0! #9! %)#+(00,-:! ! +2%2O,6,7! SFG=! e?R! m8*"! "V;T! 2-3! &02O,6,7! S+)2$%(3! ! 5(7O#2)31! 6,$,(3! 0+)((-! 0(-0,,/,7! #! %(-! ,-%&1! 2-3! 2! ! %)(00&)(E0(-0,,/(!0+)((-!M2!)(2(3!2++,3(-26!M2-3!+#-2+! § Supports real-time conversation L,M!M(!0+)((-!20!%(-!,-%&TH!! ! within small groups of students ! ! during lectures ! ! ! § PPT slides can be loaded into the ! whiteboard‘s background ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! @,.:4&!AB!8%&!C,D&-/$&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(! ! 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#)(!Oct 19, 2010 | Department of Computer Science | Telecooperation | Kai Michael Höver Q,/(-#(0! #! 62%#%0! 2-3! 9#&-3! M2! ,! L#)5(3! $,:)2(3! | Slide 9 ! (99(+,/(67! L,M! 0,:-,9,+2-67! :)(2()! +#$%&,-:! %#L()H! !
  • 10. n phones. Only 4 out of 72 were willing to do so. To offer ao free of charge solution, we installed a Bluetooth access point- in one of our lecture halls and extended the client applications for Bluetooth use [1].n , TVremote for use during lectures 3.2 Educator client The educator uses a client which is divided into two parts:a one for student-initiated content (such as questions and evalu-y § Instructor can take polls ation), and the other for educator-initiated content, especi- ally quizzes. The division in two parts separates the logical-s ly different elements. Additionally, both tabs are less crow- ded and easier can provide feedback incoming Students to use by the separation betweens §- feedback and responses to prepared quiz questions. Figure 3r § shows them as tabs insend question or comments Students can a tabbed pane.nnf-nn-ne-- Bär, H., Häußge, G. & Rößling, G., 2007, ITiCSE 07: Proceedings of theo 12th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology inl computer science education, An Integrated System for Interaction Support in Lectures. ACM, pp. 281-285. Figure 3: Educator client for in-lecture interaction Oct 19, 2010 | Department of Computer Science | Telecooperation | Kai Michael Höver | Slide 10-
  • 11. Active Class § students can ask questions during a lecture and participate in polls § students can also view questions and vote for them UCSD CSE technical report #CS2002-0715 5 Fig. 2. The admin’s and user’s Question pages. The admin’s page has more features, like lock,Ratto, M., Shapiro, R. B., Truong, T. M., & Griswold, W. G. (2003). The activeclass project: Experiments in encouraging classroom participation. In Proceedings of computer support delete, hide, reveal. The list can be sorted by vote count or by time. for collaborative learning 2003.Truong, T. M., Griswold, W. G., Ratto, M., & Star, S. L. (2002). The activeclass project: Experiments in encouraging classroom participation. Technical report CS2002-0715, UC san diego, department of CSE. again before they leave the class (Figure 4). Waiting a minute, the first time becomes the clear winner and he announces that as the review time.Oct 19, 2010 | Department of Computer Science | Telecooperation | Kai Michael Höver | Slide 11 Now that class is over, Professor G. clicks Save to Warehouse on the Session page to capture today’s questions. Thinking that one question was good, he goes to the
  • 12. MRAS § Microsoft Research Annotation System § Learners can add questions and answers to lecture videos § These posts are anchored with timestamps of the videoBargeron, D., Grudin, J., Gupta, A., Sanocki, E., Li, F., & Leetiernan, S. (2002). Asynchronous collaboration around multimedia applied to on-demand education. Journal of Management Figure 2: Web-based MRAS interface. Information Systems, 18(4), 117-145. Oct 19, 2010 | Department of Computer System Features and Functions | Kai Michael Höver | Slide 12 4.4 Annotation Science | Telecooperation The video in the upper left of the browser window in Figure 2 is displayed with a standard media player. The
  • 13. Session T2H Authoring on the fly/AWShe client with the server. On e transmitted via the SOAP icons or hidden altogether (e.g., if they cover too much of the original document).ent to the Annotation Web With these two views, it is possible to follow thehere are new annotations on discussion thread note by note, or to follow it from the § allows learnersperspective of the document and view the notes anchored att to the client. to add text notes on slides ofhe system can retrieve all specific regions of the artifact. Both views are interlinked: by with lecture recordings their current lecture double-clicking an annotation in the thread view, a user can them. They can then create navigate directly to the respective location of the document § text notes can where that note is anchored and, for example, start replay fromy replying to existing notes) be linked with each other so that discussion threads can be createdh their co-learners. there. Recordings WWW CD Local repository FIGURE 4 Lauer, T., Trahasch, S., & Zupancic, B. (2005). Anchored discussions of multimedia A LECTURE RECORDING WITHeducation, 2005. FIE 05. Proceedings 35th annual conference. ANCHORED DISCUSSION OF lecture recordings. In Frontiers in AOFJSYNC HTTP, FTP Oct 19, 2010 | Department of Computer Science | to the two views, Michael Höver | Slide 13 Analogous Telecooperation | Kai the user has also twoer possibilities to create new notes. A new annotation can be
  • 14. Limitations of presented systems(a) Questions and comments cannot always be made in a learning material context(b) Systems focus on the time either during or after a lecture§ However, it is important to enable students to continue interaction after a class/lecture § New questions may arise after a lecture § Questions posted during a lecture might be refined after a lectureOct 19, 2010 | Department of Computer Science | Telecooperation | Kai Michael Höver | Slide 14
  • 15. Q&A 2.0 ArchitectureOct 19, 2010 | Department of Computer Science | Telecooperation | Kai Michael Höver | Slide 15
  • 16. Q&A 2.0 User Interface Slide List of postsSlide previews Rate post Add post Oct 19, 2010 | Department of Computer Science | Telecooperation | Kai Michael Höver | Slide 16
  • 17. Summary and outlook • We presented the concept of a system that • supports asking, answering, and assessing questions in context • support of interaction between students themselves and the educator (learning as a social process) • enables students to continue or start new interaction during and after a lecture • Next steps: • How to apply the system • pedagogical scenarios • Evaluation! • Goal: support/improve students‘ learning (good vehicle?) • How do they use such a system? Interplay of in- and post-lecture interaction • How do lecturers‘ accept such a system? • Re-design • running in Web browsers • connection to existing forumsOct 19, 2010 | Department of Computer Science | Telecooperation | Kai Michael Höver | Slide 17
  • 18. Thank you for listening! Questions?Oct 19, 2010 | Department of Computer Science | Telecooperation | Kai Michael Höver | Slide 18