Helping the flow of the thinking juice - student engagement in a Graphic Design clicker class

1,206 views

Published on

Presentation at DDR2011 conference at CPUT, Cape Town, 26th of September 2011

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,206
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
425
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Helping the flow of the thinking juice - student engagement in a Graphic Design clicker class

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
  3. 3. Introduction<br />
  4. 4. CPUT invested in 100 clickers at the end of 2009 for use in the Extended Curriculum Programme (ECP).<br />ECP allows lecturers more time to develop interactive approaches to teaching and learning <br />
  5. 5.
  6. 6. A main challenge in the ECP Graphic Design course is the lack of student participation & engagement in class discussions<br />
  7. 7. 7<br />10<br />22<br />
  8. 8. Student engagement <br />is the single best predictor <br />of a student’s learning <br />and personal development <br />(Kuh, 2009)<br />
  9. 9. (Sandholtz et al., 1994)<br />
  10. 10. Literature<br />
  11. 11. Clickers & Engagement<br />Studies link student engagement,improved attention and focus to clickers. Improved attendance, enjoyment and fun experienced inlectures are also attributed to clickers<br />(Addison, Wright, & Milner, 2009; Preszler et al., 2007;<br />Stagg & Lane, 2010; Trees & Jackson, 2007)<br />
  12. 12. Clickers & Participation<br />They offer students an opportunity to participate in class without “fear of ridicule, should they volunteer an incorrect response” <br />(Banks, 2006)<br />
  13. 13. Clickers & Participation<br />Second language learners often struggle to participate in class because of cultural factors inhibiting active participation, such as lack of competency in the language of instruction <br />(Stagg & Lane, 2010)<br />
  14. 14. Small Classes<br />“very little attention has been paid to the impact of clickers in small classes”<br />(Walker & Barwell, 2009:3)<br />
  15. 15. Clickers & Engagement<br />In smaller classes, clickers’ main benefit lies in “collaborative learning [amongst students] rather than the knowledge transfer from teacher to learner<br />(Walker & Barwell, 2009)<br />
  16. 16. Clickers & Peer Learning<br />Mazur (1997) is one of the main proponents of using clickers for peer learning, which can help normally struggling students to improve in examinations.<br />
  17. 17. Context<br />
  18. 18.
  19. 19. During 2010 three clicker interventions<br />were designed and implemented<br />The interventions <br />encouraged discussion through <br />non factual questions and peer voting<br />
  20. 20. Data Collection<br />
  21. 21.
  22. 22. Findings<br />
  23. 23. simplicity, novelty and entertainment <br />3 themes<br />safe, non-threatening class environment <br />sharing opinions and learning from each other<br />
  24. 24. Attention<br />
  25. 25. I enjoyed myself during the clicker class.People get kind of involved in the process.<br />No one left the class bored or tired [but] happy and comfortable.<br />After the questions were all done, I wanted more!<br />Simplicity, novelty and entertainment (Kay & Lesage, 2009)<br />
  26. 26. I find it to be very innovative,<br />exciting and it grabs my attention<br />You have to refresh your mind and think about what you are going to answer ... it keeps our minds think[ing] all the time.<br />
  27. 27. Participation<br />
  28. 28. Staying anonymous [is good]: people are unsure of their answers or they’re too embarrassed to say their answers or they’re scared that some people might think of them differently, if they say something wrong.<br />Corresponding to other findings in the literature (Simpson & Oliver, 2007) the anonymity that clickers offer decreased fear<br />
  29. 29. …feel free to talk with your own language ... then you can have a reason. Because you’re not that perfect in English. That’s why you feel so scared. But I have a reason in isiXhosa, but I don’t know how to say it in English. <br />Stagg and Lane (2010)<br />
  30. 30. I like that clicker answers are anonymous<br />
  31. 31. Peer Learning<br />
  32. 32. You hear other people’s opinions and then you can weigh it up with your own ... and with that you can formulate a better answer.<br />You hear different explanations from other people about the things that you don’t even know about.<br />
  33. 33. The more people speak out <br />their ideas, the more I think on <br />adding to what they have said.<br />It helps widening the thinking and helps the flow of thinking juice.<br />
  34. 34. I like to see what others are thinking<br />
  35. 35. Clickers help us learn from each other<br />
  36. 36. Each student should have their own clicker<br />
  37. 37. Conclusion<br />
  38. 38.
  39. 39. Even if the process of collaborative decision-making necessitated through peer-voting is not always a comfortable experience for students, the development of this skill is crucial for future graphic designers. <br />
  40. 40. The findings strengthen our view, that collaborative learning, rather than knowledge transfer from teacher to learner, should be emphasised in small clicker classes. <br />
  41. 41. Question<br />
  42. 42. Thank You<br />
  43. 43. References<br /><ul><li>Addison, S., Wright, A. & Milner, R. 2009. Using clickers to improve student engagement and performance in an introductory biochemistry class. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 37(2): 84–91. Available WWW: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bmb.20264/full [Accessed April 15, 2011].
  44. 44. Astin, A. 1987. Achieving educational excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  45. 45. Astin, A. 1984. Student involvement: A development theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25: 297-308.
  46. 46. Astin, A. 1999. Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), pp.518-529. Available WWW: http://www.middlesex.mass.edu/TutoringServices/AstinInvolvement.pdf [Accessed September 27, 2010].
  47. 47. Banks, D.A. 2006. Preface. In D. A. Banks, ed. Hershey PA: Idea Group Inc: vii-xv.
  48. 48. Caldwell, J.E. 2007. Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE -Life Sciences Education, 6(1): 9-20. Available WWW: http://www.lifescied.org/cgi/content/abstract/6/1/9 [Accessed September 27, 2010].
  49. 49. Crouch, C.H. & Mazur, E. 2001. Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69: 970-977.
  50. 50. D'Inverno, R., Davis, H. & White, S. 2003. Using a personal response system for promoting student interaction. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 22(4): 163-169. Available WWW: http://teamat.oupjournals.org/cgi/doi/10.1093/teamat/22.4.163. [Accessed October 6, 2010].
  51. 51. Davies, C. 1996. Assessment and transferable skills in art and design. Assessment and transferable skills in art and design, 3: 327-331.
  52. 52. Draper, S. & Brown, M.I. 2004. Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(2): 81-94. Available WWW: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00074.x/pdf [Accessed October 6, 2010].
  53. 53. Draper, S., Cargill, J. & Cutts, Q. 2002. Electronically enhanced classroom interaction. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 18(1): 13-23. Available WWW: http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~quintin/papers/AJET2002.pdf [Accessed September 27, 2010].
  54. 54. Fies, C. & Marshall, J. 2006. Classroom response systems: a review of the literature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1): 101-109.
  55. 55. Graham, C.R. et al. 2007. Empowering or compelling reluctant participators using audience response systems. Active Learning in Higher Education, 8: 233-258. Available WWW: http://alh.sagepub.com/content/8/3/233.abstract [Accessed September 27, 2010].
  56. 56. Hu, J. et al. 2006. Wireless Interactive Teaching. In D. A. Banks, ed. Hershey PA: Idea Group Inc, pp. 209-221.
  57. 57. Hull, G.A. et al. 2006. Many versions of masculine, Available WWW: http://www.uclinks.org/reference/research/Hulletal.Masculinitypaper.pdf [Accessed January 21, 2011].
  58. 58. Kay, R.H. & LeSage, A. 2009. Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 53: 819-827.
  59. 59. Kuh, G.D. 2009. The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual and Empirical Foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, (141). Available WWW: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ir.283/pdf [Accessed September 27, 2009].</li></li></ul><li>References<br /><ul><li>Kyei-Blankson, L. 2009. Enhancing Student Learning in a Graduate Research and Statistics Course with Clickers. EDUCAUSE Quartely, 32(4). Available WWW: http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/EnhancingStudentLearninginaGra/192963 [Accessed September 27, 2010].
  60. 60. Laurillard, D.,2002. Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies 2nd ed., London: Routledge.
  61. 61. Mazur, E. 1997. Peer instruction: a user's manual, N.J. Prentice Hall.
  62. 62. McKillop, C. 2005. Storiesb About... Assessment’: On-line storytelling to support collaborative reflective learning. In Brighton, England.
  63. 63. Papert, S. & Harel, I. 1991. Situating Constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel, eds. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.
  64. 64. Patry, M. 2009. Clickers in Large Classes: From Student Perceptions Towards an Understanding of Best Practices. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(2). Available WWW: http://www.et.kent.edu/fpdc-db/files/psych 2.pdf [Accessed October 27, 2010].
  65. 65. Patterson, B., Kilpatrick, J. & Woebkenberg, E. 2010. Evidence for teaching practice: The impact of clickers in a large classroom environment. Nurse Education Today, 30(7): 603-607. Available WWW: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNX-4Y23JK3-2&_user=3956543&_coverDate=10/31/2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1514330731&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000061727&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=3956543&md5=b96312d4f5f469644a8a7a04ef08d88a&searchtype=a [Accessed October 27, 2010].
  66. 66. Preszler, R. et al. 2007. Assessment of the effects of student response systems on student learning and attitudes over a broad range of biology course. CBE -Life Sciences Education, 6: 29-41. Available WWW: http://www.lifescied.org/cgi/reprint/6/1/29.pdf [Accessed September 27, 2010].
  67. 67. Robinson, W. 1951. The logical structure of analytic induction. American Sociological Review, 16: 12-18.
  68. 68. Sandholtz, J.H., Ringstaff, C. & Dwyer, D.C. 1994. Student Engagement: Views from Technology-Rich Classrooms. Apple Computer, Inc. Available WWW: http://www.apple.com/nl/images/pdf/acotlibrary/rpt21.pdf [Accessed September 27, 2010].
  69. 69. Simpson, V. & Oliver, M. 2007. Electronic voting systems for lectures then and now: A comparison of research and practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(2): 187-208. Available WWW: http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet23/simpson.html [Accessed September 27, 2010].
  70. 70. Stagg, A. & Lane, M. 2010. Using Clickers to Support Information Literacy Skills Development and Instruction in First-Year Business Students. Journal of Information Technology Education, 9. Available WWW: http://jite.informingscience.org/documents/Vol9/JITEv9p197-215Stagg800.pdf [Accessed October 27, 2010].
  71. 71. Trees, A. & Jackson, M. 2007. The learning environment in clicker classrooms: Student processes of learning and involvement in large university-level courses using student response systems. Learning, media and technology, 32(1): 21-40.
  72. 72. Znaniecki, F. 1934. The Method of Sociology, New York: Rinehart.</li></li></ul><li>gachagod@cput.ac.za<br />morrisa@cput.ac.za<br />simone@cput.ac.za<br />

×