Using Web-Enabled Mobile Phones for Audience Participation in Lectures

1,413 views

Published on

Presented at TLAD (Teaching, Learning, and Asseessment of Databases) - July 11, 2011.

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,413
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Start up a question detailing issues seen In lecture environments.
  • Typically, class sizes have remained small. However, in higher education, the lecture format allows for this to increase to extremely large numbers. Some classes can be full of over a hundred students. In small groups, we can often use simple methods to gauge the audience. Raising hands has always been a popular method, but isn’t without its problems. It can’t scale very far, the data can’t be used and is rife with peer pressure.
  • Laurillard’s learning dialogue model helps to show how good teaching can take place. In typically small classes, teachers can explain a topic or ask a question and get a response from their learners. With lectures, this becomes quite one-sided since there are little means for students to respond back in any way.
  • In 1992 Classtalk became the first ARS (Audience Response System). It was adapted from graphing calculators and wired into a display to receive responses, allowing for large-scale and rapid feedback to be delivered.
  • Technology moves on, and recently these clickers have become wireless. TurningPoint is one of the more popular systems, and integrates into Microsoft Powerpoint to deliver results during a lecture without distraction.
  • While as good as it is, there is a massive problem of cost. These systems are not cheap—with TurningPoint clickers costing up to £40 each. Convincing institutions to purchase clickers in such high amounts that will accommodate a class will cost a considerable sum, and as such universities have not established such systems in large-scale. The infrastructure for this is also difficult to implement. Hardware may fail, components replaced and persons required to manage these devices.
  • Other systems have come into fruition since TurningPoint, and hoped to use common Internet hardware and software to reduce cost. Once such system was WILD (Wireless Interactive Learning Demonstrator) which used PDAs with WiFi connections to use the system. However, such as system was not cost-effective. Students didn’t easy access to PDAs and suffers other issues in battery life, usability, etc. Other systems have attempted to use mobile phones to solve this. One such system adopted SMS as a method of delivery, but this ignores the technological improvements phones have made in the 15 or so years SMS has existed. Mobile phones now have access to fast data connections and many have WiFi. With around 100% of students owning a mobile phone, there is a lot of potential resources available here.
  • As such, it was asked… <QUESTION> By mobile devices, we’re referring to the multitude of devices that can access these data connections. Phones, iPods, tablets, eReaders, laptops… many students have these nowadays and many already bring them to class.
  • We developed MARS as a web-based audience response system that would use mobile devices to figure this out. Requirements not extensive, but figured out from student and teacher needs. Sorted into functional/non-functional requirements. Most were completed. 3 Interfaces were created..
  • What were a few of our requirements?
  • The web is becoming a more attractive place to develop applications, with more common desktop programs moving to an infrastructure that is available almost anywhere. Currently the web is moving at a break neck speed with more devices, especially mobile, having high speed support. Technology behind the web has changed recently too, and more and more is becoming capable.
  • Control interface allows easy creation and editing of quizzes, grouping them into years, modules and allows infinite sub-group definition. Also shows results for presenters to use later and see individual datasets from a class or aggregate them and see for each time run.
  • Presentation is linked to in a powerpoint file and is used during a lecture to show the questions and results for each quiz. Pertinent information is displayed, such as quiz length, participants, and answers retrieved and shows the results after each question. Students can use the same link followed by teachers but see individual dataset results for previous sessions.
  • You’ll have a chance to demo this later. Participation has to work on many mobile devices, and suitably work the same. Had to be fast and easy to use. While it uses javascript for some interactions, the use of such is not required and peacefully degrades to allow older devices to participate.
  • Evaluation focused on two aspects: the ability for students to use the system on their device was significant, and teachers require speed, efficiency, and usability at all steps of their processes. TurningPoint was used due to it’s frequent mention in literature and as it was available from the university directly. Evaluation used 25 undergrad first year students studying database fundamentals during a typical revision lecture, which contained typically male students with high computer literacy. Each student was given a choice between MARS or TurningPoint, and given a device if needed as well as a questionnaire asking about their mobile phone’s specifications, educational concerns (see if a mismatch was apparent from literature) and overall opinion of their selected system’s abilities. The systems were run simultaneously as identical quizzes of six questions appeared on the display. The data was not used from this information, as this study concentrated on opinion data rather than educational performance.
  • 56% of students chose mARS, showing a large amount of unexpected students who chose TurningPoint. This was unexpected, and the questionnaire didn’t ask for reasons why this system was chosen.
  • The phone themselves are interesting. 20% did not have a phone capable of data connections but the rest had a multitide of different speeds available to them. The graph goes over 100% as many phones have access to different data speeds. 20% of total users didn’t have access to anything but GPRS, which is worrying as that is 56KBps (Dial-up). Speeds of EDGE or higher are preferential for such a system.
  • System issues here are due to the overall complexity of systems. TurningPoint is handed to a student, only requiring one keypress per question. MARS requires participants to enter a URL for entry, and then to click twice for each question to be entered into the system, with interactions between webpages affected by their data speed.
  • Overall performance shows that MARS is slightly below preference of TurningPoint, but the fact that it is so high compared to a professional system is promising.
  • Specific preferences more interesting. Students preferred the system they chose to begin with, but a few choosing TurningPoint at the end instead. It was discovered that these participants were the ones with the slowest connection speed, which is understandable.
  • Teachers need fast data entry for quizzes, and this is something that MARS excells at. TurningPoint requires installation, and formatting of questions for each powerpoint slide. The issue is that TurningPoint required these formats for questions to be displayed correctly, while MARS formats slides automatically and any issues with text size can be corrected in the browser during a presentation simply.
  • Demo page - use questions from Post-it notes to show admin interface.
  • Confirms evidence that students like using such systems, and believe it aids their learning. The ability for mobile use of such a system is debateable, with some phones not supporting it fully. The ability to observe and participate but not have a casting vote is not hindered, so such a system could be ready for mainstream use. Setup times reduced. Doesn’t solve the issue of students unable to ask questions, but may be capable through textual entry on phones and other devices. Best of both worlds – integrate MARS into ARS. This research was conducted on a small niche group on one occasion. Possible extension to work with more varied groups for longer periods of time for conclusive data.
  • Show how some of the issues may be resolved with other software, or be integrated at a later date.
  • Questions?
  • Using Web-Enabled Mobile Phones for Audience Participation in Lectures

    1. 1. Using Web-Enabled Mobile Phones forAudience Participation in LecturesCraig McCreath & Petra Leimich Abertay University Image by Gina Collecchia
    2. 2. Using Web-Enabled Mobile Phones for Audience Participation in Lectures Craig McCreath First, a question...
    3. 3. Using Web-Enabled Mobile Phones for Audience Participation in Lectures Craig McCreath Back in the day…
    4. 4. Using Web-Enabled Mobile Phones for Audience Participation in Lectures Craig McCreath A simplified version of Laurillard’s dialogue model (adapted from Cutts and Kennedy. 2005)
    5. 5. Using Web-Enabled Mobile Phones for Audience Participation in Lectures Craig McCreath
    6. 6. Using Web-Enabled Mobile Phones for Audience Participation in Lectures Craig McCreath
    7. 7. Using Web-Enabled Mobile Phones for Audience Participation in Lectures Craig McCreath The problem? Image By epSos.de
    8. 8. Using Web-Enabled Mobile Phones for Audience Participation in Lectures Craig McCreath
    9. 9. Using Web-Enabled Mobile Phones for Audience Participation in Lectures Craig McCreath “In what ways could the use of audience response systems using mobile devices increase interactivity within higher education?”
    10. 10. Using Web-Enabled Mobile Phones for Audience Participation in Lectures Craig McCreathMethodology
    11. 11. Using Web-Enabled Mobile Phones for Audience Participation in Lectures Craig McCreath • Work on as many devices as possible. • No hardware requirements. • Accessible anywhere.
    12. 12. Using Web-Enabled Mobile Phones for Audience Participation in Lectures Craig McCreath
    13. 13. Using Web-Enabled Mobile Phones for Audience Participation in Lectures Craig McCreathControl Interface
    14. 14. Using Web-Enabled Mobile Phones for Audience Participation in Lectures Craig McCreathPresentation Interface
    15. 15. Using Web-Enabled Mobile Phones for Audience Participation in Lectures Craig McCreathParticipation Interface
    16. 16. Using Web-Enabled Mobile Phones for Audience Participation in Lectures Craig McCreathEvaluation
    17. 17. Using Web-Enabled Mobile Phones for Audience Participation in Lectures Craig McCreathResults
    18. 18. Using Web-Enabled Mobile Phones for Audience Participation in Lectures Craig McCreath Data capability of participant mobile phones. Horizontal axis ordered from fastest to slowest relative data speeds
    19. 19. Using Web-Enabled Mobile Phones for Audience Participation in Lectures Craig McCreath Participants 32% have had issues with paying attention in classes. 36% have had difficulty gauging peer understanding of a topic. 52% have found it difficult to ask questions during a lecture.
    20. 20. Using Web-Enabled Mobile Phones for Audience Participation in Lectures Craig McCreath Engagement Comparison 86% thought MARS would help them pay more attention in class. (Compared to 73% for TurningPoint) 86% thought MARS would aid in their learning. (Compared to 91% for TurningPoint) 79% would use MARS again in the future. (Compared to 91% for TurningPoint)
    21. 21. Using Web-Enabled Mobile Phones for Audience Participation in Lectures Craig McCreath System Comparison 64% found MARS relatively or very fast. (Compared to 82% for TurningPoint) 71% found MARS relatively or very easy to use. (Compared to 100% for TurningPoint) 65% found it useful to have the answers on their device. (Compared to 18% for TurningPoint)
    22. 22. Using Web-Enabled Mobile Phones for Audience Participation in Lectures Craig McCreath Overall Preference
    23. 23. Using Web-Enabled Mobile Phones for Audience Participation in Lectures Craig McCreath Specific Preferences MARS Participants MARS Participants
    24. 24. Using Web-Enabled Mobile Phones for Audience Participation in Lectures Craig McCreath Data Entry
    25. 25. Using Web-Enabled Mobile Phones for Audience Participation in Lectures Craig McCreath Image by Richard Moross
    26. 26. Using Web-Enabled Mobile Phones for Audience Participation in Lectures Craig McCreathConclusion
    27. 27. (Change this image with better dummy content)
    28. 28. Using Web-Enabled Mobile Phones forAudience Participation in LecturesCraig McCreath & Petra Leimich Abertay University Image by Gina Collecchia

    ×