Ruth Anderson Digital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom1 Ph.D. Defense Ruth Anderson Computer Science & Engineering University of Washington

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom2 Classroom Presenter

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom3 Classroom Presenter UW PMP SIP prototype (Wolfman) Presentation Tool Classroom Deployment Studies CFS Classroom Study ( ) Student Submissions Student Submissions Classroom Deployment Studies Ubiquitous Presenter (Griswold, Simon ) SIGCSE 04 CHI 04 Comp & Graphics 05 FIE 05 CSCL 03 ITICSE 04 Classroom Presenter 3 Device Integration MSR (2002) (2003) (2002) ( ) Classroom Presenter Project History

Ruth Anderson Digital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom4 Ph.D. Defense Ruth Anderson Computer Science & Engineering University of Washington

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom5 The Classroom Today Lectures are dominant format Instructors talk at students Good for: distributing information Bad for: several reasons…

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom6 Student Attention Declines Attention Time

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom7 Interaction and Feedback are important for Learning Pedagogies: Active Learning (Bonwell & Eison) Peer Instruction (Mazur) Classroom Assessment Techniques (CATs) (Angelo & Cross)

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom8 Interaction and Feedback in Lecture Today Instructor asks a question A few students answer, verbally, sequentially Problems: Lack of bandwidth Inaccurate feedback Lack of control over content No lasting record of a verbal exchange

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom9 The Classroom Tomorrow Student devices Laptop, Tablets, Ultra light tablets, PDAs, Cell Phones Wireless

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom10 Thesis Question Can we use student devices to increase both the quantity and quality of classroom interaction?

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom11 Approach Pen-based communication integrated with lecture slides Ink Flexibility Naturalness of expression Lecture slides Integrates with common lecture tool Communication in context

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom12 System Goals 1.Increase student engagement 2.Improve feedback to the instructor 3.Promote the participation of all students 4.Facilitate the integration of student work into discussion

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom13 Contributions Design of the student submissions system Analysis of set of deployments: Pedagogy Impact on Classroom Environment Student Attitudes Use of Ink

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom14 Talk Outline 1.Introduction 2.System Description 3.Deployments 1.Pedagogy 2.Classroom Experiences 3.Student Evaluation 4.Conclusions

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom15 Student Submissions: Activity Scenario Students Instructor Public Display

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom16 Design Choices (a subset) Digital ink as the medium for student responses. Students work simultaneously and independently. Student work is displayed anonymously.

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom17 Talk Outline 1.Introduction 2.System Description 3.Deployments 1.Pedagogy 2.Classroom Experiences 3.Student Evaluation 4.Conclusions

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom18 Classroom Deployments (Fall 2003-Spring 2006) 18 courses, 1-10 sessions per course CS1, Data Structures, Digital Design, Software Engineering, Algorithms, Pen Computing 239 activities Over 4000 student artifacts

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom19 Data Collected Classroom Observations Replayable Logs Instructor Analysis Student Ink Artifacts Student Surveys

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom20 Lessons from Deployments Feedback on Technology Understanding of: Pedagogy Classroom Experiences Impact on Classroom Environment Student Attitudes Use of Ink in Artifacts Student Evaluation of System

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom21 Talk Outline 1.Introduction 2.System Description 3.Deployments 1.Pedagogy 2.Classroom Experiences 3.Student Evaluation 4.Conclusions

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom22 Pedagogical Goals Student Engagement Problem Exploration Individual Discovery Reinforcement Classroom Assessment Collective Brainstorming Pedagogical Point Artifact Discussion

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom23 Individual Discovery

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom24 Classroom Assessment

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom25 Classroom Assessment

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom26 Artifact Discussion

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom27 Pedagogy Results Variety of Pedagogical Goals System design choices were critical: Ink-based interaction Incorporation of individual artifacts into discussion Lessons learned about design of activities and use of system

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom28 Talk Outline 1.Introduction 2.System Description 3.Deployments 1.Pedagogy 2.Classroom Experiences 3.Student Evaluation 4.Conclusions

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom29 Classroom Experiences Deployments (Fall 2003-Spring 2006) 18 courses 239 activities Over 4000 student artifacts Courses of focus Data Structures (3x) Algorithms Software Engineering

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom30 Deployments of Focus Course # Students Total # Classes Used Total # Activities Data Structures Software Engineering Algorithms Data Structures Section A Section B

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom31 Areas of Results from Classroom Experiences 1.Use of Class Time 2.Participation Rates 3.Display of Work 4.Ink Use in Student Artifacts

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom32 1. Use of Class Time 50% of class time dedicated to activities 7:17 minutes per activity Work time was 65% of activity time Some students perceived class as slower

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom33

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom34

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom35 2. Participation Rates High participation rates Consistent over quarter and lecture Silent participation existed System encouraged participation

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom36 High Participation Rates CourseAverage Participation Rate Algorithms69% Data Structures-a88% Data Structures-b81%

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom37 Consistent Participation: Over the Quarter

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom38 Consistent Participation: Over 50 minutes

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom39 “Silent” Participation Existed Observation: Some students worked on an activity but did not submit a response. In Algorithms: 69% submitted a response 86% submitted a response + worked but did not submit

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom40 “Did the system make you more likely to do the activity?” 73% more likely to do the activity 16% same 11% less likely

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom41 “How often would you volunteer?”

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom42 Student Views on Anonymity Anonymous to InstructorAnonymous to Class

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom43 Results on Participation High participation rates Consistent over quarter and lecture Silent participation existed System encouraged participation

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom44 3. Display of Work Pattern related to pedagogy Many shown briefly Display as a motivator

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom45 “How important that your response be displayed?” 54% prefer their response be shown 42% don’t care 4% prefer their response NOT be shown

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom46 “How did you feel when your response …” was displayed: 52% good, proud, excited, happy 29% fine, o.k., indifferent Other: 7% stress 4% getting feedback was not displayed: 28% disappointment 53% fine, o.k., indifferent Other: 5% not time to show all 6% might be wrong

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom47 4. Ink Use in Student Artifacts Expressing Answers Path taken Elaboration Unexpected response types Personalization Expressing emotions Doodling Tagging

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom48 Expressing Emotions

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom49 Doodling

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom50 Tagging

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom51 Tagging

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom52 Talk Outline 1.Introduction 2.System Description 3.Deployments 1.Pedagogy 2.Classroom Experiences 3.Student Evaluation 4.Conclusions

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom53 Student Evaluation 94% claimed positive effect on learning experience 85% claimed they were more engaged in lectures where system was used

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom54 Lectures where the system was used were: 30% More engaging 24% More active learning 24% Preferable to days without 17% More fun 16% Understood better 10% Slower Pace 2% More Distracting

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom55 Talk Outline 1.Introduction 2.System Description 3.Deployments 1.Pedagogy 2.Classroom Experiences 3.Student Evaluation 4.Conclusions

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom56 Related Systems eClass - capture and access Livenotes - collaborative note taking and communication Classroom Response Systems - Mazur, Roschelle, MC questions ActiveClass - asking text questions, polls DyKnow

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom57 Related Pedagogies Active Learning (Bonwell & Eison) Classroom Assessment Techniques (CATs) (Angelo & Cross) Peer Instruction (Mazur)

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom58 System Goals 1.Increase student engagement 2.Improve feedback to the instructor 3.Promote the participation of all students 4.Facilitate the integration of student work into discussion

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom59 Thesis Question Can we use student devices to increase both the quantity and quality of classroom interaction?

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom60 Contributions Design of the student submissions system Analysis of set of deployments: Pedagogy Impact on Classroom Environment Student Attitudes Use of Ink

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom61 Acknowledgements Presenter Group Instructors and students in deployments MSR External Research and Programs ConferenceXP

Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom62 END