Cooperative Quizzes and the Classroom Performance System in Introductory Astronomy: An Update Gene Byrd, Physics and Astronomy Department, University of Alabama

The problem Our introductory astronomy course had large enrollments necessitating multiple choice exams. There were the usual attendance problems with students putting off studying until just before major exams, with predictable consequences.

“Clinical trial” strategy Actively involve students by their cooperatively answering quiz questions. To judge effectiveness, just change one thing! Same teacher, similar students, same content, mode of delivery and same semester over three years. Be wary of being a “true believer.”

Co-operative in-class quiz solution May 2001, 2002 and 2003 Interim terms. Three hours/day over three weeks with in- class breaks. Presented with short multiple choice, open book/note quizzes to be answered after the breaks. Quizzes could increase grades from say, an A- to an A Purely positive without diluting the closed- book major exams.

2001 “control” vs 2002 “low tech” quizzes. 2001: copies of multiple choice questions + answers to study outside of class 2002: short multiple choice, open book/note quizzes answered after class breaks on “bubble sheets” 2002’s final exam average 80%, much better than 2001’s 57%. Qualitatively, the 2002 students interacted much more.

Convenient clickers Handing out and taking up papers takes up time (particularly during regular semester). More interesting if the students vote for different answers (``Is that your final answer”) then reveal correct answer. Because of previous results, got grant to purchase 128 IR clickers + support for Computer-based Honors Program undergrad. Instructional Technology Grant from the University of Alabama, Office of the Provost.

Sample introductory quiz 1. If one goes outside on a bright, sunny day, how many planets can one be sure of seeing? A. 1 B. 9 C. 8, don’t be out of date! D. None. It’s sunny, stupid! 2. Our solar system is composed of billions of A.stars B. Planets C. stars & planets D. none of these (A,B,C) You may want to try cooperatively answering these during the next break.

Clicker characteristics Shorter, more frequent quizzes possible for each class during regular semester. Questions can be given in a less structured manner. Initially mounted at seats. Later found rack at classroom entrance works well. IR now superseded by RF UA now uses bookstore model. Problems Interim, I tried i-phone and pc model.

Clicker versus low-tech results Improvement in performance was maintained with a slight increase from 80% to 83%. The co-operative paper and pencil quiz system gave improvement that was simply retained and made more convenient by the clickers!

Cooperative quiz improvement graph. Max test score is 30. Error bars are Standard Errors of the Mean. Clearly ’02, ‘03 > ’01 but ‘02, ‘03 similar. Statistical Tests: One-Way Between-Subjects Analysis of Variance. (F(2,104) = 42.8, p <.001). indicates a significant difference among the mean test scores for 2001, ‘02, ‘03. Post-hoc, Bonferonni-corrected, between-subject t-tests confirmed test scores in ‘01 differed from the scores in ‘02 (t(67) = 6.97, p.800).

Students like cooperative quizzes. Students assigned a grade for the course from A=5 to F=1. For 2001 with no daily quizzes, average grade given was For 2002 with paper and pencil quizzes, the average was 4.33, significantly better. For 2003 with clicker quizzes, the average was 4.19, still significantly better.

Ay101 UA clicker use today. Pre-test and post-test comparison Sec. Gain=Post %-Pre%. Pre & Post tests % scores ‘08-’10 100%x(#Sec>Sec.Gain)/Total #Sec. 9 click, 8 no click sections. Data courtesy Ray White, Physics/Astronomy Dept.UA

Published descriptions of this research Byrd, G.; Coleman, S.; Werneth, C. 2003, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Soc., Vol. 35, p Byrd, G., S. Coleman, and C. Werneth Astronomy Education Review 3 (1): 26– Appreciation to undergraduate S. Coleman and graduate student C. Werneth. Also to Dr. D. Byrd for statistical analysis.

Review articles which describe the above research + others’. “Clicker” Cases: Introducing Case Study Teaching Into Large Classrooms by CF Herreid 2006, Journal of College Science Teaching, vol 63, #2, pp.43–47. Excellent “pro and con.” “Clickers: A New Teaching Aid with Exceptional Promise” Douglas Duncan 2006 The Astronomy Education Review, Issue 1, Volume 5, p. 1. A “Pro” review.