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

2. Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom2 Classroom Presenter

3. Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom3 Classroom Presenter UW PMP SIP prototype (Wolfman) Presentation Tool Classroom Deployment Studies CFS Classroom Study (2003-2006) 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 DISC @ MSR (2002) (2003) (2002) (2002-2006) Classroom Presenter Project History

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

5. 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…

6. Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom6 Student Attention Declines Attention 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time

7. 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)

8. 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

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

10. 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?

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

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

16. 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.

17. 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

18. 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

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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom23 Individual Discovery

24. Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom24 Classroom Assessment

25. Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom25 Classroom Assessment

26. Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom26 Artifact Discussion

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom30 Deployments of Focus Course # Students Total # Classes Used Total # Activities Data Structures 15418 Software Engineering 11722 Algorithms 20726 Data Structures Section A Section B 51 477 24 23

31. 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

32. 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

33. Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom33

34. Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom34

35. 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

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

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

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

39. 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

40. 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

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

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

43. 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

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

45. 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

46. 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

47. 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

48. Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom48 Expressing Emotions

49. Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom49 Doodling

50. Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom50 Tagging

51. Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom51 Tagging

52. 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

53. 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

54. 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

55. 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

56. 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

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

58. 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

59. 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?

60. 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

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

62. Ruth AndersonDigital Ink and Interaction in the Classroom62 END