california educational research association annual meeting rancho mirage, ca – december 5, 2008...
TRANSCRIPT
California Educational Research AssociationAnnual Meeting
Rancho Mirage, CA – December 5, 2008
Hoky Min, Gregory K. W. K. Chung, Rebecca Buschang, Lianna Johnson, William Kaiser
The Influence of the Use of an Open-Ended Classroom Response System on Student Outcomes
2 / 29
Overview of Talk
• Background of research (Greg)
• Survey constructs (Greg)
• Analyses (Hoky)
• Results (Hoky)
• Implications and next step (Greg)
3 / 29 3
Background
• Develop a classroom response system
UCLA developed (Elec. engineering by Bill Kaiser) – 3I: Individualized, interactive instruction
Different from clickers—focus on the process of problem solving, not just the final answer
• Test the machinery
To what extent can teachers make use of real-time student responses?
How do students perceive the experience?
How does the mode affect student learning?
4 / 29 4
Overview of Research
• Develop and validate a survey measure of students’ perceptions of processes experience with a classroom response system
Examine technical quality of measure
Examine relation between perception and outcomes
5 / 29 5
3I—Individualized, InteractiveInstruction
• Use computers to help with immediate feedback and formative assessment
• Typical lesson
Present problem / question / prompt …
Students type their response
Teacher interprets student responses and adjusts instruction immediately—moves on, reviews, elaborates, discusses, …
6 / 29 6
7 / 29 7
8 / 29
Student’s View
9 / 29
Instructor’s View
10 / 29
• All students in session participated, drastically improved interaction
• Clear and immediate feedback
• Rate of receiving questions and observing responses to problems is much higher than conventional sessions
• Method exceeds interactivity of one-on-one from instructor perspective
Instructor Perceptions
11 / 29
• Interviewed students and gathered written responses during pilot tests
Learning, interaction, interest
Comfort participating
Engagement
• Developed survey items based on qualitative data
• Examine technical quality of measure and relation to student outcomes (this study)
Student Perceptions
12 / 29
• Learning
• Interaction
• Interest
• Comfort participating
• Engagement
Scales
13 / 29
• Undergraduate—genetics
59 students
3I used for weekly discussion sessions (9 weeks)
• Middle school—summer school remedial math
104 students (6th, 7th, 8th grade)
3I used for guided practice sessions (twice over 4 weeks)
• Minimal instructor training
Method
Analyses and Results
15 / 29
What We Did…
Perception on technology
Post test
Pre- test
16 / 29
Research Questions
• To what extent does the survey measure students’ perceptions on the use of the technology in class?
• To what extent do students’ perceptions influence their class achievement?
17 / 29
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
• A statistical technique that tests hypotheses, theories, and models as to relationships among variables
• Latent variables: Theoretical constructs underlying performance or scores on measures
• Observed variables: Scores or performance on measures
18 / 29
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
• Measurement model (confirmatory factor analysis)
19 / 29
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
• Structural regression model
20 / 29
Measurement Model (College)
21 / 29
Structural Regression Model(College)
• Model 1
22 / 29
Structural Regression Model (College)
• Model 2
23 / 29
Measurement Model (Middle School)
24 / 29
Structural Regression Model (Middle School)
• Model 1
25 / 29
Structural Regression Model (Middle School)
• Model 2
26 / 29
Summary of Findings
• For college and middle-school levels, the survey measures are valid indicators of students’ perceptions of the learning processes evoked from the use of 3I
• Students’ perception does not predict class achievement
• Students’ perception and class achievement are both affected by their existing knowledge on the subjects
27 / 29
Implications
• Why was there no relation between students’ perception of classroom processes and outcomes?
Classroom interaction doesn’t matter
Poor measure
Duration of use too short
Ceiling effect with university students
Relative coverage of content (with respect to outcome) in 3I sessions was much less than lectures
Instructor training
28 / 29
Next Steps
• Improve instructor support
Develop structured problem sets
a priori -- Common errors , possible knowledge gaps behind errors, instructional strategies
• Experimental design
With 3I vs. without 3I (business as usual), control for content
Challenging
30 / 29
Perceived Learning
The sessions helped to reinforce what I had learned from lectures and
the book. It was a good way to solidify any potential questions I may have had regarding specific circuits. Using the computer based tools was a nice alternative to pencil and paper or white-boarding.
I think that the answer to this question is based on the type of individual.
From my perspective, it is easier for me to take notes on problems and go over it at a later time, individually. I felt some pressure when solving the problems in a group setting.
31 / 29
Perceived Comfort
I think that maintaining anonymity is very crucial in the interaction aspect of the
discussion. Many, including myself, may feel a little embarrassed asking a "dumb" question but w/ this method, I don't feel that people will hesitate to ask those questions.
The whole "instant messaging" system was cool, but seemed impersonal. Also, it felt
intimidating to message the professor. It seemed to make more sense if we just asked the questions in person rather than messaging.
32 / 29
Perceived Engagement
I was definitely more prone to sit and give my full attention in this section than I am normally in any discussion. I did not fall asleep, where normally I will doze off during
normal discussion. I think it's a lot easier to pay attention because I feel like I actually have to do the problem myself, rather than sit back and let some brainy kid figure it out for me, like I will tend to do when I feel lazy normally.
Whenever we were assigned a problem to do, I always ended up taking out a piece of
paper and pencil to write out the problem. Having the problem on the computer made it harder to see the whole problem because the screen was too small to fit the problem into the screen.
33 / 29 33
Typical Approach
• Whole-group instruction
Difficult to get immediate feedback from students
Feedback is usually only from a few students
Not all students may be engaged