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 inclass breaks.
• Presented with short multiple choice, open
book/note quizzes to be answered after the
breaks.
• Quizzes could increase grades from say, an Ato an A
• Purely positive without diluting the closedbook 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B. 9 C. 8, don’t be out of date!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• IR now superseded by RF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.
• 2010 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 Standard Errors of the Mean.
Clearly ’02, ‘03 > ’01 but ‘02, ‘03 similar.
30
Mean Score
25
20
15
10
5
0
2001/No Quizes
2002/Quizes
2003/Quizes
Year/Quizes
•
•
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 < .001)
and also from scores in ‘03 (t(67) = 7.95, p < .001). But scores in ‘02 and ‘03 didn’t significantly differ from each other (t(74) = 0.98, 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 3.80.
• 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
AY101 Gains
Without
With Clickers
100.0
90.0
% of Gains >= Gain(x)
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
% Gain
• 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
• Publication: Byrd, G.; Coleman, S.; Werneth, C.
2003, Bulletin of the American Astronomical Soc.,
Vol. 35, p.1241. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AAS...203.2103B
• Byrd, G., S. Coleman, and C. Werneth. 2004.
Astronomy Education Review 3 (1): 26–30.
http://aer.noao.edu/cgi-bin/article.pl?id=91.
• Appreciation to undergraduate S. Coleman and graduate student C. Werneth.
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.”
www.sciencecases.org/clicker/herreid_clicker.asp
• “Clickers: A New Teaching Aid with Exceptional
Promise” Douglas Duncan 2006 The
Astronomy Education Review, Issue 1, Volume
5, p. 1. A “Pro” review.
http://casa.colorado.edu/~dduncan/teachingseminar/AER05-01-02-03.pdf
Gain
Post %
100.0
90.0
% of Gains >= Gain(x)
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0
20
40
60
Gain & Post %
80
100