Classroom Presenter –
A Classroom Interaction System
for Active and Collaborative
Learning
Richard Anderson (UW), Ruth Anderson (UVa),
Oliver Chung (UW), K. M. Davis (UW),
Peter Davis (UW), Craig Prince (UW),
Valentin Razmov (UW), Beth Simon (UCSD)
April 06, 2006
WIPTE 2006, Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN
My Goals
Inform
Involve
Inspire
Outline

Background and motivation

Pedagogical goals

The Classroom Presenter system

Why technology and pen-based input help?

Activities illustrating different pedagogical

Impact on students and instructors

Beth Simon to discuss Ubiquitous Presenter
techniques that technology can support
Student Attention vs. Time
Attention
10
20
30
40
50
60
Time
Pedagogical Goals

Active student involvement and
interaction in class


Real-time feedback to instructor on the
level of student understanding


Learning by doing
To allow adjustment of material or speed
Give students a stake in their learning


Integrate student examples into the
classroom discussion
Acknowledge the contribution of diverse
viewpoints
Background:
Classroom Presenter

Distributed classroom interaction system


Two main classroom usage scenarios:



Built for use with Tablet PCs
Presentation tool – instructors annotate slides in
ink (and save it), or use as a virtual whiteboard
Engagement tool – instructors pose problems
(on slides) that students respond to by writing
on slides and submitting this work anonymously
Classroom Presenter is freely available for
educational purposes
Classroom Deployments
Classroom setup:
 Computer Science
undergraduate courses
at Univ. of Washington
 15-30 Tablet PCs used
 Instructor supplied
tablets
 Wireless environment
 Public display
Courses in:
 Software Engineering
 Digital Design
 Data Structures
 Algorithms
 Tablet PC Computing
Capstone
 CS Education Seminar
 4th grade Math
Other Deployments

UCSC, UMass, Virginia Tech, MIT, etc.


UCSD


Using student submissions
Ubiquitous Presenter
Elsewhere

Widespread use as a presentation tool
Supporting Pedagogical Goals:
Breaking the Ice, Engagement
Why the Technology Is Key

Gives instructor instant access to content from a
broad range of students



Enables instructor to immediately integrate
student content into the lecture discussion




… not just from the few vocal students
Increases instructor’s awareness of student ideas
Using actual examples of student work improves
feedback
Gives students a stake in constructing new knowledge
Public display becomes a medium for sharing ideas
Doing all this anonymously
Why Pen-Based Input Is Key

Flexibility

Some disciplines and some activities naturally
need the ability to sketch in free form



Architecture, Math, East Asian Languages, etc.
Difficult to support without a pen-based input
device
Personal expressiveness

Individual handwriting conveys more than
typed text does
Supporting Pedagogical Goals:
Discovery, Eliciting Misconceptions



Deception can be present
Ah-ha moments
 “I have never understood this before – but it is obvious”
Important to have all students work on the example
Supporting Pedagogical Goals:
Feedback to Instructor on
Student Understanding
Supporting Pedagogical Goals:
Active Learning
Supporting Pedagogical Goals:
Brainstorming, Diversity of Opinions
Supporting Pedagogical Goals:
Hearing Student Ideas, Closure
Unsuccessful Activities
Distinguishing Aspects from
Related Work

Anonymity of student work


Student submissions





Classroom Presenter is designed strictly for
feedback in class, not for evaluation
In ink: a rich free-form expression
Non-aggregated
Instructor mediates which student
submissions the class can see
Critical role of the public display
Strong emphasis on UI simplicity
Observations on
Participation Rates and Behavior


Observations based (primarily) on data taken
from two of the latest courses
Percentage of students present who submitted
their work




Min: 11%; Max: 100%; Average: 69%
Note: Participation is optional!
Some students would do the work without
submitting
Resubmissions (with enhancements) are
common
Observations on
Display-Related Behavior

On average, 6.15 student submissions
were displayed per activity


Min: 1; Max: 18
Common pattern: show and discuss 1-2
submissions for most of the time, and
quickly show the others
Observations on
the Role of Anonymity





Student work was shown on the public display
without any identification
Limited information about each submission is
provided on the instructor machine
Anonymous display was valued by the students
Some students still believed that the instructor
could identify their work
Tagging behavior was commonly observed

Students felt gratified to see their submissions put
up
Impact of the Technology

On instructors:


Works best for instructors with interactive styles
Shift in teaching paradigm:
 First define the learning goals





Then, decide how to assess if those goals are achieved
Finally, design the necessary activities / content
Challenge of creating activities that are supportive of
learning and also can be easily evaluated on the spot
(i.e., have low cognitive load)
Wireless in the classroom: ad hoc networking works
well (for us)
On students:



Observed high rates of participation, ample classroom
discussion => engagement
Distraction is possible and does occur
Assessing learning outcomes is future work
Summary of Pros and Cons
of the Technology
Advantages:
 Lecture capture
 Material re-use
 Artifact review
 Automatic analysis
 Data mining
 Enabling distance
education
 Improved projection
Disadvantages:
 Distraction
 Desk real estate
 Cost
 Equity
Conclusions

Existing technology can:



Help promote student engagement and
openness to diversity of ideas
Enable instructors to quickly gather and give
feedback in class
Results apply across subjects and
disciplines
Invitation

We are interested in finding additional
deployments of Classroom Presenter


Especially in disciplines beyond Computer
Science, and at a range of institution types
If interested, contact us.
Your Questions?
References:

Contact info



Richard Anderson (anderson@cs.washington.edu)
Valentin Razmov (valentin@cs.washington.edu)
Classroom Presenter-related


Downloads: http://www.cs.washington.edu/education/dl/presenter/
Papers: http://www.cs.washington.edu/education/dl/presenter/papers.html
Acknowledgements:


HP
Classroom Presenter is built on top of the ConferenceXP
research platform. This work was supported in part by
grants from External Research and Programs, Microsoft
Research.