Supporting Classroom Interaction With The Tablet PC: Lessons Learned From Classroom Deployment

1. Supporting Classroom Interaction With The Tablet PC:Lessons Learned From Classroom Deployment Richard Anderson Professor of Computer Science and Engineering University of Washington

2. Classroom Presenter History • [2001] Development started at MSR as part of DISC (Now ConferenceXP) • [2002] Development continued at UW • Deployment as a presentation tool in distance and standard classes • [2003] Extensions to supportclassroom interaction • [2005] Deployment in undergraduate courses as part of regular instruction

3. Today’s Talk • Big question: Is there potential for fully integrating student devicesinto the classroom? • Classroom Presenter overview • (See Classroom Presenter 3.0 at Demofest) • Classroom Deployments • Impact • Thoughts on sustainable deployments

4. What Will The University Classroom Look Like … • If all students have computational devices • Laptops, Tablets, Ultra light tablets, PDAs, Cell Phones, Gameboys . . . • If the devices are all connected • If the devices are integrated intoclassroom instruction

5. Wide Range Of Potential Classroom Applications • Presentation • Demonstration • Simulation • Accessing external resources • Note taking • Feedback • Active learning • Peer communication

6. Device Enabled Classroom • Can the integrated use of student devices in the classroom enhance theeducational experience? • What have we learned from the Classroom Presenter project that will help us understand the broad question?

7. Why Ask The Questions • Integrated use of devices in the classroom might improve education or address a collection of challenges • Students are going to be bringing computational devices to class – so lets figure out how to take advantage of them • “Co-opt student devices for an educational purpose”, S. Wolfman

8. Classroom Presenter • Distributed, Tablet PC based application • Instructor, Display, and Student machines • Synchronized navigation of slide deck • Instructor ink distributed in real timeto all machines • Student Submissions • Slides used to distribute activities to students • Student work sent to instructor • Instructor shows student work on thepublic display

9. Classroom Presenter Student Instructor Student Public Display

10. Classroom Presenter Project • Develop underlying technology around Tablet PC and wireless classroom • Deploy in university courses • Key limitations (wrt broad vision): • Focus on instructor presentation and interaction with student devices • Focus on homogeneous device deployment, Tablet PCs • Unsustainable device model • Department owned tablets distributed at start of each class

11. Key Results • Successful classroom deployments • Regular use throughout term • Computer Science courses • Algorithms, Data Structures,Software Engineering • Analysis of deployments • Effective tool for achieving instructors’ pedagogical goals • Wide range of use

12. Deployment Details • Senior level algorithms class • Approx 20 students • Classroom set of HP TC1100 Tablet PCs • One tablet based lecture per week • Lecture – Activity model • Alternating lecturing with activities • Avg. 4 activities per lecture (50 min. classes) • 4 min work time, 2 min discussion timeper activity • 50% of class time associated with activities

13. Activity Examples

14. Pedagogical Contribution • Incorporation of individual artifactsinto discussion • Contrast with Classroom Networks (“clickers”) which rely on aggregation of responses • Complementary approaches • Individual artifacts • Free form answers, exploration • Unanticipated results and misconceptions • Personalization • Ideal with pen based input

15. Individual Artifact Examples

16. What Technology Provides • Digital domain • Support for archiving, distribution, and analysis • Integration with lecture • Allows display with data projector • Efficiency • Reducing overhead of distribution and collection • Simultaneity • All students work at once to increase contribution rates and to encourage independent contributions • Additional communication channels • Easier to express certain ideas • Overcomes communication barriers

17. Technology Examples

18. Classroom Presenter As A Tool • Are lectures better when delivered with a chalk board or with PowerPoint? • Wrong question – both are tools, which can be used well, or badly • Classroom Presenter has been usedin class to achieve specificinstructional goals • It is possible to assess whether or not instructional goals are achieved • Assessing overall impact is muchmore difficult

19. Instructional Goals Examples

20. High Rates Of Student Submissions • High rates of participation in Algorithms and Data Structures class (60 – 90 %) • No trends in participation rates • Time in class or lecture in term • Submission was anonymous, so students weren’t required to participate • One incentive for students to participate was having their work displayed

21. Importance Of Good Pedagogical Practice • It is absolutely essential to base the use of technology in teaching on soundpedagogical principles • Classroom Presenter lessons • Importance of having specific goals for use of technology and the activities • Value of planning how to work with student results (and anticipating results) • Consideration of learning goals • Learning goals -> Assessing goals -> Activity design -> Lecture content

22. Does This Scale To 300? • Issues • Wireless access • Device deployment • Cognitive load • Reduce number of submissions • TA Mediation • Sampling • Automatic clustering • Pedagogy scaling • Maybe aggregation is appropriate for this scale

23. What Are The Costs? • Infrastructure • Wireless + Data Projector • Instructor presentation device • Student devices • Mandated student devices • Non-mandated devices • Laptop • Small form factor • Fixed installation

24. What Are The Other Costs? • Instructor preparation • Loss of content coverage • Student idle time • Bringing devices to class • Power • Carrying device • Desk real estate • Distraction • Doodling • Outside communication

25. Benefits Classroom Feedback Identified lack of background Confirmed understanding of topic Pedagogy Active learning to convey particular points Engagement Working on problem instances to enhance interest Broad contributions Student perceptions Class structure Costs Instructor Device Low (already in use) Infrastructure Low (already available) Student Devices Grant supported (High) Instructor Prep High (but should drop) Loss of content Minor Idle time Minor Devices in class Setup cost for TA/Instr Doodling and other apps Medium Assessment Of Costs And Benefits

26. Successful Sustainable Deployment • Benefits must exceed costs • Benefits must accrue to those who pay the costs • Most promising deployment model • Student owned devices

27. Achieving Sustainability • Lowering cost • Support a wide range of form factors, devices and platforms • Target devices students would otherwise have with them • Increasing benefit to students • Other classroom applications • Value of having class resources digital

28. Classroom Applications • Note taking • Digital Capture and Replay • Domain specific applications • Simulations • External resources • Web • Documents • Communication

29. Keys For The Device Enabled Classroom • Tablets will have a major role • Form factor and device cost is critical • Must include wide range of devices and platforms, including non-traditional computing devices • Must provide reliable,consistent connectivity • Low cost of entry • Integration across classroom applications

30. CLASSROOM PRESENTER www.cs.washington.edu/education/dl/presenter For more information, contact Richard Anderson anderson@cs.washington.edu Acknowledgements; Support from MSR ERP, Collaboration with ConferenceXP group, UW Team, HP, Beth Simon and Ubiquitous Presenter, feedback and ideas from many users

31. © 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries. The information herein is for informational purposes only and represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation as of the date of this presentation. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, it should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information provided after the date of this presentation. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS PRESENTATION.