Summary

The portfolio centric framework was presented in this chapter. Four levels are classified at this framework with regarding to learning activity. The objective of this framework is to provide a comprehensive learning portal for student, so that student learning outcome is significantly increased. The detail about a portfolio was also presented. The framework adopts a definition of portfolio which includes activity of collecting, selecting, reflecting, respecting, and projecting. A blogfolio which consists of blog and portfolio was proposed and introduced in this chapter, and a comparison between different implementations was made. The blogfolio has many advantages over other implementation except lack of authentication. It is not a problem in this framework, because the authentication process goes through the learning management unit.

Chapter 3

Classroom Response System

The interactivity is one of key factors that affect learning effects in class. To promote interaction at learning, a classroom response system, which has been shown that is an effective way, was introduced around 1980s. Its nature of simple but effective makes it becomes popular nowadays. Although, simple is one of its advantages, it is inadequate to cover some kinds of activities which need functions such as bidirectional interaction and items other than yes/no or multiple choices. To address such problems, a hybrid way which combines SMS and web-based approaches to promote interactivity in classroom is presented in this chapter.

3.1 Background

Some research results showed that interactivity in classroom helps leveraging more active learning environment, constructing learning community, providing more detail feedback to teacher, and promoting student’s learning motivation (Markett, Sanchez, Weber, & Tangney, 2006; Muirhead & Juwah, 2003; Anderson, 2002). In addition, interactivity is one of the key factors that affect learning outcome in traditional classroom (Chou, 2003). There exists significant relationship between learning outcome and learning activity, a better activity in learning environment leads a better learning outcome. The best interactivity in teaching is that teacher knows student learning situation well instantly, students have deep participation in classroom, and a convenient communication channel exists between teacher and students. Learning can be more effective through promoting interactivity (Erickson & Siau, 2003). There are many definitions of interactivity. Bannan-Ritland (2002) classified interactivity into five categories: interactivity can be defined as 1) learner’s active participation, 2)

interactive template between learner and teacher, 3) the communication between learner and teacher, 4) the social, cooperative, or collaborative interchange, and 5) scope of teaching activity and technology. Sims (2003) claimed that communication and engagement are the most important characteristics of interactivity. From the viewpoint of learner’s relationship, Moore (1989) defined three major interactivities:

learner-content, content-instructor, and learner-learner. Moore adopted a more general and concentrated structure to define interactivity. Yacci (2000) defined interactivity with message loop which is initiated both at beginning and end by students. The content of message loop must keep consistency from beginning to the end. To reach the goal of interactivity, teacher usually keep watch student’s learning situation and engage student into learning situation with some adequate activities in classroom.

Traditionally, teacher may implement interactivity through observing student reaction, posting question and answer, or asking students whether they understand content or not. There are several problems in traditional approach:

z Students sometime are not very sure whether they comprehend learning material taught by teacher, therefore they can’t form a concrete question or express their comprehension confidently.

z Even students have questions about learning material, they may hesitate to rise due to they feel embracement or are afraid of laughing.

z Teacher may make sure student comprehension with in-class quiz, but it may delay the teaching schedule and needs to take time grading.

3.2 Classroom Response System

Figure 3-1: concept sketch of a classroom response system

To promote interaction at learning, a classroom response system was introduced around 1980s (figure 3-1). Traditionally, this system consists of a large displayer which is connected to a central controller located at teacher side, an answer box, which contains several buttons, allocated for each student, and wiring for connecting answer box with central controller. In such implementation, when a teacher wants to check whether students understood lecturing content, he or she may post multiple choices or yes/no question to all students, then students submit their answer with the answer box anonymously. The central controller automatically connects answer posted by each student, since every answer box is wired to it. The displayer shows that how many students answer for each choice in various forms. Teacher can understand student comprehension about the content just taught. On the basis of this result, teaching may proceed if the majority of students have understood, or launch another activity such as discussion or further explanation if the majority of students have poor comprehension. Because it does not show each student’s answer, no one feels embarrassment even though the answer is wrong.

Central controller

The emergence of classroom response system may track back to a study initiated by IBM in 1980s. To educate newly appointed managers have knowledge to take charge of new position, IBM arranged a serial courses which were an essential part of new jobs, for them at headquarters. In general, these newly appointed managers had strong motivation to learn. IBM performed a study to investigate the effectiveness of such trainings in 1984-85. In this study, there were five classes, each of having 20 students.

Because IBM considered having these managers study well is important, it carefully studied many aspects of the classes.

As a result, the observers found that most students exhibited attentive behavior at the beginning of each class, but that attention diminished rapidly within 20 minutes. In addition, to understand whether student was attentive, observers watched each student and marked, the result which is formed an index that was equal to 100 when every student was paying attention, 50 when half were, and so on. The observation result showed that average number of students paying attention during a standard lecture was 47. Alternatively, the attention average rose to 68, when the teaching was changed to a style in which the teacher actively engaged students with questions.

Besides, the observers also found that in a typical class, the discussion was dominated by 10–20% of the students, while the remaining 80–90% contributed only occasionally. Consequently, IBM decided to build a prototype interactive classroom in which a student response system allowed every student to respond to teachers’

questions to improve students’ participation. In such a classroom, student responses were immediately displayed on a computer system with graphical form. As a result, the attentiveness index was increased to be 83 when the same criteria used to measure students’ attentiveness were applied to the classroom with student response units. The statistics showed that the students in the class with the response system scored

significantly higher than the students in the traditional classroom. In addition, a user satisfaction survey was conducted, in which students were asked to rate how much they liked the response system, on a scale from 1 to 7, and the average was 6.6.

(Duncan, 2004)。

Besides, many universities in America adopt classroom response system into teaching;

the result showed that it has outstanding effect on teaching and contributes to the promotion of student learning outcome. Professor Mazur at Harvard University discovered that student’s perception on learning material is toward and converging to the right direction not the wrong side trough the discussion with classmates. Professor Duncan at University of Colorado introduced classroom response system into teaching activity on science and technology education; he found the significant effect.

Furthermore, when classroom response system cooperates with classroom discussion;

the teaching effect is increased significantly (Duncan, 2004). Professor Rogers at University of Massachusetts had the same conclusion after he introduced classroom response system into teaching. Professor Siau at Lincoln University found that classroom response system obviously promoted interaction within classroom through quantitative and qualitative analysis. He also pointed out that the teaching effect may decline if there is poor interaction in classroom (Siau, Sheng, & Nah, 2006).

3.3 The Implementation Issues

We know that classroom response system definitely provides help to teaching and does not occupy too much time on the basis of above description. At the beginning, there are few school adopted such systems due to cost and wiring problem. Gradually, the system with wireless connection capability came to its stage. The most common type of wireless classroom response system is infrared and RF (radio frequency) type.

These types of systems have following advantages: 1) since its remote unit (student

unit) contains only several push buttons which correspond to 1~4 or a~e on a multiple choices problem, students can master its usage instantly; 2) it provides flexibility on implementation due to the omitting of wiring. However, the obvious disadvantage is that its student device is too simple to provide more sophisticate functions such as fill in the blank problem or bi-direction communication. With regard to question type, such a system usually accommodates for yes/no or multiple choices problem because it provides nothing else but only few push buttons. For simplicity, the signal transmission between central controller and student unit is unidirectional. The basic idea of such arrangement is that students build up their comprehension on learning material through discussion with teacher or classmates, therefore it is not necessary to provide specific information for individual student. When portable smart device becomes popular, people begin to consider the possibility about constructing such a system with it. Recently, some schools adopted smart device based classroom response systems gradually. The common technologies used to construct communication are Infrared, RF, and WiFi (IEEE 802.11). The most advantages of infrared over others are easy to sue, inexpensive, and low technology level. The obvious disadvantages are short distance, orientation requirement, and unidirectional.

The implementation with RF is similar to infrared, but it does not have orientation requirement and a longer distance. Due to the functional limitations, people begin to adopt smart device, such as PDA, as a user device of a classroom response system (Roschelle, 2003). It is more suitable for higher education system which usually teaches advantage knowledge. However, its obvious disadvantage is much more expensive than infrared or RF counterparts. A brief comparison between different implementations is listed in table 2-1.

Short Message Services

Recently, the major content of a mobile phone, which is one of most popular personal digital belongings, is changing gradually from voice to data. The short message service on mobile phone provides a possibility to implement classroom response system. In such a way, students send message or answer with SMS to server located at teacher side through cell phone system provider, then server program processes and analyzes the coming SMS message accordingly. Researchers recommended the possible applications of SMS on education are: in-classroom discussion, language learning, and learning supporting. Markett, Sanchez, Weber, & Tangney (2006) adopted mobile phone with SMS to promote classroom interaction because the ubiquity and interaction potential of SMS.

Regarding to adopt mobile phone as a tool of information gathering, the easiest and most convenient one is SMS. Virtually, all mobile phones can send and receive SMS message, but not all of them can send and receive MMS by way of GPRS service.

Consequently, SMS is the most potential one to perform ubiquitous information gathering. Information gathering system based on SMS service lets users get instant information that they need. There are tremendous such applications. For example, Awwad et al. implemented a simple information gathering system based on SMS system in which visitors can get instant relative information on touring (Awwad, Lin, Lin, & Yuan, 2006). Nokia, a mobile phone maker, supplies a kind of wireless monitor that can receive SMS message, snap picture on monitor according to command in SMS message, and then send this snapshot to mobile phone with MMS handling capability or email through MMS service (Nokia, Taiwan，2006). Thornton and Houser taught English with SMS message, and found the effects on language teaching on the basis of result of experiment (Thornton, & Houser, 2004).

Markett, Sanchez, Weber, & Tangney (2006) constructed a SMS-based interaction

activity with referring to message loop proposed by Yacci (2000). In the project of PLS TXT UR Throughts, they proposed three kinds of interaction model:

learner-learner in class, lecturer-learner after class, and learner-learner after class. In these three models, SMS plays the role as message dispatcher. This message loop lets students initiate and conclude a discussion session. That is, a discussion in class or after class is initiated by a student with SMS message; consequently it may induce serial interactions in class with oral or after class with SMS between lecturer and learners; finally this discussion session may be concluded by the student who initiated this discussion.

Kadirire demonstrated how to successfully immerse SMS service in group discussion within a campus or a company. In such an activity, participants are free to express their ideas because of the anonymous nature of SMS message and easy to use. In their system, a small frame called Stickie contains SMS message, sender information, and arrival time, etc. The message contained in a Stickie may be displayed on a computer screen or a LCD projector to remind tutor or lecturer. This Stickies is associated with a color attribute which fade with time to indicate how long have it been stayed (Kadirire, 2005). In addition, people may use SMS message to access various information such as banking, traffic, or weather forecast (Garner, Francis, and Wales, 2002).

Figure 3-2: message loop (Markett et al, 2006) Table 3-1: the comparison between different implementations

Technology advantages disadvantages

IR easy to use, inexpensive, robust, durable

less alternative( only yes/no, multiple choice), unidirectional communication, short distance, orientation requirement,

RF easy to use, inexpensive, robust, durable, without orientation

many alternatives (fill in blank, essay..),

expensive, more sophisticated, must exist wireless network access

Mobile Phone bidirectional communication, many alternatives (fill in blank, essay..), familiar with devices

extra cost for SMS, expensive, more sophisticated, must exist network access

Desktop bidirectional communication, much more alternatives (fill in

blank, essay..), cooperative with other e-learning functions

must conduct at a place with network and desktop equipment

3.4 A Hybrid Approach

On the basis of above discussion, a hybrid approach for prompting student learning with SMS message and web-based is present in this section. It is no doubt on the importance and necessity of classroom interaction. Researchers and educators contribute their effort to promote classroom interaction with ICT technology. I summarize that an ICT technology that elaborates classroom interaction should have following characteristics:

z Provide bidirectional communication between teacher and students: by reminding student’s individual needs with the cooperating of remedial teaching system.

z Providing versatile interaction ways: by adding fill in blank and short assay problems.

z Easy to input: the user interface tends to complication when more functions are added, it is better to adopt the interface with which people are familiar.

z Providing user-friendly display: traditional CRS does not provide display, at most only few signal lamps, which indicate the status of CRS and signal transmitted, are provided. The interaction is increased, when a CRS adds some simple display interface.

z Adopting the most convenient communication channel: with the easiest and most convenient communication channel.

z Incorporating interaction tracking capability: to avoid ignoring student’s questions by tracking the interaction between teacher and students in time.

z Providing system integration capability: with the functions that bridge CRS with backend learning management system or learning portfolio system.

Figure 3-3: message processing loop

The message processing loop is shown at figure 3-3. The message sources come from SMS service and Internet depends on whichever is available. Then the incoming

Message process unit SMS Process

unit

Web message unit Base station SMS

Internet

Stickies process unit

SMS and Message database

message is processed according to its purpose which may be an in-class discussion or a CRS message. If this message is an in-class CRS answer, it will check this answer and display the statistics information on screen (figure 3-4). On the other hand, if this message is an in-class discussion initiated by a student, it will be put into the message loop for management and tracking. At the same time, it will be displayed on screen at teacher side (figure 3-5). This message associates with a time stamp which indicates the duration of its message, and a color which fades proportional to elapsing time.

Teacher may delete this message after answering it. If the student who initiated the previous question has another relative question, he or she may raise and index the new question with the previous serial number. This procedure may be continuing as long as student does not comprehend. If a student does not comprehend in class, the question will be put into database and retrieved at next time.

Figure 3-4: a snapshot of CRS display

The in-class discussion is on the basis of Stickie, which was proposed by Kadirire (2005) and message loop, which was proposed by Markett, Sanchez, Weber, &

Tangney (2006), to construct the proposed classroom response system. The major channel for in-class interaction between student and lecturer is SMS, and the minor one is a web-based system. In other words, if teaching activity is on a classroom

without computer facility, the SMS message is adopted. On the other hand, if teaching activity is on a classroom with computer and network connection, the webpage is adopted. This system not only has bidirectional CRS functionality but also has in-class and after-class discussion. Similar to traditional CRS, if a lecturer wants to probe student’s comprehension about material just taught, he or she may post question and gather answer, and puts the statistics information on the screen (figure 3-4). In addition, teacher may also decide whether a hint or message will be sent back to individual student. This function, which needs bidirectional message sending, is never seen before on a traditional CRS system. In such a circumstance, when most of students have comprehended, the teaching activity may be continue, but a specific message or hint may leave for each individual student who does not comprehend yet.

Figure 3- 5: a snapshot of Stickie 3.5 Pilot experiments and results

Experiment description

Two pilot teaching experiments were conducted at an institute of technology to understand student attitude about CRS on these two implementations. Other types of implementations (such as IR, RF, or PDA type) were not included in these two experiments. The purposes of these two experiments were: investigate student attitude

on using SMS in class; check the implementation issues about SMS; and check the effectiveness on student learning. One experiment was on the course entitled

“Introduction to Computer Science”, in the fall semester of 2006 and the approach used was SMS, and the other experiment was on the subject entitled “Programming Language and Practices” in the spring semester of 2007 and the approach used was web-based. Students participated at these two experiments are freshmen and at the same class, but the number of students is 48 and 45 respectively. At the experiment associated with SMS, students were asked to bring their mobile phone to classroom, which is a normal classroom without computer and network facility, and participated

“Introduction to Computer Science”, in the fall semester of 2006 and the approach used was SMS, and the other experiment was on the subject entitled “Programming Language and Practices” in the spring semester of 2007 and the approach used was web-based. Students participated at these two experiments are freshmen and at the same class, but the number of students is 48 and 45 respectively. At the experiment associated with SMS, students were asked to bring their mobile phone to classroom, which is a normal classroom without computer and network facility, and participated