PRS and The Interactive Classroom at Queens

1
PRS and The Interactive Classroom at Queens

• Dr Lillian Greenwood
• School of Electronics, Electrical Engineering and
  Computer Science
• David Robinson
• Learning and Teaching Support Division

2
Session Overview

• Introduction
• Bringing Interactivity into the lecture theatre
• HP Grant
• Interactive Session (examples)
• Evaluation Results
• PRS Pilot

3
HP Grant

• 110,000 of equipment
• Conference in Monterey, California
• Pilot commenced September 2004
• MSc Educational Multimedia
• Level 1/3 Undergraduates (Comp Sci)
• Level 3 Bsc Web Technology Creative Multimedia
• Level 3 Image Processing (Comp Sci)

4
Interactive Sessions

• Ask the audience (No Money Prizes!!!!!!)
• Group Work
• Chat Program
• File Sharing

5
Ask the Audience

• Typically
• Four difficult questions based on previous weeks
  reading
• At start or end of class
• Identify misconceptions
• Stimulates discussion
• Allows for contingent teaching
• Gauge opinion

6
Where do you see yourself in five years time?

• Stacking Shelves
• Head of my unit
• Pro VC
• Same as now

7
Group Work

• Importance of the Target audience
• work in groups
• given a word and age range
• Example Bleak
• age range 12-18 years
• age range 18 40 years
• age range 40
• produce concept map
• find image on web/present to class
• class can guess the word/target audience

8
Bleak Age range 40
9
Bleak Age range 12-18 years
10
What is the age range?

• 12 18
• 18 40
• 40

11
What is the age range?

• 12 18
• 18 40
• 40

12
Example concept map
Fish
Mermaids
Dolphins
Happy
Characters
Colourful
Cartoon
Animals
Happy
Aquatic 5-13
Cold
Fish tank
Ice
Sea
13
Chat Program

• Ask Question anonymously
• Shows on lectures laptop
• Share on PowerPoint

14
File Sharing

• Take control of Front of house
• Present Image for peers to vote
• Like being able to present from where they sit
• No time wasting in speaker change over

15
Evaluation Results

• More informal and collaborative environment
• Younger students speak out and ask questions
• More confident
• 70 found sessions had increased motivation
• Few had a preference for group work
• Gender Issues

16
Evaluation Results

• Lectures were reinvigorate
• Reticence to use the technology
• Group Size
• Anonymity
• Chat
• Ask the Audience
• Greater freedom of expression

17
Interactive Lecture Theatre

• Link to video

18
PRS Pilot at Queens
19
Hardware

• Radio Based Solution (more reliable reception
  than Infrared)
• 108 Response Cards
• 2 Radio USB Receivers

20
Software

• TurningPoint extra toolbar in PowerPoint
• Question creation very simple
• Stores Results
• Report Tool

21
The Pilot

• Semester I
• Focused trial with different teaching situations
• Lecturer Support available from 31st Oct
• Evaluate the impact of PRS in lectures
• Share good practice
• Semester II
• Widen to full pilot group
• Test out lessons learned from Semester I
• Evaluate further the impact of PRS in lectures
• Identify support required for AY 06/07

22
Evaluation

• Evaluation of system from both an academic and
  student perspective
• Effective usage
• Benefit to Learning and Teaching
• Impact on student learning experience
• Aimed towards the sharing of Good Practice

23
Academic Year 05/06

• Hardware
• Pilot hardware
• Additional funding secured to purchase additional
  units
• Support as identified from Pilot
• Sharing of Good Practice
• Workshops

24
Would you like to use the PRS in AY 05/06?

• Yes
• No