How Interactive are Lectures? - A case study from a flipped introductory Physics ectures
9
VICE-PHEC 2016 Anna Wood Ross Galloway, Judy Hardy How Interactive are Lectures? - A case study from a flipped introductory Physics class
Transcript of How Interactive are Lectures? - A case study from a flipped introductory Physics ectures
VICE-PHEC 2016
Anna WoodRoss Galloway, Judy Hardy
How Interactive are Lectures? - A case study from a flipped introductory Physics class
● Rationale●
● ‘Active’ better than ‘passive’● e.g. Hake, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998), Freeman, et al. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. U.S.A. 111, 8410 (2014).
● BUT - What is an ‘active’ lecture ?
Aim● Characterise interactions in lectures● Develop a framework for interactive learning● Analyse a case study from 1st year physics●
VICE-PHEC 2016
Method● Subjects: Two 1st year ‘flipped’ physics courses.● Pre-readings (before lecture).● Peer-Instruction (during lecture).
● Data Collection: Lecture Capture Videos.
● 16 lectures, 8 from each course (1A and 1B). ● Coding:
● Constructivist grounded theory approach.● Activities coded on a continuous (per second) basis.
VICE-PHEC 2016
VICE-PHEC 2016
Type of Activity Code Interactivity TypeLecturer talking, students listening Ltalk
Lecturer question, student answer LQ
Student question, lecturer answer SQ
Student silent thinking S-Thinking
Student-student discussion SS-Disc
Feedback on PI voting, students listening
Feedback
Inter-rater Reliability 91%, Cohen’s kappa =0.74
Framework for Interactive Learning in Lectures (FILL)
VICE-PHEC 2016
Type of Activity Code Interactivity TypeLecturer talking, students listening Ltalk Non-Interactive
Lecturer question, student answer LQ Vicarious Interactive
Student question, lecturer answer SQ Vicarious Interactive
Student silent thinking S-Thinking Interactive
Student-student discussion SS-Disc Interactive
Feedback on PI voting, students listening Feedback Interactive
VICE-PHEC 2016
VICE-PHEC 2016
Physics 1A Physics 1B
55% lecturer talking on average
● Conclusions●
● FILL framework useful for characterising interactions in lectures.
● 55% of time is spent on non-interactive (passive) activities.
● Differences between 1A and 1B indicate
importance of local context.
VICE-PHEC 2016
● For more details:●
● Twitter: @annakwood ● Full paper: Characterizing interactive engagement
activities in a flipped introductory physics class● ● Phys. Rev. Phys.Educ. Res. 12, 010140 (2016)● (Anna K. Wood, Ross K. Galloway, Robyn Donnelly, and
Judy Hardy)
VICE-PHEC 2016
