Derek, thanks for sharing this idea. I picked up a good point and that is:
if there is a clear majority the minority won't want to speak up. If there
is a good split then they are more willing to speak up. So do we ask them to
speak up anyway if there is a clear majority, or just ask them when there is
a good split of opinion?
John Mark
---------------------------------
John Mark Jackson, OD, MS, FAAO
Southern College of Optometry
(901) 722-3314
Skype: jacksonsco
> From: "Bruff, Derek O" <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: "Bruff, Derek O" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:44:44 -0500
> To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: simultaneous reporting and clickers--Don't the principles
>
> Hi Larry,
>
> Thanks for clarifying the key principle at play here. As someone with lots of
> clickers experience but very little TBL experience, I'll focus on the role
> that clickers play in relation to that principle of having teams accountable
> to each other.
>
> You're correct in saying that the display of the frequency graph doesn't
> provide the accountability you're interested in creating. However, that's not
> the main role I see for the graph. I'll show the graph if I think that it
> will encourage students to contribute to the classwide discussion that follows
> the clicker question. So, for instance, if two or three answer choices are
> popular, students will see that the question is a tough one, worth digging
> into, which encourages participation.
>
> If I don't think the graph will encourage participation, I won't show it. I
> worry that students won't want to speak up and represent minority opinions
> (because, as you note, it takes a lot of courage to do so), so if there's one
> response that's far more popular than the others, I won't show the graph.
> That way, students who have minority opinions won't *know* they have minority
> opinions and thus be more willing to speak up and represent them.
>
> More generally, the display of results of a clicker question isn't the *end*
> of an activity, it's the midpoint. The graph can help frame and enhance the
> classwide discussion that follows. And it's during that classwide discussion
> that the accountability is created.
>
> Best,
> Derek
>
> --
> Derek Bruff, Ph.D.
> Assistant Director, Center for Teaching
> Senior Lecturer, Department of Mathematics
> Vanderbilt University
> www.vanderbilt.edu/cft/
> www.derekbruff.com/teachingwithcrs/
> twitter.com/derekbruff
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Michaelsen [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 5:01 PM
> Subject: Re: simultaneous reporting and clickers--Don't the principles
>
> From my perspective, the underlying principle is that, whatever method you
> use, TEAMS MUST BE ACCOUNTABLE TO EACH OTHER. Thus, frequency graph is NOT an
> acceptable reporting alternative because individual team choices are
> anonymous. My most powerful learning experiences occur when only one (or 2)
> of a whole bunch of teams get(s) the best answer and is/are successful at
> convincing the others. In fact, I've even had one occasion in which no one
> was correct but, there was enough divergence of opinion to enable students to
> expose the weaknesses in each of the selected alternatives and discover the
> "correct" answer in the process. It takes a lot of courage to stand up for a
> minority position and, unless everyone knows who chose what, the vast majority
> of my students will remain anonymous if the reporting method allows them to do
> it.
>
> Larry
>
>
> -----
> Larry K. Michaelsen
> Professor of Management
> University of Central Missouri
> Dockery 400G
> Warrensburg, MO 64093
>
> [log in to unmask]
> 660/429-9873 voice <---NEW ATT cell phone
> 660/543-8465 fax
>
>
>
>>>> Jennifer Imazeki <[log in to unmask]> 09/20/10 10:52 AM >>>
> Thanks to everyone for your advice. I guess what I'm mainly trying to
> figure out is whether the TBL emphasis on simultaneous reporting is
> mostly because you want students to register a response before seeing
> what everyone else answered (and pubic reporting is just a way of
> ensuring students take ownership of their answer), or if there is also
> some value in specifically having students see what everyone else
> answered. I'm gathering from the responses from the list that public
> reporting may not be so crucial. Thanks!
>
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Bruff, Derek O
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Hi Jennifer,
>>
>> I would take Bill Goffe's approach: Don't show students the graph of
>> responses unless doing so will encourage more discussion. The worst case
>> graph is where 60% or so of students select the same answer and the rest of
>> the students are evenly distributed among the other answers. The resulting
>> graph has one very tall bar and lots of little ones. When students see this
>> graph, it's easy for them to assume that the popular answer is the correct
>> one, even though 40% of the students aren't on board.
>>
>> I make it a practice to "mute" the projector screen (or switch it over to
>> another computer if there's no "mute" button) before displaying the results
>> graph. I take a look at the graph without showing it to the students. If I
>> get a graph like the "worst case" I described above, I'll jump straight into
>> the discussion without showing students the graph. On the other hand, if
>> there are two or three answer choices that are popular, I *will* show
>> students that graph. Seeing results like that tells students that the
>> question is a tough one and worth discussing.
>>
>> If you want to identify individual answers (which is easier with 13 teams
>> than 100 students), then your clicker system might have some kind of pop-up
>> window you can trigger that lists individual responses. I'm not familiar
>> enough with eInstruction to know if they have something like this. This
>> approach is what I've started calling "warm calling." It's not quite cold
>> calling since you know how the student or team you call upon has answered and
>> since they've had some time to think about the question. I blogged about
>> warm calling a few weeks ago:
>>
>> http://derekbruff.com/teachingwithcrs/?cat=107
>>
>> Best,
>> Derek
>>
>> --
>> Derek Bruff, Ph.D.
>> Assistant Director, Center for Teaching
>> Senior Lecturer, Department of Mathematics
>> Vanderbilt University
>> www.vanderbilt.edu/cft/
>> www.derekbruff.com/teachingwithcrs/
>> twitter.com/derekbruff
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jennifer Imazeki [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 3:49 PM
>> Subject: simultaneous reporting and clickers
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I use clickers to have teams submit their responses. After the
>> responses are in, I show the chart of responses. One challenge I've
>> had in a few cases is that when the large majority of teams select one
>> of the responses, then the few teams who select something else seem
>> quite reluctant to defend their choice. With the clickers, I can't
>> actually see who answered what (only the number selecting each
>> response) so I can't immediately call on the teams to explain their
>> choice. One thing in John's email yesterday caught my eye - he
>> mentioned having students hold up a colored card reflecting their
>> answers as well as submitting responses with clickers. But for some of
>> my questions, there are as many as 7 or 8 possible responses so I'd
>> have to make a lot of cards (and I worry a bit that reducing to just
>> four or five answer choices would make things too easy). My current
>> solution is to randomly select a team and ask them to say which
>> response they chose and explain why they thought that was the BEST
>> answer - and mostly, the other teams will then chime in. But if
>> anyone has other ideas, I'd appreciate hearing them...
>>
>> Jennifer
>> ****************************
>> Jennifer Imazeki
>> Department of Economics
>> San Diego State University
>> homepage: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~jimazeki/
>> Economics for Teachers blog: http://economicsforteachers.blogspot.com
>>
>
|
