Robert J. Dufresne
A Classroom Communication System
for Active Learning
William J. Gerace
William J. Leonard
Jose P. Mestre
Department of Physics &Astronomy, Box 34525
University of Massachusetts -- Amherst, MA 01003-4525 USA
Published in: Journal of Computing in Higher
Education, 7, 3-47, (1996).
You can download a copy of this paper in PDF format (361k). You may need to download
Reader to view and/or print PDF files. Printing this web
page directly from your browser will not get the tables, figures,
Traditional methods for teaching science courses at the post-secondary
level employ a lecture format of instruction in which the majority
of students are passively listening to the instructor and jotting
down notes. Current views of learning and instruction challenge
the wisdom of this traditional pedagogic practice by stressing
the need for the learner to play an active role in constructing
knowledge. The emerging technology of classroom communication
systems offers a promising tool for helping instructors create
a more interactive, student-centered classroom, especially when
teaching large courses. In this paper we describe our experiences
teaching physics with a classroom communication system called
Classtalk. Classtalk facilitated the presentation
of questions for small group work, as well as the collection
of student answers and the display of histograms showing how
the class answered, all of which fed into a class-wide discussion
of students' reasoning. We found Classtalk to be a useful
tool not only for engaging students in active learning during
the lecture hour, but also for enhancing the overall communication
within the classroom. Equally important, students were very positive
about Classtalk-facilitated instruction and believed that
they learned more during class than they would have during a
An emerging technology, classroom communication systems
(CCSs), has the potential to transform the way we teach science
in large lecture settings. CCSs can serve as catalysts for creating
a more interactive, student-centered classroom in the lecture
hall, thereby allowing students to become more actively involved
in constructing and using knowledge. CCSs not only make it easier
to engage students in learning activities during lecture but
also enhance the communication among students, and between the
students and the instructor. This enhanced communication assists
the students and the instructor in assessing understanding during
class time, and affords the instructor the opportunity to devise
instructional interventions that target students' needs as they
arise. By facilitating a shift from a passive, teacher-centered
(i.e., lecture-style) classroom, toward an interactive, student-centered
classroom, a CCS helps to create a classroom environment that
accommodates a wider variety of student learning styles, making
the learning of science a much more positive experience for students.
CCSs are unique tools that teachers can use for facilitating
learning and for improving students' attitudes toward science.
This article describes our experiences over the last three
years using a CCS called Classtalk [Footnote 1] to teach four different introductory
university physics courses. In our application of Classtalk,
students spend a significant portion of the class time working
collaboratively to deepen their understanding of physics. Classtalk
is a combination of software and hardware that permits the presentation
of questions for small-group consideration, as well as the collection
of answers and the class-wide display of a histogram of student
answers. The display of the histogram is the springboard for
a class-wide discussion of the ideas and methods used to analyze
situations and solve problems. The time we devote to lecturing
is decreased, while the time students devote to developing and
refining their conceptual understanding is increased. The instructor's
role, therefore, more closely resembles that of a coach than
a dispenser of information.
We begin by summarizing the views of teaching and learning
that have shaped our use of Classtalk. We then describe
the software, hardware, and operational features of the Classtalk
system. Next we present the instructional objectives and pedagogical
strategies that undergird our use of Classtalk. We continue
with a description of our experiences teaching with Classtalk,
followed by a summary of students' attitudes towards the instructional
approach. We close with an overview of the factors that might
affect the expansion of Classtalk to other classes, disciplines,
and institutions, and a summary of the reasons we believe that
Classtalk can effect changes in the college lecture hall.
Current Perspectives on Learning and Instruction
The effectiveness of CCSs, as with all instructional tools,
depends on the thoughtfulness of their use. Specifically, pedagogic
decisions regarding the use of a CCS should be tied to educational
objectives and should be congruent with one's beliefs about how
people learn. In this section we provide an overview of current
perspectives on learning and instruction that have informed the
choices we have made in our use of Classtalk. We start
by describing constructivism, a fundamental viewpoint about the
nature of knowledge acquisition. Although constructivism explains
our view of our students as learners, it is not so useful in
making day to day decisions about instruction. For such guidance,
we draw from three distinct areas of educational research, also
Constructivism is a set of beliefs about knowing and learning
that emphasizes the active role of learners in constructing their
own knowledge (Anderson, 1987; Jonassen, 1995; Resnick 1983,
1987; Schauble, 1990; von Glasersfeld, 1989, 1992). The construction
of knowledge is viewed to be the result of a learner's attempts
to use his/her existing knowledge to make sense of new experiences.
This entails both the modification of concepts and the reorganization
of knowledge structures. Although the construction of knowledge
can be facilitated by instruction, it is not the direct consequence
of instruction. Since knowledge construction depends on the extant
knowledge of the learner, different individuals will come away
from an instructional experience with their own unique understanding,
no matter how well the instruction is designed, and no matter
how much effort the individuals devote to making sense of what
they have seen and heard. Constructivism stands in stark contrast
to the view of learning in which individuals passively receive
well organized knowledge.
Although learners must construct their own knowledge, a significant
portion of an individual's knowledge is constructed in response
to interactions with other human beings. From a social constructivist
perspective, most learning is socially mediated (Brown, Collins
& Duguid, 1989; Cole, 1985; Hewson, Kerby & Cook, 1995; Lave,
1988; Vygotsky, 1978). Certainly the influence of human interactions
on knowledge construction is so pervasive that a proper understanding
of learning cannot be achieved without taking into account its
social dimension. Since much learning is done within a social
context, it becomes important to understand how dialogue between
a teacher and students, and among students, can be used to enhance
Relevant Research in the Learning of Science
Issues raised in the following three areas of science education
research have implications for the construction of knowledge
and are particularly relevant to our use of Classtalk.
They are a) research on misconceptions, b) research on the knowledge
structures of experts and novices, and c) research on the effects
of motivation and classroom contextual factors on learning.
Ideas that are in direct conflict with scientific concepts
are known as misconceptions or alternative conceptions and have
been identified across many scientific domains and across all
age groups. For example, misconceptions have been documented
in physics (Hestenes, Wells & Swackhamer, 1992; McDermott, 1984;
Mestre & Touger, 1989), astronomy (Lightman, Miller & Leadbeater,
1987), biology (Wandersee, 1983), earth science (Pyramid Film
and Video; Sadler, 1987), and mathematics (Clement, 1982a). Misconceptions
can develop from a learner's attempts to understand both in-school
and out-of-school experiences. In many instances misconceptions
are deeply seated and difficult to dislodge. Despite indications
of some initial understanding of scientific concepts immediately
following traditional instruction, many misconceptions resurface
weeks later (Clement, 1982b; Halloun & Hestenes, 1985). Evidence
suggests that some misconceptions can interfere with subsequent
learning and that considerable effort is required on the part
of the learner to effect conceptual change (Hestenes & Wells,
Studies of experts and novices in a variety of domains suggest
that the skillful use of domain knowledge to reason and to solve
problems requires more than the construction of individual concepts.
Knowledge needs to be interrelated and organized within mental
structures that permit its efficient recall and effective use
(Glaser, 1992, 1994). In a domain such as physics, for example,
experts tend to organize their knowledge around a relatively
few major concepts and principles that can be used to solve a
wide range of problems. Such concepts and principles serve as
categories for binding together knowledge about related ancillary
concepts, problem situations, and mathematical procedures (Chi,
Feltovich & Glaser, 1981). The pieces of knowledge related to
a particular major concept or principle are strongly linked and
are accessed together (Larkin, 1980, 1981, 1983). The expert
has knowledge structures that have evolved over a considerable
period of time to serve higher level cognitive functions within
the domain, such as explaining, reasoning, problem solving, and
teaching. Not unexpectedly, compared to that of experts, the
knowledge store of novices contains many fewer knowledge elements,
is inter-linked by many fewer relationships among elements, and
is not organized around major concepts and principles to the
same degree as experts (Chi et al., 1981; Dufresne, Gerace, Hardiman
& Mestre, 1992). Instead, many novices rely on more superficial
categories (e.g., objects in problems and physics terminology)
for organizing knowledge, categories that cannot be easily related
to the approaches that can be used to solve problems.
Motivational Beliefs and Classroom Contextual Factors
The construction of knowledge is not a dispassionate process.
The level of engagement and persistence on a task is related
to the learner's motivational beliefs (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990;
Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992). Students who are more motivated
are more likely to persevere in the difficult cognitive processes
necessary for creating and organizing knowledge. Motivation has
been described as having two components, one related to the value
of a task and one related to the learner's beliefs about his
or her capabilities or likelihood of success (Pintrich, Marx
& Boyle, 1993). Tasks that are more likely to result in learning
are those that are perceived as interesting, important, doable,
and profitable (Pintrich et al., 1993; Strike & Posner, 1992).
The process of knowledge acquisition is also influenced by classroom
contextual factors (Garner, 1990). For example, interactions
with teachers and peers can help create an atmosphere of commitment
to understanding. An optimal learning environment, then, should
incorporate engagement with teachers and other interested learners.
Teaching Science from a Constructivist Perspective
Although constructivism does not prescribe how one should
teach, it does carry implications for curriculum and instruction.
It suggests that students would benefit from learning opportunities
that not only expose them to new information or experiences,
but also enable them: a) to examine their own ideas, b) to determine
the extent to which the new experiences make sense in light of
these ideas, c) to consider a number of possible alternative
explanations for what they have experienced, and d) to evaluate
the usefulness of a number of different perspectives. In addition,
we believe that if instruction is to help students organize the
knowledge they construct, some learning activities should challenge
them to select, identify, and defend their choices of concepts
and principles for use in a given context. Other tasks should
ask students to describe the relationships between concepts.
All of the above processes are more likely to take place if students
are actively involved in doing something other than listening
(Anzai & Simon, 1979). A constructivist perspective points to
the need for instructional formats that allow for active learning,
where students are engaged in writing, talking, describing, explaining,
and reflecting - processes that do not normally take place in
a traditional lecture hall.
Examples of some active learning formats that work well in
a large lecture hall are cooperative group work (Johnson, Johnson
& Smith, 1991), class-wide discussions (Gullette, 1992), and
interactive lectures (Mazur, 1993; Sokoloff, 1994; Van Heuvelen,
1991). In cooperative groups, students work together to answer
questions and solve problems. In class-wide discussions, they
present and defend their own views, and critique the views of
other students. In interactive lectures, the instructor not only
presents material, but also elicits questions and comments from
students, stopping periodically to pose questions for students'
consideration. These instructional formats allow teachers to
probe for students' conceptual understanding and allows students
to work on tasks that require them to explore their reasoning,
not just to give their answers. For these instructional formats
to be effective, students and teachers must have the opportunity
to formulate their thoughts, questions, and answers in order
to ensure a greater depth of discourse. Although cooperative
group work gives both students and teachers time to process their
thoughts, during class-wide discussions and interactive lectures
instructors should take special care to allow ample time for
students to process and reflect on questions and comments (Tobin,
Potential of a CCS for Impact on Present Practice
There is evidence that, for many students, traditional lectures
are not effective for constructing conceptual understanding (Bonwell
& Eison, 1991). The trouble with lectures is not that they prevent
the construction of meaningful knowledge, but rather that they
accommodate only those students who make sense of ideas while
listening and taking notes. Other students need the opportunity
to reflect on the material by discussing it, writing about it,
and using it to solve problems (Claxton & Murrell, 1987). One
way to increase student engagement in their own learning during
the lecture hour is to relegate the coverage of facts to the
students' independent work time and devote the lecture time to
helping students hone and integrate concepts. This can be accomplished
by integrating cooperative group work, class-wide discussions,
and interactive lecturing into the class session. An instructional
format with these components allows students to reflect on their
own thinking, to detail their own understanding, to listen to
each others' ideas, and to ask questions for clarification. Despite
some successful attempts to make physics lectures more interactive
(Mazur, 1993; Van Heuvelen, 1991; Wilson, 1994) the impact on
college-level science instruction has not been large. Of course
there are strong influences contributing to the inertia of current
teaching practices in higher education: a) the tendency to teach
the way we were taught; b) pressure on faculty to focus on matters
other than instruction, namely research; c) the lack of professional
development geared towards teaching (either prior to or after
appointment to a teaching position); d) the push to cover an
enormous amount of content matter; e) fear of losing control
over the content that is covered; f) concern about management
of students in a large lecture hall while teaching in an alternative
format; and g) memories of past failures in implementing teaching
innovations without adequate support. Any format that is to replace
the traditional lecture must address these legitimate concerns
A CCS-supported interactive lecture offers the opportunity
to create a truly active learning environment in a large group
format and addresses some of the concerns listed above. In terms
of faculty resources, there is an initial time commitment necessary
to become comfortable with the system and to design appropriate
questions for student consideration. After this point, it is
as economical of faculty time as traditional lectures. Teaching
in a style that promotes students' active engagement with the
material does not require either compromise in the amount of
content covered during the semester or loss of control over content.
In a CCS-facilitated lecture, there is still a place for presentation
of material or demonstrations to ensure that students are exposed
to specific ideas. For example, a short presentation can be used
to set the stage for having students answer a particular set
of questions or to clarify issues raised by students following
the class-wide discussion of a question. Or instead of simply
showing a demonstration and explaining what it means, an instructor
can use a CCS to ask students to predict the outcome and explain
their reasoning before they see it. Another way to ensure that
students are exposed to specific ideas is to make the ideas the
focus of questions that students can work on in small groups.
Further, the instructor can hold students responsible for reading
factual material before coming to class - a task students might
be more willing to do if it is clearly relevant to their in-class
Beyond these concerns over faculty time and coverage of course
content, the use of a CCS can help with the management of alternative
instructional strategies in the lecture hall. For example, the
CCS aids in the formation of cooperative learning groups, as
students are tied to one another in purpose (they work on a question
together), have limited resources (all share one input device),
and are held individually accountable for the information (students
can be required to input individual responses that the instructor
can see). The CCS also helps the instructor re-focus students
on whole-group instruction by allowing for the display of histograms
of class responses to a question at the end of the group work
Before detailing our experiences using a CCS in our physics
lecture halls, we will elaborate on the characteristics of the
particular CCS we use (Classtalk) and our rationale for
using it the way we do.[Footnote 2]
The Classroom Communication System Classtalk
The classroom communication system Classtalk is the
product of Better Education, Incorporated. In brief, the system
consists of a number of student input devices networked to a
central computer under the instructor's control as represented
in Figure 1. From the central computer the instructor can
present questions or tasks to the audience by displaying them
on a monitor or projecting them onto a screen. The network is
used to download tasks to the student input devices, return student
responses to the instructor's computer, and if desired, provide
response-specific feedback to the student. Programming contained
in the central unit permits the instructor to examine the collected
responses, display the results to the audience, and store them
for future analysis.
All components of the Classtalk system are undergoing
continuing development. Many modifications have been made and
new features have been added since we began this study. It is
not our intention here to provide an exhaustive exposition of
the system's capabilities, but rather only to present a succinct
description of the features we have used.
The Classtalk system has three major components: student
input devices, a central computer, and a smart network connecting
them. Each student input device consists of a Hewlett-Packard
95LX palm-top computer, which has a full QWERTY keyboard and
a 40 * 16 character LCD screen. Programming loaded into the 95LX
enables up to four students to sign-on to a single input device.
The network consists of a master network server and a number
of network adapter boxes, each of which can serve up to four
palm-top computers. It is the job of coding stored in the adapter
boxes to establish a communication protocol with each of the
palm-tops. (Subsequent modifications to the system permit the
use of a Texas Instruments TI85 graphing calculator as the input
device in conjunction with an elaborated network design.)
Figure 1: Representation of Classtalk
classroom. Students work in groups of up to four, with each group
sharing an input device (D) networked to a central computer (C)
under teacher control. The network consists of a master network
server (S) linked to network adapter boxes (B), each of which
can serve up to four input devices.
The current Classtalk configuration requires, as the
instructor's computer, an Apple Macintosh (SI or better) with
8M RAM and an additional video card. The video card is used to
drive the display monitor and/or projector. The primary monitor
is used as a teacher's console and displays all of the control
options together with a screen region that may or may not show
the same image presented to the audience.
From the instructor's point of view, it is the control environment
provided by the software resident on the central computer that
constitutes the heart of the Classtalk system. Within
this environment the instructor can create tasks or questions
in a variety of styles, present them to the audience by projection
or by downloading questions and/or text to the palm-top computers,
permit response for a selected interval of time, govern the type
of responses allowed, analyze responses in assorted fashions,
and project the results of the analysis to the audience. All
of these functions can, in principle, be performed during class
time. Question generation, however, usually requires sufficient
reflective thought that we have found it is better to have tasks
prepared prior to class time. (We do, however, occasionally create
or edit questions during lecture in response to students' comments.)
Figure 2: Screen
face of the central computer in the Active Tasks mode. Screen
displays the seating positions of students signed on to the Classtalk
system. The seating arrangement depicted is input at start-up
and corresponds to the actual lecture hall being used. The name
of a student at a particular seat location (and other relevant
information) can be obtained by clicking on the seat icon. After
a question is sent, as each student inputs a response, his/her
seat icon changes to a color corresponding to his/her answer.
The Classtalk environment is subdivided into three
modes: Active Tasks, New Tasks, and Records. Each mode has an
associated virtual monitor that, upon request, may display a
list of tasks, a specific task, an iconic image of the classroom
showing occupied seats color-coded by student response, a list
of responses, a histogram of responses, other analysis data,
or a summary of student performance on all tasks given during
that class. Which of the three virtual monitors is displayed
on the instructor's screen or, independently, on the audience
screen is at the discretion of the instructor.
Active Task Mode
The Active Tasks mode is the central or focal mode of any
currently active class session. Here, the instructor can allow
students to sign onto the system and can view an image of the
classroom that maps the seating positions of students (Figure 2).
The instructor can also display either an active task (Figure 3),
a histogram of class responses (Figure 4), or other analysis
data. Student seat icons change color as students enter their
responses, indicating the answer each student gave to the current
question. As student responses come in, the system compiles them
in a histogram, binning them either according to a predetermined
set of criteria included with the task or according to clusters
of responses determined by the program at execution time and
ordered by frequency of occurrence. Responses to active tasks
can be viewed and analyzed in this mode, but tasks are initiated
from the New Tasks mode and finished tasks are stored in the
New Task Mode
This mode provides all the necessary functions required for
the generation, management, and storage of tasks. Usually they
are created prior to class and are stored in a taskfile
that is loaded at start-up time. Tasks can be generated within
the environment (using a limited text editor and some basic graphics
tools) or they can be imported from some external editor or graphics
program (e.g., Canvas™). Each task is an individual
question or an associated set of questions treated as a single
entity. In addition, existing questions can be assembled into
sets or extracted from sets, ordered, listed, and/or printed.
There is additional information stored with each question, such
as any text for downloading to student-held devices, possible
student responses, and any feedback to be associated with each
response. Responses to questions may be a single character, a
number, or a text string.
Figure 3: Screen face of the central
computer in the New Tasks mode. Screen displays a task that was
used in the math/science majors' course. Upon sending a question
a dialog box appears allowing the instructor to set various options
such as feedback, student response (i.e., individual, group,
or group with dissent), and timer.
Finished tasks are relegated to the Records mode. All of the
data associated with the class, the task itself, and student
responses to the task are stored in raw form. All tasks previously
used during the current class session are available for re-examination
in Records mode.
Figure 4: Screen face of the central
computer in the Records mode. Screen displays a histogram of
class responses from a question used in the non-science majors'
course that was retrieved from a sessionfile.The histogram
can be obtained by pre-selecting bins or by having the program
automatically bin in order of frequency of response. Histograms
can also be obtained in the Active Tasks mode for the currently
At the beginning of each class session, students are allowed
to sign on to the system. The sign-on feature is launched as
a background activity, freeing the environment for other uses.
The ability to sign-on automatically terminates after a pre-set
(but adjustable) time interval.
Once the instructor has selected a task with the environment
in the New Tasks mode, it can be "sent" to the students.
Sending a task causes the simultaneous performance of several
actions. If the task is a single question these operations are:
display of the question on the audience monitor and/or projector,
download of associated text to the student devices, the bumping
of any previous task still resident in the Active Tasks mode
to the Records mode, and finally the appearance of a dialog box
that enables the instructor to set the time interval during which
responses will be accepted. The only changes that occur if the
question is a question set is that the entire set of questions
is downloaded to the student input devices, and students must
read and respond to the questions appearing on the screen of
the palm-top computer, though they can work back and forth between
the questions at their own pace. Once a task has been started,
students must respond to the question or the entire set of questions
in the allotted time.
In addition to limiting the time for responses to be entered
by the class, when activating a task the instructor can specify
one of three response options: individual, group, and
group with dissent. As the name implies, if a task is
sent indicating that an individual response is required,
each student must separately input his/her answer to the question.
When a task is sent with a group stipulation, then the
system will accept only a single answer per input device and
that answer is attributed to every student signed on to that
device. With the group with dissent option, members of
the group who disagree with the majority are allowed to enter
an independent response.
From within the Active Tasks mode, the instructor can view
the accumulation of responses in real-time. Once the allotted
time has expired, Classtalk software analyzes the responses
in the form of a histogram showing frequencies of responses,
which the instructor can display to the audience. After a task
has served its purpose, it can be relegated to the Records mode
or left in the Active Tasks mode to be displaced to the Records
mode by sending another task. Upon completion of the class session
the program creates a sessionfile containing all of the
student data, tasks, and responses. Sessionfiles can be
reloaded at a subsequent time for examination, and response data
can be written to an external file for further analysis.
Our Use of Classtalk
This section describes our educational goals and objectives,
our choices in how to use the Classtalk system, and our
experiences in the classroom. Our instructional goals and objectives
drive our pedagogical decisions. We continue to reflect upon
our experiences and to experiment with what works best for us.
We will point out our concerns as well as our successes as we
proceed through the description of our experiences.
Educational Goals and Objectives
We have four broad educational objectives: 1) Students should
know and understand definitions, terminology, facts, concepts,
principles, operations, and procedures; 2) Students should be
able to communicate what they know to others; 3) Students should
know how to apply what they have learned to analyze situations
and solve problems, extending this ability to increasingly complex
situations; and 4) Students should develop the ability to evaluate
critically the usefulness of various problem-solving approaches.
Our goals are to advance our educational objectives for our students
and to structure our classes in such a way that maximizes the
likelihood that all students achieve these objectives. We strive
to create an environment in the lecture hall that is conducive
to student participation in the processes of articulating, reflecting
on, and evaluating their ideas. We do not take for granted that
students will acquire or enhance these habits of mind working
independently outside of class.
The Structure of Instruction with Classtalk
We structure a class period around the cooperative group solution
and class-wide discussion of questions. The closure of one question
often leads to the presentation of a second so that instruction
has a cyclical quality, as depicted in Figure 5. For ease
of presentation, we break down this question cycle into
7 stages: 1) question generation and selection, 2) sending the
question, 3) cooperative group work, 4) collection of answers,
5) histogram display, 6) class-wide discussion, and 7) closure.
These stages constitute flexible guidelines for the flow of instruction
rather than an instructional recipe that is rigidly followed.
Dashed lines on the figure show some possible variations in the
way one can proceed. For example, students can be given time
to work and respond individually before they do so in groups.
Results of the class-wide discussion may lead to the generation
or selection of a completely different question than the instructor
anticipated before class. Within this instructional format, the
amount of time the instructor spends presenting information is
cut to approximately one-third of the class period. The other
two-thirds of the class is spent by students in small group discussion
or in discussion as a whole class with the instructor serving
Figure 5: The structure of Classtalk
instruction. Most class sessions can be broken down into cycles
containing seven stages, beginning with Question Selection and
Generation and ending with Closure. This question cycle
was not a rigid format followed every class. Dashed lines represent
examples of possible variations in the cycle.
Summary of Experiences Teaching with Classtalk
The description of our experiences is based on the following
- In-depth, end-of-semester interviews with 18 of the 74 (female)
students enrolled in the spring 1995 section of a service course
for non-science majors entitled, The Physics of Sound with
Applications for Speech and Hearing.
In-depth, end-of-semester interviews with 7 of the 33 students
enrolled in a first-semester mechanics course for math and science
majors offered in the fall of 1994.
A group interview with 9 math and science majors who had used
Classtalk for 3 consecutive semesters.
Field notes from all sessions of the non-science majors' course
and periodic sessions of the math/science majors' courses.
In-depth interviews with the two instructors (who are two
of the co-authors of this article) of the four Classtalk-taught
courses (three for math/science majors, one for non-science majors).
End-of-semester questionnaires in all four courses.
In the remainder of this section we recount the experiences
of the instructors and the students for each stage in the question
Question Development and Selection
Most of our questions are designed either to make students
aware of their own perspectives and the perspectives of others,
to reveal points of confusion and misunderstanding, to make distinctions
between ideas, or to elaborate on their understanding of a concept.
Such questions generated more lively debate among students, raising
more issues of conceptual understanding, than did computational
questions. A student in the non-science majors' class described
the questions in this way:
"... sometimes you don't get it if you just do the specific
[computational] questions. But when you do conceptual questions,
you see how everything fits in. And it helps you relate that
to other things."
We organize our questions so that they build on each other
and on previously learned material. For example, questions may
be designed and ordered so that students must apply a concept
or principle in contexts that are increasingly different from
those in which the concept or principle was initially learned.
The purpose of extending the context is to help students explore
the limits of their current understanding of a concept or principle,
and move toward an understanding that is less context dependent.
Organizing groups of questions in this way provides students
with several opportunities to consider and use the targeted concepts.
We have found that as we proceed through a group of questions
students demonstrate increasing ability to use the targeted concepts
in their explanations and to distinguish conditions under which
the concepts could be applied, even when they are often less
able to answer the later questions correctly due to the unfamiliarity
of the contexts. We found that crafting a coherent group of questions
took us more time than did preparing a traditional lecture on
Sending the Question
Although sending the question with the Classtalk system
is a simple procedure, there is instructional planning that occurs
at this step. The decisions that a teacher makes with regard
to ordering instruction and selecting the option for student
responses have implications for the depth, the quality, and the
dynamics of the group work that follow.
When questions were sent after the presentation of material
or demonstration, students tended to refer back primarily to
what they had just seen and heard. Their responses provided us
(as instructors) with feedback about the clarity of the presentation.
Although we sometimes used questions in this way to check for
understanding, we preferred to use an instructional sequence
that required students to engage in more reflective thought.
That is, we tended to send questions before a presentation, so
that students had to pull ideas from various prior experiences
(e.g., readings, lectures, other courses, previous class-wide
discussions, or personal observations). In this case, students'
responses gave us (and them) information about their preconceptions
of the ideas involved. We found this latter sequence more useful
for shaping instruction.
When a question is sent, the instructor also selects the option
for how the group must answer. We typically used either the individual
or the group with dissent option. Although we did not
see any differences in the depth of discussion of the physics
concepts between these two options, we did see differences in
the degree to which students made a commitment to their own ideas.
As one physics/astronomy major said:
"With individual response, you have to be more certain
of your answer. When it's group with dissent it's a little easier
to just go along with the group."
There is no clear evidence, however, that this commitment
to a particular response has significance for learning. Early
in the semester we used individual response more often,
but as the semester progressed and students became practiced
at working with their group members, we shifted toward using
the group with dissent option.
Cooperative Group Work
Although we describe the cooperative group work and the ensuing
class-wide discussion separately, they function together to clarify
and improve students' conceptual understanding by allowing them:
a) to articulate their current thinking, b) to reflect on their
own ideas and the ideas of others, c) to elaborate on their thoughts,
and d) to evaluate the usefulness of a number of different perspectives.
The cooperative group work is distinct from the class-wide discussion,
however, in that it affords all students the opportunity to discuss
their own ideas or questions, regardless of whether or not they
are comfortable presenting their ideas to the entire class. Here
we describe the nature of this group work.
After a question was sent, students worked together to answer
it in groups numbering two to four (although there were occasions
when a student in the math/science majors' course worked alone).
They consulted one another and, if necessary, their notes or
textbooks. Rarely was it the case that group work consisted solely
of "stronger" students tutoring other members of their
groups. All students in a given group participated in a variety
of ways - sometimes asking questions, at other times explaining,
describing, or adding information. They discussed their reasoning
and the multiple ways to proceed in answering a question. Although
students are focused on answering a specific question, in our
approach we place the greater emphasis on expressing the logic
behind their answers. This process helps students to become aware
of their own ways of thinking and of alternative ways of thinking
as articulated by others.
Depending on the difficulty of the question, students worked
together from 2 to 10 minutes with an average of about 5 minutes
per question. Since they were typically given 2 to 3 questions
each class period, they were engaged in this cooperative group
work for up to 1/3 of the class time. We used the group time
to monitor students' engagement both in order to determine when
to stop and collect their answers, and to organize our thoughts
for the class-wide discussion. For both student and teacher this
represents quite a departure from their actions in a traditional
There is a great deal of variation in reasoning from group
to group and from question to question. Questions designed to
challenge prior assumptions led students to state their intuitions
about the problem situation. The math/science majors (and later
on in the semester, non-science majors) tended to back up their
intuitions with physics concepts that supported their ideas.
Early on in the non-science majors' course, students were not
so likely (or so able) to select and apply physics concepts and
principles in this way. Some cited facts from prior lectures
or readings, others spent time looking through the course notes
expecting to find answers. In all cases, both math/science and
non-science majors were attempting to apply what they had learned,
heard, or read to the new question or problem.
As the semester progressed, we saw students use more physics
reasoning in their groups. Students also perceived this change.
One student reflected on her reasoning in the following way:
"Well, I think that at the beginning of the semester
I just relied a lot more on...my intuition. ...sometimes I can
figure out [the most likely answers] without working them out
when he gives the choices. But I think now... I write it all
down and try to figure it out... Sometimes I do it more than
one way... just to see what I come out with. I can play devil's
advocate for myself."
In most groups we observed, students typically articulated
possible approaches for answering a question, after which, at
least one person in each group would propose an argument that
would bring all members to agreement (though not always on the
correct answer). Whether students were right or wrong, when they
subsequently worked on a related question, they demonstrated
a better ability to use appropriate terminology or procedures.
In their groups, students were expected: a) to consider questions
that went beyond the usual request for facts or formulaic solutions,
b) to take greater responsibility for knowing factual information
from their reading, and c) to negotiate working relationships
with group members. We spent time explaining our objectives and
expectations, modeling problem-solving skills, and discussing
things that might help their groups work better. For the most
part, students met these challenges well.
Some students, however, ran into difficulties. For example,
a student in the math/science majors' course was frustrated by
the Classtalk questions. She felt they were meant to be
tricky and would have preferred questions that gave her procedural
practice. She said:
"At first I liked Classtalk, but as time went
on, I got more and more frustrated with the questions. They're
somewhat ambiguous. I keep doubting my ability to reason them
out... I understand that in the long run, questions that get
at misconceptions are probably more helpful, but I'm not there
yet. I'd rather have a mix of questions, with more straightforward
questions [than we have been given]."
One student in the non-science majors' course seemed to prefer
having the group work focus on questions that came directly from
the lecture without having to draw on material she was responsible
for learning on her own:
"I like when he talks about the material and then he'll
give us a question and then maybe go on to, like, a different
part of what we're learning and then a question."
Another student in the same course was able to meet the expectations
of independent work, but reasoned more slowly than the other
two group members. She did not have the time to examine her own
thinking during the group work. As she put it:
"...they'll get the answer and they'll start talking
about it and I'm still trying to figure it out. ...sometimes
I tell them, 'Can you wait, like, a few more minutes before you
start discussing it and then I can get the answer as well?'...
For the most part, though, they've helped me... I feel like it
takes me a little bit longer."
She and her group members never worked out this problem of
shared air time.
Overall, students were engaged in their groups in the kinds
of activities that we believe to be important for their learning.
We did not expect that all students would come to clear, scientifically
valid answers during this collaborative work. Rather, we hoped
that through their group work, students would at least be able
to identify the questions that needed to be addressed. For the
most part, everyone had reached a point where they could engage
in a meaningful discussion of the original question.
Collection of Answers
On the surface, the collection of answers merely marks the
end of the cooperative work time. But there are other things
that occur during, or as a result of, this minute or two when
students are entering their responses. Most students interviewed
indicated that the need to enter their answer pressured them
to commit to an answer. Observing the students' answers as they
came in helped us determine the level of student understanding
and gave us time to consider how to initiate the ensuing class
Displaying the histogram of class responses has the effect
of re-focusing student attention to the front of the room. Typically,
both students and instructor spent about 10 seconds processing
the information contained in the histogram. Projecting the results
not only served to make an orderly shift back to whole-class
instruction, but also provided an agenda for the class-wide discussion.
In most instances, all represented responses were discussed either
by having a student present his/her reason for the answer or,
in those cases where no proponent would volunteer, by having
a student explain why he/she thought that a particular response
Knowing the distribution of class responses was important
to the great majority of students. In interviews, students commented
that it helped them to see how they were doing in relation to
the class and how the class fared as a whole. They reported that
such information made them feel better about their capabilities.
Some students remarked that being in the majority gave them the
confidence needed to speak out in class. In fact, in the non-science
majors' course, the first person to speak up in the class-wide
discussion represented the majority position in approximately
75% of the questions. A few students said that, even when wrong
and in the minority, they derived solace from the fact that others
had made the same selection. Only a few of the students interviewed
said that they did not feel affected by the histogram. We believe
that students' stated interest in how the entire class performed
is a reflection of their perception of the class as a community
of learners. Seeing the histogram of class responses, then, helps
to develop an atmosphere where learning is taken seriously.
The class-wide discussion shares many of the goals of the
cooperative group work, and both give students the opportunity
for active participation. Even though not everyone actually speaks
out during a class-wide discussion, we observed that students
remained engaged in this stage of the question cycle. If students
are to volunteer in this discussion, they must feel comfortable
presenting, defending, and critiquing positions in the presence
of the whole class. Here we look at some factors that affect
whether or not students speak up, indicate what we did to encourage
students to contribute, describe the nature of the class-wide
discussion, and recount some typical student reactions to it.
Over the course of the semester, 65% of students in the non-science
majors' course and 80% to 95% of the students in the math/science
majors' courses spoke out during discussion. Although most students
contributed to the class-wide discussion, others did not. There
were three different reasons that students gave for not speaking
up in class: 1) they were shy and never spoke up in a large group;
2) they found the lecture hall to be intimidating; and 3) they
lacked confidence in their answers or in their reasoning.
Other students were not shy about speaking up or found that
something helped to build their confidence. For example, students
cited their selection of the majority response, their work with
their group members, and the reassuring nature of their professor
as factors that helped them feel comfortable contributing to
the larger discussion. One student who often spoke up in class
had this to say about an instance when the cooperative group
work had been omitted from the question cycle:
"... and it was one of those individual ones - you know,
that you couldn't discuss it. And I was like 'I'm gonna answer,'
and I didn't. I was really intimidated."
In order to encourage students to contribute in the class-wide
discussion we did the following: a) We explained our objectives
and expectations for the class-wide discussion, b) we tried to
create a personal atmosphere (e.g., by using students' names,
which can be found on the Classtalk seating display),
and c) we communicated to students that they would not be judged
by the scientific value of their answers or by the insightfulness
of their questions (e.g., by attending to all answers in a respectful,
In general, the time spent on class-wide discussion ranged
from two to fifteen minutes per question, with an average time
of about five minutes. During the discussion as few as one student
responded if there had been general agreement as to the correct
answer and reasoning. When there was less agreement, there were
as many as ten students contributing to the discussion of a single
question. For most questions, there were students who would speak
out a number of times in a dialogue with the professor.
When the original question was to predict the outcome of a
demonstration, the class-wide discussion was broken up by showing
the demonstration itself. (See Figure 5.) Before showing
it, students discuss the reasons for their predictions. Afterwards,
they become more focused on trying to reconcile what they saw
with what they had expected to see. These discussions were often
much longer than typical ones.
Most often we initiated discussions by simply asking for a
volunteer to state the reasoning underlying his/her selection
or by asking for a volunteer to speak to a particular selection.
Although we continually attempted to widen the number of students
who volunteered to speak out in any given class, we did not put
any students on the spot by calling on them when they did not
volunteer to speak. Instead, we asked for a "fresh voice"
or invited someone to speak in support of, or in opposition to,
a particular response. We did not end the discussion just because
a sound line of reasoning had been presented. Rather, when it
seemed that all views had been articulated, we checked with students
to see if there were further comments to be made. Sometimes the
discussion ended after a student presented an argument with which
most other students agreed. Other times it ended after all selected
answers had been examined and the students remained divided about
the correct answer; in these cases the closure stage was used
to sort out the conflicting views.
It is important that the instructor manage the discussion
to keep it progressing smoothly, while avoiding making the discussion
teacher-centered - a huge temptation for most teachers. For example,
the instructor needs to promote discussion when students are
reluctant to present their views. We found it helpful to wait
patiently, allowing periods of silence of ten seconds or more
(occasionally reaching over twenty seconds) for students to volunteer
to speak. The instructor must help students clarify their reasoning
when they find it difficult to express themselves. One way we
did this was by paraphrasing the student's comments and then
checking with the student to see if we had stated their ideas
accurately. Sometimes we found it valuable to write out a summary
of what the student had said (either on a transparency or on
the board). Doing so seemed to help clarify lengthy or complex
explanations. It also provided a permanent record to which students
could compare other arguments, and it helped us to model how
one might organize the answer to a particular question.
During the class-wide discussion the types of arguments presented
by students varied in style, depth, and validity. For the most
part, the type of reasoning exhibited by students was similar
to that described in a previous section on collaborative group
work, albeit the reasoning was more focused and better organized
during the class-wide discussion. We found that students were
able to present and defend opposing points of view. They showed
the capacity to find specific flaws in the arguments of other
students. They were also capable of supporting positions taken
by other students, sometimes using a completely different line
of reasoning to arrive at the same answer. Finally, when students
changed their minds about their answer to a question they were
able to articulate the reasons for the shift in their thinking.
Students not contributing to the class-wide discussion appeared
to remain focused, as evidenced by their taking notes or commenting
to group members. We have never seen a student doze off during
Classtalk-facilitated instruction. Students' descriptions
of their own experiences during class-wide discussion support
our assessment that they were following the discussion. A student
in the non-science majors' course said:
"...let's say someone says a part of the answer that
I thought was right, but I don't agree with the other part. And
then somebody else says something and I agree with part of that.
I can put the two ... together and be like, 'Yeah, that's what
I meant. They said it right.' So, that definitely helps."
In their interviews, students generally expressed positive
opinions of the class-wide discussion. The majority of students
indicated that they were comfortable speaking out in class. Students
usually expressed that they were interested in listening to and
evaluating arguments presented by other students, and most thought
that doing this was valuable for learning and helped build confidence
in their own understanding. As one student in the non-science
majors' course put it:
"...[the instructor] could get up there and explain [the
reasoning]..., but when someone - even if they have it wrong
- when they're working through it, you're like, 'Oh, that's what
I did.' And then when he says 'Well, think of it this way' and
it turns around, you can turn around your thinking too. It's
not just always getting the correct explanation up there, but
that's helpful too. But, I think when you see someone work through
it on their own it's helpful."
Despite general agreement about the value of the class-wide
discussion, there were situations about which students voiced
concern. For example, they became frustrated if discussions went
on too long without bringing new ideas to light, or if a student,
who was apparently unprepared for class, kept prolonging a discussion.
These situations clearly point to the need for the instructor
to manage the class-wide discussion and bring it to closure when
it seems that all views have been presented and further discussion
is not fruitful.
The closure stage is carried out by the instructor and entails
summarizing, clarifying, and emphasizing the main points behind
the question or problem (e.g., the underlying concepts and principles,
procedures, terminology, etc.), as well as embedding this understanding
into the wider context of the course. If consensus was reached
on a valid and appropriate line of reasoning, the instructor
simply reiterated the major themes. When the class-wide discussion
ended in unresolved differences of opinion, the instructor took
one of a number of approaches. One strategy was to present a
simpler, but related question (usually without Classtalk)
that students were able to solve correctly, and then to draw
comparisons between the two questions. Another strategy was to
discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the competing arguments.
In some cases, when the instructor presented or revisited a demonstration
it seemed to help solidify the new understandings. In others,
the instructor backtracked to clarify previously covered material
that was related to the current confusion. Although implementation
of some of these strategies required teacher-led presentations,
they were almost always interactive.
Sometimes we used the closure period to extend the breadth
of students' understanding by asking "what if" questions
about the original situation (e.g., how would the answer have
changed if certain parameters increased? decreased? etc.). In
this way, closure of one question cycle was often used to set
the stage for the next question. On rare occasions the original
question was re-sent to determine the effect of the class-wide
discussion and closure.
Student Perceptions of and Attitudes aboutClasstalk-facilitated
The vast majority of students expressed a high degree of satisfaction
with our use of questions, cooperative group work, class-wide
discussions, and interactive lectures. They found that in using
the Classtalk system, the lecture hour was more enjoyable
and that the class did not "drag." The histograms in
Figure 6 show combined responses to several end-of-course
evaluation questions taken over two years from both the non-science
majors' class and the math and science majors' year-long physics
Students perceived differences in what and how much they learned
between traditional lectures and our Classtalk-facilitated
classes, as the following two quotes from students in the non-science
majors' course illustrate:
"...in most courses, I'm almost always just writing notes
down - too fast to even think about it. And so that... sometimes
the notes don't even make sense, because I left out words...
And even if they do make sense, I have to totally relearn them.
Nothing sinks in during class. So I really like physics because
I kind of absorb it as I go along. So that when I leave class
I have a clear understanding of what we did in class... [With]
the Classtalk questions... you have time to think about
it and to talk about it... Without Classtalk, I think
if he just lectured, I think I'd still be confused at the end
of a class..."
Figure 6: Histograms of student attitudes
concerning Classtalk-facilitated instruction. Results
are based on questionnaires administered at the end of the courses
"...if I took the notes in class and I went home, two
days later when I went to do the homework, [the material] wouldn't
really be fresh in my mind. ... I wouldn't have had that kind
of interaction with it right away."
Students thought that the types of questions we used were
helpful. A student in the non-science majors' course said that
she understood the concepts well from the assigned reading but
"I wouldn't know how to apply [the concepts]... The Classtalk
questions in lecture show me ways that they're applied."
Students' satisfaction with the Classtalk-facilitated
courses was not attributed solely to our use of the technology:
"...a lot of it's [the instructor's] style. He said in
the beginning he wasn't going to just lecture to us. We have
more give and take. We're able to give him a lot of feedback.
I feel very comfortable asking him questions... He really seems
like he cares..."
"I still hold the same interest when we don't have [Classtalk],
because he still puts the questions up there, and we still have
to answer them... The only difference is you're just putting
in an answer. When I'm confused I like to find out what other
people have put... I like it. I think that when it is there it's
a plus, but when it's not there, class is still interesting."
For some students, however, they perceived that the technology
was crucial to the success of their group work:
"...when the computer's not there, we're not all involved...
Someone who understands it just does it and then explains it,
and... people just agree... When Classtalk's there, people
are, at least in my group, they're much more concerned about
if they have the right answer."
Regardless of the reasons, students were very satisfied with
the Classtalk-facilitated courses. From our perspective,
the Classtalk system aids in the delivery of instruction
aimed at promoting active learning.
Expanded Use of Classtalk
The use of Classtalk here at the University of Massachusetts
is being expanded in three different directions - to even larger
lecture courses that we will teach, to courses taught by other
physics faculty, and to courses within other disciplines. Each
type of expansion has its own set of challenges and pedagogic
constraints. As instructors new to Classtalk-facilitated
instruction reflect on the educational needs of their students
and on their own educational goals and objectives for the course,
they must select instructional formats to meet these demands.
Each individual instructor will make different choices about
how to use the system, but Classtalk is flexible enough
to accommodate many different teaching styles, instructional
formats, student needs, and educational goals.
There are a number of factors that might inhibit new instructors,
departments, and institutions from making the transition from
lecture-style classes to Classtalk-facilitated ones. In
the remainder of this section, we present some of the psychological
and economic factors that are relevant to this transition.
Many faculty visitors to our lecture halls have expressed
an interest in our use of the Classtalk technology. Individuals
who are interested in using Classtalk as we have described
it would do well to reflect on their willingness to make the
shift to a more student-centered and interactive style of teaching.
The effectiveness of Classtalk-facilitated instruction
depends on more than good technical application. In our use of
Classtalk there is a high degree of unpredictability and
a different pace to the class, as students express their points
of view and struggle with the material. During a typical lecture,
there are few classroom-management issues; with Classtalk
there can be many. Not everyone will find it easy to make the
transition from pure lecturing to using Classtalk-facilitated,
Students must also struggle to make the transition to a Classtalk
classroom. Some students, especially many of the stronger math
and science majors, have done well under traditional instruction
and might not appreciate the value of a more interactive format.
What students must do during class is very different. They can
no longer sit passively, drifting in and out of focused attention,
listening to the lecturer and jotting down notes. They are pushed
to articulate their thoughts and to make a commitment to a particular
line of reasoning. Our approach also demands many changes in
how students work and study. For example, they no longer have
copious lecture notes they can pore over on their own; they must
rely much more on the textbook as a reference. They must learn
how to work and communicate in cooperative groups. They must
learn how to process explanations and distinguish between them.
Students need encouragement and support in order to complete
We are planning to use Classtalk in class sessions
having two to three hundred students. Although we have not found
students to be resistant to the shift to Classtalk, the
largest class that we have taught had only 80 students. We anticipate
that when Classtalk is used in larger classes, the range
of student reactions will widen, and classroom-management issues
will become increasingly important. An even smaller fraction
of students will be able to share their reasoning during the
class-wide discussion. These are just some of the factors that
might hinder a smooth transition to the use of Classtalk
in a larger lecture hall.
Institutions interested in using Classtalk (or any
CCS) must make a financial investment, not only in equipment,
but possibly also in additional technical and instructional support
staff. For example, technical support is needed to maintain the
equipment. Instructional support may be needed to help teachers
make changes in the way they teach. Without adequate support,
the economic investment in technology is difficult to justify.
Adequate space and equipment can be a limiting factor as well.
In our case, the network has been installed in only one lecture
hall, which limits the number of classes that can be taught using
Classtalk. Depending on demand and location, each lecture
hall in which Classtalk is installed might need a separate
central computer. If different departments wish to use the system,
they must decide whether it is better to install systems in lecture
halls that are local to each department or to share resources.
Students may also share part of the economic burden. As mentioned
briefly, in the latest version of Classtalk students are
required to provide their own TI85 calculators as input devices.
This may be an unwarranted expense, unless the TI85 is also used
in related courses, which happens to be the case here at the
University of Massachusetts.
Despite these factors which might discourage someone from
using Classtalk, we remain optimistic about its potential
to help transform the college lecture hall. Using active learning
opportunities that are geared toward understanding and applying
concepts appears to make science courses more interesting for
students. Although it is possible to incorporate active learning
into the classroom without using a CCS, we believe that our use
of Classtalk helped us in two important ways: 1) it was
useful as a classroom-management tool, and 2) it provided a mechanism
for enhanced communication. In this section, we elaborate on
these uses of Classtalk, as well as on how these affect
students' motivation and attitudes toward science.
Classtalk is an effective classroom-management tool,
allowing us to create a lively and rich learning environment
without losing control of the class. Cooperative learning, class-wide
discussions, and interactive lecturing are formats that are usually
time-consuming and can lead easily to reduced coverage of material.
But with our use of the Classtalk system, students' attention
can be quickly, but gently, diverted from one task to the next
without any significant loss of instructional time.
Using Classtalk greatly enhances communication among
students and between students and the teacher, increasing active
engagement during class and affecting both learning and instruction.
As a result of improved student-teacher interactions, teachers
can tailor instruction to meet a wider range of student needs.
Instead of polling just a fraction of the class to assess the
current state of knowledge and understanding, a teacher using
Classtalk gets immediate feedback about everyone
in the class. In the Classtalk classroom, student-student
interactions occur when they work in small groups, when they
see the histogram of class responses, and when they listen to
one another during the class-wide discussion. Everyone in the
class is involved, not just the outspoken few. Everyone is trying
to "make sense" of the subject; everyone is practicing
how to reason about, analyze, and evaluate physical situations.
As shown by interviews, students realize the effect this has
on their understanding, and they perceive that their problem-solving
skills are improving.
Using Classtalk also improves students' attitudes and
motivation toward science. Their satisfaction with our courses
is in contrast to recent research on undergraduate students'
attitudes toward large introductory science courses. Many undergraduates
leave the sciences, not because of lack of ability or personal
motivation, but rather, because they see other disciplines as
more interesting, because they are dissatisfied with the quality
and impersonal nature of the instruction that they receive, or
because of the time required to keep up with large amounts of
fact-based information (Seymour, 1995; Tobias, 1990). Further,
many who left the sciences indicated that conceptual difficulties
in their science courses often became debilitating because they
were not addressed in a timely fashion (Seymour, 1995).
With Classtalk we can address these attitudinal issues.
Students are working on questions that probe their conceptual
understanding and their ability to connect ideas, rather than
on questions that ask them to memorize lots of seemingly unrelated
facts and equations. Points of misunderstanding and confusion
are revealed and addressed immediately and in a non-evaluative
way. Students are not in competition with each other to get the
"right" answer; they are helping each other learn.
Many students reported that they made new friends in class and
studied with them outside of class. Classtalk helps us
to create a friendlier environment - a place more conducive to
learning and more enjoyable for both students and teachers.
The last three years teaching with Classtalk have been
challenging and exciting. The most important result of our work
in developing our use of Classtalk is that students are
engaged in the kinds of activities and are exhibiting the kinds
of behaviors that we value for learning. We hope that, as a result,
they develop skills that will be useful throughout their lives
and are encouraged by the progress that they show in understanding
their own thought processes, in learning how to work cooperatively
with each other, and in making sense of the physical world.
Work supported in part by National Science Foundation grant
# DUE-9453881. The views expressed herein are those of the authors
and do not necessarily reflect the position, policy, or endorsement
of the National Science Foundation.
Anderson, C.W. (1987). Strategic teaching in science. In B.F.
Jones, A.S. Palincsar, D.S. Ogle & E.G. Carr (Eds.), Strategic
teaching and learning: Cognitive instruction in the content areas
(pp. 73-91). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Anzai, Y. & Simon, H.A. (1979). The theory of learning by
doing. Psychological Review, 86, 124-140.
Bonwell, C.C. & Eison, J.A. (1991). Active learning:
Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher
Education Report No. 1. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Higher Education, The George Washington University.
Brown, J.S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition
and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher,
18 (Feb), 32-42.
Chi, M.T.H., Feltovich, P.J. & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization
and representation of physics problems by experts and novices.
Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
Claxton, C.S. & Murrell, P.H. (1987). Learning styles:
Implications for improving educational practices. ASHE-ERIC
Higher Education Report No. 4. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse
on Higher Education, The George Washington University.
Clement, J.J. (1982a). Algebra word problem solutions: Thought
processes underlying a common misconception. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 13, 16-30.
Clement, J.J. (1982b). Students' preconceptions in introductory
mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50,
Cole, M. (1985). The zone of proximal development: Where culture
and cognition meet. In J.V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication
and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Dufresne, R., Gerace, W.J., Hardiman, P.T. & Mestre, J.P.
(1992). Constraining novices to perform expert-like problem analyses:
Effects on schema acquisition. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 2, 307-331.
Garner, R. (1990). When children and adults do not use learning
strategies: Toward a theory of settings. Review of Educational
Research, 60, 517-529.
Glaser, R. (1992). Expert knowledge and processes of thinking.
In D. Halpern (Ed.), Enhancing thinking skills in the sciences
and mathematics (pp. 63-75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Glaser, R. (1994). Learning theory and instruction. In G.
d'Ydewalle, P. Eelen & P. Bertelson (Eds.), International
perspectives on psychological science, Vol. 2: The state of the
art (pp. 341-357). Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gullette, M.M. (1992). Leading discussion in a lecture course:
Some maxims and an exhortation. Change, 24
Halloun, I.A. & Hestenes, D. (1985). The initial knowledge
state of college physics students. American Journal of
Physics, 53, 1043-1055.
Hestenes, D. & Wells, M. (1992). A mechanics baseline test.
The Physics Teacher, 30 (March), 141-158.
Hestenes, D., Wells, M. & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept
inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30 (March),
Hewson, P.W., Kerby, H.W. & Cook, P.A. (1995). Determining
the conceptions of teaching science held by experienced high
school science teachers. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 32, 503-520.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. & Smith, K. (1991). Cooperative
learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity.
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4. Washington, DC: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Higher Education, The George Washington University.
Jonassen, D.H. (1995). Computers as cognitive tools: Learning
with technology and not from technology. Journal of Computing
in Higher Education, 6, 40-73.
Larkin, J.H. (1980). Skilled problem solving in physics: A
hierarchical planning model. Journal of Structural Learning,
Larkin, J.H. (1981). Enriching formal knowledge: A model for
learning to solve problems in physics. In J.R. Anderson (Ed.),
Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 311-334).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Larkin, J.H. (1983). The role of problem representation in
physics. In D. Gentner and A.L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental
models (pp. 75-98). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics
and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Lightman, A.P., Miller, J.D. & Leadbeater, B.J. (1987). Contemporary
cosmological beliefs. In J.D. Novak (Ed.), Proceedings
of the second international seminar on misconceptions and educational
strategies in science and mathematics, Vol. III (pp. 309-321).
Ithaca, NY: Department of Education, Cornell University.
Mazur, E. (1993). Peer instruction: A user's manual.
Unpublished manuscript, Department of Physics, Harvard University,
McDermott, L.C. (1984). Research on conceptual understanding
in mechanics. Physics Today, 37 (7), 24-32.
Mestre, J. & Touger, J. (1989). Cognitive research: What's
in it for physics teachers. The Physics Teacher,
27 (Sept), 447-456.
Pintrich, P.R. & De Groot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated
learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.
Pintrich, P.R., Marx, R.W. & Boyle, R.A. (1993). Beyond cold
conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom
contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review
of Educational Research, 63, 167-199.
Pintrich, P.R. & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students' motivational
beliefs and their cognitive engagement in classroom academic
tasks. In D. Schunk & J. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions
in the classroom: Causes and consequences (pp. 149-183).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pyramid Film & Video. A Private Universe. Santa
Resnick, L.B. (1983). Mathematics and science learning: A
new conception. Science, 220, 477-478.
Resnick, L.B. (1987). Education and learning to think.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Sadler, P.M. (1987). Misconceptions in astronomy. In J.D.
Novak (Ed.), Proceedings of the second international seminar
on misconceptions and educational strategies in science and mathematics,
Vol. III (pp. 422-425). Ithaca, NY: Department of Education,
Schauble, L. (1990). Belief revision in children: The role
of prior knowledge and strategies for generating evidence. Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology, 49, 31-57.
Seymour, E. (1995). Revisiting the 'problem iceberg': Science,
mathematics, and engineering students still chilled out. Journal
of College Science Teaching, 24 (May), 392-400.
Sokoloff, D.R. (1994). Enhancing physics learning in lecture
with interactive, microcomputer-based demonstrations. AAPT
Announcer, 24, #4, 63.
Stetten, G.D. & Guthrie, S.D. (1995). Wireless infrared networking
in the Duke paperless classroom. T.H.E. Journal,
23, #3, 87-90.
Strike, K.A. & Posner, G.J. (1992). A revisionist theory of
conceptual change. In R. Duschl & R. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy
of Science, Cognitive Psychology, and Educational Theory and
Practice (pp. 147-176). Albany, NY: SUNY.
Tobias, S. (1990). They're not dumb, they're different:
Stalking the second tier. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation.
Tobin, K. (1986). Effects of teacher wait time on discourse
characteristics in mathematics and language arts classes. American
Educational Research Journal, 23, 191-200.
Van Heuvelen, A. (1991). Overview, Case Study Physics. American
Journal of Physics, 59, 898-907.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, Construction of Knowledge,
and Teaching. Synthese, 80, 121-140.
von Glasersfeld, E. (1992). A constructivist's view of learning
and teaching. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg & H. Niedderer (Eds.),
The proceedings of the international workshop on research
in physics education: Theoretical issues and empirical studies
(Bremen, Germany, March 5-8, 1991). Kiel, Germany: IPN.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development
of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Wandersee, J.H. (1983). Students' misconceptions about photosynthesis:
A cross-age study. In H. Helm & J. Novak (Eds.), Proceedings
of the international seminar on misconceptions in science and
mathematics (pp. 441-465). Ithaca, NY: Department of Education,
Wilson, J. (1994). The CUPLE physics studio. The Physics
Teacher, 32 (Dec), 518-523.