Question Driven Instruction

Abstract

Audience response systems (ARS) are a tool, not a magic bullet. How they are used, and how well they are integrated into a coherent pedagogical approach, determines how effective they are. Question Driven Instruction (QDI) is a radical approach in which an ARS-mediated “question cycle” organizes classroom instruction, replacing the “transmit and test” paradigm with an iterative process of question posing, deliberation, commitment to an answer, and discussion. It is an implementation of “real-time formative assessment.” In QDI, an ARS is used to facilitate and direct discussion, to engage students in active knowledge-building, and to support “agile teaching” by providing the instructor with constant feedback about students’ evolving understanding and difficulties. Class time is used primarily for interactively developing understanding, rather than for presenting content: in QDI, an instructor is more an engineer of learning experiences than a dispenser of knowledge. This requires new teaching skills, such as moderating discussion and managing the classroom dynamic, interpreting students’ statements and modeling their learning, making real-time teaching decisions, and designing ARS questions that teach rather than test and that target process as well as content. Above all, it requires understanding and communicating that ARS use is diagnostic and instructional, rather than evaluative.

Developing design principles and task types for classroom response system tasks in mathematics

“…CRS can also have a positive effect on the learning environment through increased quality and quantity of classroom discussions (e.g. Beatty et al, 2006b;Caldwell, 2007;Chien et al, 2016;Chien et al, 2015;Egelandsdal et al, 2019;). Further, research also suggests that CRS has the potential to improve learning performance (Hunsu et al, 2016;Kay & LeSage, 2009) especially in normal-sized classrooms (Hunsu et al, 2016) when CRS is combined with classroom discussions (Chien et al, 2016;Egelandsdal et al, 2019;Liu et al, 2017).…”

“…One of the greatest challenges in teaching with support from a CRS is to produce good, effective tasks (Beatty et al, 2006a;Chambers, 2020;Egelandsdal et al, 2019;Kay & LeSage, 2009;Nielsen et al, 2013). Beatty et al (2006b) argue that the functionality and format of these tasks often differ from those of tasks for tests, homework and textbooks. Especially tasks that should generate classroom discussions are difficult to produce, and poorly designed tasks might even be counterproductive.…”

“…Based on different research perspectives on task design, research on 1) MC tasks, 2) tasks for formative assessment practices, and 3) tasks suitable for generating classroom discussions, we describe a number of critical task features for MC tasks. Firstly, there seems to be a consensus among several researchers that CRS tasks in MC format should address a specific learning goal (Beatty et al, 2006b;Caldwell, 2007;Crouch & Mazur, 2001;Kay & LeSage, 2009), have logical distractors that elicit misconceptions and misunderstandings (Caldwell, 2007;Crouch & Mazur, 2001;Kay & LeSage, 2009), and promote a wide range of responses (Cline et al, 2012;Kay & LeSage, 2009). Further, Haladyna et al (2002) remark that the text amount should be minimized and written in simple and clear language, including correct grammar and spelling.…”

Pros and Cons of Audience Response Systems in the Education of Health Professionals

“…Such formative feedback is useful as it affords the teacher the ability to adjust the lecture 'on the fly' or reconfigure future lectures, or homework assignments, to address knowledge gaps. This 'contingent teaching' or 'agile teaching' is responsive to the needs of the students and not driven by a preset download of information determined by the teacher Beatty et al, 2006).…”

Getting More Scientists to Revamp Teaching

“…We provided scientists with robust and user-friendly clickers and clicker software similar to those used by Mazur, as well as with the basics of how to use them effectively in the classroom, through workshops and discussion groups during which we referred to some of the key online resources (in particular, resources from the Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative at the University of British Columbia, available at http://www.cwsei.ubc. ca/resources/clickers.htm) and more recently from Schell and Mazur (2012) and papers that document the effectiveness of clickers and peer instruction (see, e.g., Beatty, Gerace, Leonard, & Dufresne, 2006;Crouch, Watkins, Fagen, & Mazur, 2007;Knight & Wood, 2005;Perez et al, 2010;Smith et al, 2009). We did not provide any emphasis on complementary aspects suggested by scientific teaching (Chasteen et al, 2011;Handelsman et al, 2007;Mervis, 2013), such as creating or revising learning goals (to some extent this had been the focus of prior efforts; see Brabrand & Dahl, 2009), matching clicker questions to learning goals, and revisiting exam questions.…”