Session
2531
INTICE -
Interactive Technology to Improve
the
Classroom Experience
Jeffrey A. Siegel,
Department of Civil Engineering,
Kathy J. Schmidt,
College of Engineering Faculty Innovation Center,
Justin Cone, College of
Engineering, Faculty Innovation Center
The University of Texas
at Austin
Abstract
Interaction
in the classroom is essential to improving student learning and using Classroom
Performance System (CPS) technology is one way to promote interactions. CPS
consists of student-operated remote controls and a receiver that records
responses to multiple-choice questions posed by the instructor. In order to promote the use of these
questions and answers as a study tool, we designed an online application web
site that provides a feedback loop for the instructor and students to examine
their responses. Our site also provides
data to the instructor about individual student performance, aggregate class
response to topic areas and specific questions, and student participation and
class attendance.
In
the fall of 2003, we implemented CPS in ARE 346N: Building Environmental
Systems, a core class required of all Architectural Engineering majors at the
University of Texas at Austin. The instructor used CPS an average of five times
per lecture, including opinion or subjective response questions and collected
figures on class attendance. Our evaluation of the data suggests that the
majority of students reported that CPS enhanced their learning. This observational study also suggests ways
in which CPS can be used to minimize instructor time on class administrative
chores and, most importantly, promote student learning of engineering material.
Introduction
Actively
involving college students in lecture-based classes can be challenging, but
with the use of emerging technologies there are ways to engage students and
enhance communications among the students and between the students and
instructor. One technology making headway in providing more student-centered,
interactive classrooms is called the Classroom Performance System (CPS). This
idea is not new; a hardware system called Classtalk has been in use for the
last several years. While there were successes with Classtalk,
CPS
provides a more developed means of actively gathering students’ in-class responses
without wired transmitters. CPS
consists of unique remotes for each student (purchased from the campus
bookstore or borrowed from the library) and a receiver for the instructor. When the instructor initiates a multiple
choice question, the students key in their answers, the results are saved in
data file, and the instructor can display a histogram of class results. Individual and aggregate data is saved for
each session. When student anonymity is
desired (i.e. for many of the opinion questions discussed in this paper)
students can trade remotes so that responses can not be traced back to
individual students.
Teaching
methods that promote student participation and active learning are often
advocated, however, the term “active learning” lacks a common definition in
educational literature. Most educators assume that learning is inherently
active; yet research suggests that for students to be actively learning, they
need to do more than just listen. They must be dynamically engaged in tasks and
in thinking processes. As such, “it is proposed that strategies promoting
active learning be defined as instructional activities involving students in
doing and thinking about what they are doing.”1
Research on undergraduate teaching advocates active
student learning instead of the inherently passive lecture-discussion
environment in which faculty talk and students listen. According to Chickering
and Gamson2 the best practices in undergraduate education
include:
·
encouraging
student/faculty contact,
·
encouraging
cooperation among students,
·
encouraging
active learning
·
providing
prompt feedback,
·
emphasizing
time on tasks,
·
communicating
high expectations,
·
respecting
diverse talents and ways of thinking.
Awareness
of the development of students’ ability to think is a common theme in much of
today’s educational literature. Students need the ability to process and use
information rather than to just store it. One way to assess foundational
thinking skills is by Bloom’s Taxonomy.3 This taxonomy, developed
in 1956, has evolved into a classic work that classifies cognitive behaviors
into six categories ranging from simple to complex. The behaviors are
hierarchical, with learning at high levels dependent upon attaining
prerequisite knowledge and skills. The use of this taxonomy helps us go beyond
the vagueness implied when we say we want our students to “understand” and
provides us with six major levels of thinking as listed in Table 1.
Table
1
Six Major Levels of
Bloom’s Taxonomy
Level Characteristic
Student Behaviors
Knowledge Remembering;
memorizing; recognizing
Comprehension Interpreting; describing in one’s own words
Application Problem-solving;
applying information to produce a result
Analysis Subdividing to
show how something is put together; identifying motives
Synthesis Creating a unique,
original product
Evaluation Making value
decisions about issues; resolving controversies
While
lecturing is the most common college teaching method, another common strategy
is that of asking questions. As far back as Socrates, questions have been used
to guide and assess student thinking. The mere asking of questions is not
sufficient, however, for “there are many classrooms in which teachers rarely
pose questions above the ‘read-it-and-repeat-it level’ responses”4 and as such, questions
do not stimulate deeper thinking for students.
Accordingly, a variety of questioning strategies is recommended and
researchers suggest that questioning strategies are essentials to the growth of
critical thinking skills, creativity, and higher level of thinking skills.5 There is extensive
literature on teacher questioning6 as well as articles on the art of
effective questioning. One way to become skilled as a classroom questioner is
to use Bloom’s taxonomy to gauge proficiency and target areas for growth. Using
Bloom as a guide, instructors can structure questions at each level and create
questions that are meaningful and purposeful and that foster a learning
environment that promotes the process of active learning. Classroom questions
are often spontaneous and while such questions can be effective, CPS provides
the capability to plan and pre-program questions. This thoughtful consideration
of questions helps instructors tailor information to appropriate instructional
levels and keep students engaged.
Specific
methodologies for achieving an interactive classroom have been widely described
in the literature. Metha presented data
on the value of active learning and described a method of student response to
multiple choice questions in which students held up cards with a letter
selection on them.7
Students self -reported that this technique improved their
learning. Although this method gave the
instructor real-time feedback on student understanding, the data was potentially
incomplete and unavailable for future analysis. In another study, this
technique was extended and formalized to provide students with quick feedback
on their learning for each class.8 Dufresne et al. report on a teaching framework
that utilizes a classroom communication system to provide feedback on student
learning.9 As far back as 1996, a classroom communication
system called Classtalk was
employed in large undergraduate physics classes in order to facilitate
the presentation of questions for small group work.10 Dufresene et al. found Classtalk to be a
useful tool not only for engaging students in active learning during the
lecture hour, but also for enhancing overall communication within the
classroom.10 Lopez-Herrejon and Schulman report on the use of CPS in
a computer science programming class.11 They do not report
performance or student preference data, but instead focus on several examples
where the feedback from CPS provided real-time insight to the instructor about
student learning and influenced the content or the teaching methodology in the
class. Burnstein
and Lederman (2003) described applications for wireless classroom systems and
compared the costs and benefits of three commercially available systems,
including the system that we describe in this paper.12 Not all researchers, however, have found
significant benefits from CPS. In an
Advanced Chemistry class at the United States Military Academy, Blackman et al. (2002) reported that sections
that utilized CPS had higher student satisfaction, but overall preparation for
class or performance was not improved over classes that were taught with
traditional lecture methods.13
Despite
the many articles on CPS and other interactive classroom systems, there is
relatively little data about whether these devices improve student learning. In this paper, we present an observational
study of using CPS in a junior level Architectural Engineering class. Specifically we present data that indicates
whether student responses and performance in the class correlate with their
responses to CPS questions. We also provide data on the number of questions,
the level of questions and how questioning strategies influenced learning. Our
hypotheses include:
1)
Students prefer CPS-supplemented lectures over traditional lectures.
2)
CPS improves classroom participation for all students, especially those who do
not typically ask questions or participate in discussions.
3)
CPS allows instructors to monitor and evaluate student participation and
attendance more easily than traditional techniques.
4)
CPS provides a means to pre-plan questions at appropriate and challenging
levels.
Description of CPS
CPS
lets students respond to multiple choice questions using simple IR transmitters
(often called “response pads” or “remotes”). Graphical summaries of students’
responses for each question are instantly available after each question has
been answered, providing opportunities for class review and discussion. All
response data is automatically stored and available in multiple formats for
later analysis. Examples of questions
used in ARE 346N appear in Figure 1.
a1) How do you calculate current flow
through a neutral conductor in a 3Ø system? |
a2) For which situation would an absorption
cycle be preferred to a vapor compression cycle? |
A. I =
√3 E P B. I =P/ (√3 E ) C. I =P/ E D. I= E P |
A. A commercial building next to a cold-water
creek |
b) How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if
a woodchuck could chuck wood? |
c) My learning in this class was helped most by: |
A. A lot B. A little C. None D. Don’t know |
A. Readings B. Lectures C. In-class questions and answers D. Homework E. Quizzes |
d) The daily usage of CPS was an incentive
to improve my attendance |
e) This class will contribute to my
professional success |
A. Strongly Disagree B. Disagree C. Neutral D. Agree E. Strongly Agree |
A. Strongly Disagree B. Disagree C. Neutral D. Agree E. Strongly Agree |
Figure
1: Examples of questions asked with CPS: a1) and a2) are questions about
course material, b) is a question used at the beginning of class to evaluate
tardiness, c) is an example of student self assessment of learning preferences
d) is an assessment of CPS and e) is an evaluation of the course.
CPS
consists of 1) at least one receiver (multiple receivers can be networked
together for greater reception), 2) one response pad per student, and 3) CPS
software. Questions can be authored
and delivered entirely within CPS software or presented in PowerPoint while
CPS manages students’ responses. Hardware setup is minimal; plug in CPS
receiver to an available serial port and place the receiver at the front of
the classroom. The receiver has a wide
arc of reception (roughly 180º ± 15º), but fluorescent lighting can cause
interference in some classrooms.
In
addition to CPS’s in-class functionality, the Faculty Innovation Center (a
student-fee supported center within the College that promotes enhanced
instruction and multimedia development) created an online tool that allows
students and instructors to track CPS data from multiple classes. Students can
review specific questions asked in class, look up their attendance and check
their in-class performance. Instructors can analyze attendance and performance
data for the class as a whole or for individual students. eInstruction (the company the distributes CPS)
offers a similar tool for free, but the Faculty Innovation Center (FIC) wanted
total control over security, privacy and custom feature development. Thus, the FIC’s web development team
designed and built a tool from scratch.
Costs
for CPS components vary from institution to institution. At The University of Texas, students can
purchase response pads for a net cost of $3 at the University bookstore. Remotes are also available for
semester-long loan at the engineering library. For every semester in which students will use CPS, they must
also purchase an enrollment code for $12.50. The same enrollment code can be used
for an unlimited number of classes each semester. The Faculty Innovation Center also purchased a receiver for at a
cost of $250.
The
instructor will need to spend additional time in order to use CPS in the
classroom. For this class, the
instructor spent approximately 1.5 hours per week preparing CPS questions for
the class. An additional 0.5 hours per
week were spent reviewing data and interfacing with students about the CPS
technology. The required time would
increase for a larger class, although some CPS tasks could also be done by a TA
or grader, rather than by the instructor.
There are also time savings associated with CPS, as student lateness
and absence were monitored by the CPS without taking any class time.
Course
description
In the
fall of 2003, we implemented CPS in ARE 346N, Building Environmental Systems,
a core class required of all Architectural Engineering majors. The instructor
used CPS an average of five times per lecture, including opinion or subjective
response questions and questions to ascertain class attendance and tardiness.
Table
2 lists the demographic information describing the 25 students in the class.
As can be seen, the students enrolled in the course represent a typical
upper-level Engineering course at The University of Texas at Austin. Sixteen of the students in the class were
juniors, seven were seniors, one was a graduate student and one was a
continuing education student.
Table
2
Demographic information
describing Students in ARE 346N (n = 25)
Gender |
|
Male |
18 (72%) |
Female |
7 (28%) |
Ethnicity |
|
Caucasian |
17 (68%) |
Asian |
3 (12%) |
Latino |
4 (16%) |
African-American |
1(4%) |
Average GPA
(self-reported) |
2.80 |
Average Final Grade in
Course |
2.96 |
Results
Our
first hypothesis posited that students prefer the use of CPS over traditional
lectures. Table 1 lists answers to questions asked on the last day of class
that evaluated the use of CPS over the course of the semester. Table 2 lists responses to specific
questions about the histograms. Three
quarters of all students agreed or strongly agreed that interactive CPS
questions were a positive addition to the class. There was a similar response about the specific use of CPS: 65%
of students felt that CPS should not be used less frequently and 83% said that
CPS should be used in the future.
Table
3
Student preferences on
use of CPS in ARE 346N (n = 23)
|
Strongly Disagree |
Disagree |
Neutral |
Agree |
Strongly Agree |
Interactive lessons, such as those using CPS,
are better rather than non-interactive ones. |
0% |
9% |
17% |
52% |
22% |
CPS should be used less frequently. |
17% |
48% |
22% |
9% |
4% |
Dr. Siegel should use CPS for this class in
the future. |
0% |
9% |
9% |
57% |
26% |
Table
4
Student preferences on
value of histogram (n = 23)
|
Strongly Disagree |
Disagree |
Neutral |
Agree |
Strongly Agree |
I
found the histogram with the distribution of class responses helped spark my
interest in the subject. |
4% |
13% |
30% |
35% |
4% |
Seeing
the histogram that showed how the class answered gave me confidence to speak
out in class. |
4% |
22% |
52% |
17% |
4% |
When
asked further details about their responses to the histograms, 39% agreed or
strongly agreed that the histograms sparked their interest in the class
material, while 17% disagreed or strongly disagreed. Although we suspected that seeing the histogram would give
students confidence to ask further questions, the class was, on average,
neutral on this point.
We were also interested in understanding the
role of CPS in promoting learning, participation and student generated
questions. Table 3 lists three
questions and responses about this subject.
The students overwhelmingly (83% agree or strongly agree) felt that
answering CPS questions helped them to understand the class material. Students were comfortable responding to CPS
questions (only one student disagreed with this statement). The use of CPS was only somewhat successful
in encouraging students to ask questions (39% agree versus 17% disagree). Follow-up questions on how CPS motivated
student questions appear in Table 4.
Although 82% of students felt that asking questions (or other related
participatory learning) were very or somewhat important, over half of the
class (52%) seldom asked questions.
Table
5
Student assessment of
role of CPS in promoting questions (n = 23)
|
Strongly Disagree |
Disagree |
Neutral |
Agree |
Strongly Agree |
Answering
questions in class helped me better understand the content. |
0% |
4% |
13% |
61% |
22% |
I
was comfortable having to respond to CPS questions. |
4% |
0% |
22% |
52% |
22% |
The
use of CPS helped me to ask questions in class. |
0% |
17% |
43% |
39% |
0% |
Table
6
Importance and
frequency of student questions (n = 23)
|
Very Important |
Somewhat Important |
Not Important |
Participating
(such as small group work or asking questions) in this class was: |
30% |
52% |
17% |
|
Every Class |
Frequently |
Seldom |
On
the average in this class I asked questions: |
26% |
22% |
52% |
One
value of CPS is allowing the instructor to monitor attendance in the
class. Two attendance-related
questions and their responses are shown in Table 5. Only one student disagreed that the use of CPS was an incentive
to improve attendance. The majority of
students (95%) felt that attendance was crucial for success in the class. A portion (5%) of the final grade in the
class was associated with student participation. Participation was partially evaluated by student attendance and
on-time arrival to the class. The CPS
made it easy to evaluate these aspects of participation.
Table
7
Role of CPS in
motivating attendance and value of attendance (n = 23)
|
Strongly Disagree |
Disagree |
Neutral |
Agree |
Strongly Agree |
The
daily usage of CPS was an incentive to improve my attendance |
4% |
0% |
22% |
43% |
30% |
Attendance
was crucial for success in this class |
0% |
0% |
4% |
30% |
65% |
We
made several other observations about the use of CPS:
1)
Student grades correlated with their success at answering CPS questions.
2)
Only one student made a negative comment (“The CPS was distracting.”) about
CPS on anonymous instructor evaluations or in a verbal discussion about the
cost and value of CPS. Several
students made positive comments about the CPS system.
3)
Instructor evaluations improved slightly (from 3.8 to 4 out of 5) between the
previous year’s offering of the class without CPS and this offering. It is hard to attach significance to this
result because of the many confounding factors such as different class size,
different textbook, additional instructor experience, etc.
Our fourth hypothesis was that CPS would force
the instructor to pre-plan questions and to plan for questions at challenging
levels. Prior to each class, the
professor developed approximately five questions to assess student opinions
and understanding. The course teaching assistant and CPS teaching assistant
were provided information on how to categorize the questions according to
Bloom and subsequently they independently identified the level of each CPS
question. The instructional designer reviewed these categories in order to
establish a reliable percent of agreement for the coding of questions.
During the semester, a total of 113 questions
were posed using CPS. On average, five questions were asked during each class
session. The following table identifies the percent of question types
presented during the entire system. The 13% of questions not accounted for in
Table 8 are opinion questions which often refer to questions that look at
teaching strategies and are not content-specific questions. In the case of opinion questions where
instructor expectation could influence student responses, students were
encouraged to switch remotes so that the instructor could not trace a response
to a particular student.
Table 8
Semester Summary of
Bloom Question Level Type
Knowledge |
Comprehension |
Application |
Analysis |
Synthesis |
Evaluation |
21% |
23% |
16% |
26% |
0% |
1% |
It was the intent of the professor to challenge
students with the questions and an effort was made to ask questions
representing the range of thinking skills. It is interesting to note, however,
that when it came to the highest order thinking skills (synthesis and
evaluation) these questions were difficult to create using CPS format.
Questions that challenged students to synthesize and discriminate and evaluate
were posed during small group activities and on written assessments.
Open-ended questions are often used to generate class discussions and to get
students to question their assumptions. In this class, CPS questions were used
to gauge student understanding and to provide instructional information to the
professor on how to proceed and whether or not to go more in-depth or to
re-teach.
Discussion
and Conclusions
The
results suggest that students were generally positive on CPS and encourage its
use in ARE 346N. Although the student
responses do not indicate that the histogram of results motivated additional
questions, there were several scenarios in which the results of CPS questions
did stimulate classroom discussion. An
example is that questions where the majority of the class selected an
incorrect answer were often a sign to the instructor of a gap in student
understanding and presented opportunities to discuss this material in more
depth. This is consistent with the
findings of other CPS-related research.11 Questions that most of
the class answered incorrectly were often repeated either immediately (where
students had the benefit of eliminating one of the choices) or in a different
form on weekly quizzes. Students who
followed the discussion in class or went to the CPS web site tended to learn
this material. Further, there were
several occasions when a student asked for clarification about a specific CPS
question during the instructor’s office hours; CPS helped these students
understand what material they had not yet learned.
CPS
can play a role in improving student learning. Using Chickering and Gamson2 criteria as gauge of
CPS’ role in student learning we found that:
1)
The
CPS did encourage student-faculty interaction when student generated questions
followed from CPS questions and when students sought clarification on CPS
questions that they did not understand in class.
2)
When
a large fraction of the class answered a CPS question incorrectly, students
worked in groups to find the correct answer.
This encouraged student cooperation.
3)
The
CPS system provides prompt feedback.
4)
The
time actually spent in learning activities is often called “time on task” and
when students are responding to CPS questions, they are on task. Often the CPS
questions give students opportunities for reflection and investigation and the
result is engaged students.
5)
The
histogram of CPS results generally showed the level of learning in the class
and indicated that students who were getting many answers incorrect needed to
increase their time studying class material or clarify the material with the
instructor.
6)
The
variety of results, particularly on opinion questions about the class, showed
students the diversity of their peer’s opinions and the variety of learning
desires.
One
of the major benefits of CPS is that it allows the instructor to preplan
questions to address several different levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy. The process of generating and categorizing
questions for ARE346N, although time-consuming, illuminated the scarcity of
questions at the highest levels. The
instructor compensated for this by designing homework assignments and group
projects to address the synthesis and evaluation levels. CPS also allows the instructor to influence
discussion in the class: there is some evidence14 that student-generated questions will
tend to be at the lowest levels without additional guidance. Fundamental to a
successful implementation of CPS is to think analytically about what purpose
it serves. Given that CPS format allows for multiple choice type responses, it
may not be overly useful for open-ended responses that are typical of the
highest level of Bloom’s Taxonomy. If there can be multiple answers or a
single correct answer is not appropriate, then it seems likely that CPS would
be restrictive.
Despite
the fact that we are positive on the use of CPS and will continue to use and
promote it for ARE 346N and other similar undergraduate engineering classes,
we also have some reservations about the system. Although no student indicated any problems with the costs
associated with the system, the faculty member (and the teaching assistants
associated with the course), and the FIC staff spent a considerable amount of
time implementing CPS in the class.
The most time-consuming tasks were generating high-quality questions
and analyzing the data quickly enough to address student weaknesses and
improve learning. Although subsequent
uses of the system will require smaller time expenditures, it does take more
preparation time than traditional lectures.
Another limitation of CPS is that it does not prepare students for
non-multiple choice exams (such as those used for ARE 346N). However, the value of motivating students
in the class and with the material, promoting active learning and
participation, and obtaining real-time data on student performance outweighs
these concerns. Additionally, one
student submitted a comment on the class evaluation that indicated that the
CPS remote was distracting. Another
student did not like the fact that the attendance and tardiness in the class
contributed to their participation grade (5% of the total grade). Conversely, three students submitted
comments that the CPS improved their understanding of the class material.
In
the future we plan to broaden our use of CPS.
We are currently using CPS in a limited way in ARE 465 a capstone
design seminar for which ARE 346N is a prerequisite. By asking students
questions about the 346N material we can evaluate student retention of
information and tailor the material in 346N appropriately. Also, in future iterations of ARE 346N we
plan on improved integration of CPS software in the class to encourage more
students to take advantage of a valuable study tool. We are still finishing our evaluation of the data to determine
how strong the correlation is between student performance on CPS questions and
student performance on related quizzes and exams. We are also evaluating whether CPS technology is appropriate for
students of all learning styles. Decision makers considering adoption of this
technology would also benefit from controlled experiments comparing student
learning from CPS to traditional lecture methods.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the support of an Academic Development Grant from
The University of Texas of Austin College of Engineering that was used to
implement CPS in ARE 346N. We would
also like to acknowledge the information that Dr. Charles Chiu provided to us
on his experiences with CPS. The
teaching assistants for the class, Joseph J. Fradella and Rajkumar S Thottikalai
provided invaluable assistance generating and categorizing CPS questions,
resolving student problems with CPS technology, importing data to the CPS
website, and initial data analysis. The FIC’s Dan Peters and Amar Mabbu
developed the online application tool and provided technical supports to the
professors. Finally, we thank Natasha Beretvas, an assistant professor in the Quantitative Methods program in the
Educational Psychology Department at UT Austin for providing advice and
guidance on statistical issues.
References
1.
Bonwell,
C., and Eison, J. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the
Classroom. ERIC Digest, 1991091.
2.
Chickering,
A. and Gamson, Z. (1991). Seven Principles for Good Practice in
Undergraduate Education, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco,
California.
3.
Bloom,
B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives. Book 1, Cognitive domain. , Longman, New York.
4.
Wolf,
D. (1997). The Art of Questioning. Academic Connections 1. Retrieved January
4, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.exploratorium.com/IFI/resources/workshops/artofquestioning.html
5.
Schwartz,
B. and Miller, G. (1996). You Are What You Ask – The Power of Teaching
Students’ Questioning Skills for Enabling Thinking. Presented at the Annual
Sage Conference Proceedings: Faces of Excellence. Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
ERIC Document 408 744.
6.
Shermis,
S. (1999). “Reflective Thought, Critical Thinking.” ERIC Digest, 19991101
7.
Mehta,
S. (1995). “A Method for Instant Assessment and Active Learning.” Journal of Engineering Education, 84, 295-298.
8.
Mehta,
S. I., and Schlecht, N. W. (1998). Computerized assessment technique for large
classes. Journal of Engineering
Education, 87, 167-172.
9.
Dufense,
R, Gerace, W. Leonard, W., Mestre, J. and Wenk, L. 1996.Classtalk: A Classroom
Communication System for Active Learning in the College Lecture Hall. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 7, 3-47.
10. Dufresne, R., Gerace,
W., Leonard, W., Beatty, J., 2002. Assessing-To-Learn (A2L): Reflective Formative
Assessment Using a Classroom Communication System. Pathways to Change: An International
Conference on Transforming Math and Science Education in the K16 Continuum,
April 18-21, 2002. Crystal City, Arlington VA
11.
Lopez-Herrejon,
R. E. and Schulman, M. 2004. Using Interactive Technology in a Short Java
Course. ITiCSE, Leeds, UK.
12.
Burnstein,
R.A., Lederman, L.M., 2003. Comparison of Different Commercial Wireless Keypad
Systems, The Physics Teacher, 41, 272-275.
13.
Blackman,
M., Dooley, P., Kuchinski, B., Chapman, D., 2002. It worked a different way. College Teaching, 50(1), 27-28.
14.
Dillon,
J.T. 1988. The Remedial Status of Student Questioning. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 20, 197-210.
Jeffrey A. Siegel is an assistant
professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at The University of Texas at
Austin. He teaches classes in the
Architectural and Environmental Engineering area that focus on building environmental
systems, indoor air quality, and energy-efficient and healthy buildings. Dr. Siegel has cooperated with the Faculty
Innovation Center on several projects to promote active learning in his
classes.
Kathy J. Schmidt is the director of the Faculty Innovation Center for the College of Engineering at The University of Texas at Austin. In this position, she promotes the College of Engineering’s commitment to finding ways to enrich teaching and learning. Dr. Schmidt works in all aspects of education including design and development, faculty training, learner support, and evaluation.
JUSTIN CONE develops multimedia and internet applications for The University of Texas’ Faculty Innovation Center. Justin has five years experience with various forms of new media as both a designer and a producer. He received his B.A. in English-Creative Writing from the University of Houston.