This week I gave a lecture for the final year Informatics students (all computing undergraduates within the School of Computing and Engineering – courses range from Computer Science and Computing in Business to Web Design and Games Programming), on using library resources for their final year project (the equivalent of a dissertation).
I had been quite nervous about it, as historically this has been my most challenging group. I had a particularly bad experience in my lecture with last year’s final year project students, so was anxious not to have a repeat of the same.
It’s also just a difficult format to teach in: up to 200 students, in a lecture theatre, with a wide range of background experiences and topic proposals. This cohort is also among the least likely to actually use library resources: most of their work up to this point will have been primarily practical work, so the majority of them will not have used library resources for research (or indeed, done any literature-based research) before this point.
One of the techniques I wanted to try out was a blind quiz, using Kahoot. Kahoot, for those unfamiliar, is an online quizzing tool. You devise a multiple-choice quiz, which you then put on screen during the session. Students vote on the answers using their mobile devices. It’s easy to set up, and really engaging – it includes a competitive element, as a leaderboard appears after each question ranking the top quizzers. Points are scored for correct answers, as well as for how quickly they responded.
Students I’ve used it with have always really got into the competitive aspect, and I usually offer a small prize for the winner – in this case it was a “goody bag” of stationery from our freebies cupboard. It doesn’t seem to matter what the prize is really, in fact I didn’t even tell them what the prize was beforehand in this case, they just like to compete!
Usually, you’d use a Kahoot to test knowledge/understanding of something you’d already told them about. However, I decided in this case to run a “blind Kahoot”: testing them on topics we had not discussed, to gauge their prior knowledge and get a starting point for discussion.
The topic for the quiz was types of information sources. I usually include some slides going over this in my lectures: I’ve found previously that final year project students on these courses often haven’t made much use of things like journal or conference papers before, and don’t really understand what they are or why to use them. They also don’t tend to distinguish between different types of online sources: often referring to anything they’ve found online as a “website” even when it’s actually, say, a PDF company report. I’ve also found in one to one appointments that they don’t give much thought as to where the information they’ve found online has actually come from, i.e. who wrote it and why.
So it’s all important stuff to cover, but just talking through slides about it is DEATHLY dull. I bore myself doing it, so I’m certain the students must be bored! If I have smaller classes (which is rare, most of my teaching is lecture-based) I try to have a conversation with them about these points, but I hadn’t yet found a successful way of doing this in a lecture theatre. I hoped the blind Kahoot might be that opportunity.
You can see a screenshot of the questions and answers I used below (give me a shout if you use Kahoot and would like to use/adapt this, I can share it with you so you can create your own copy). Because Kahoot only allows short questions, I created the definitions by writing them in PowerPoint and then saving each one as an image. Link to download the PowerPoint is below, in case anyone can’t read the definitions in the screenshots.
Each question gave a definition of a particular source type, followed by two options to choose from for what the definition was referring to. The only exception was the question about peer review, which I simplified by asking what it was and giving two definitions to choose from. I did this because I know from past experience that the majority are not familiar with peer review as a concept: they do some peer-mentoring on most of the courses, so many confuse peer review with this.
After each question, once the timer was up and the correct answer was revealed, I talked a bit about each source and related it back to how they might use it in their final year project. I then asked an open question related to each one, usually “Can you think of any downsides to using this type of resource?” and used that as an opening for discussion.
I was genuinely blown away by how well this worked. It was a little disruptive to set up at the start: Kahoot requires players to enter a nickname when they join the game, which appears on the big screen, so of course they all put in silly names which caused a lot of laughter and chat within the room, so it took me a minute to regain control of this so we could actually start the quiz! I had expected this, so had built in time for it.
I had also thought about what I would do if there were offensive nicknames: Kahoot has a profanity filter, but it doesn’t always pick up everything (e.g. more modern or regional slang, or variant spellings/substituting numbers for letters). It does allow you to kick off individual players by just clicking on their names, so I’d decided I would quietly do this if there were any particularly objectionable names, without commenting or (hopefully!) drawing attention to it.
In the end, there were only one or two borderline offensive nicknames, so I didn’t bother kicking anybody off. I’m actually not sure I would have been able to, to be honest: with about 150 students joining the game, the names were appearing so quickly I don’t think I’d have been able to click on one as I saw it. I think I made the right call here. Mostly they were just the usual messing about names, e.g. the inevitable Bantersaurous Rex and Archbishop of Banterbury made an appearance, as did Donald Trump, Jimmy Savile and Kim Jong Un. (Honestly, I do long sometimes for some original jokes from my students…)
Once I actually started the quiz, they settled down pretty quickly. There was an explosion of conversation after each question, as the correct answer appeared. I struggled at first to get their attention back after the first question, to start a discussion – I had to tap the mic a couple of times to get them to quiet down enough so I could speak. However, once they got the idea that we were going to talk about each one, they started paying attention again pretty quickly.
The quality of the discussion was fantastic. It took a bit of uncomfortable silence from me to get a response to my first open question, but once that first one was out of the way, they were all really forthcoming. I even got some people calling out answers from towards the back of the room, which almost never happens!
Having these open discussions, rather than me just talking them through what was on my slides, allowed for a much more nuanced view of information types than I am usually able to give. The quiz meant I didn’t have to spend time going over things they already knew, e.g. the percentage of correct answers pretty clearly showed they understood what a journal article was, but were unfamiliar with conference papers and the concept of peer review.
The discussion after each questions allowed me to focus on what they were actually interested in. E.g. we talked about things like publication bias in journal articles, and the nature of research as a scholarly conversation. These are things I might have tried to bring in during a classroom discussion, but have never talked about in a lecture before, as it’s a bit pointless to try to explain publication bias if you’re not sure they are clear on what a journal article actually is!
I would definitely do this again with my final years, and I’ve been thinking about how I could do something similar with my first years. The one thing I do need to bear in mind is that this took waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay longer than I expected it to: I’d allowed 15 minutes for the quiz, but it took more than 30 minutes! This meant I had to drop a couple of things from later on in my lesson plan, but actually I think I’d tried to cram too much in anyway, so I don’t think that was a loss.
The feedback I got seems to support my approach to this session. Comments included “the quiz was informative and good” and “interactive sessions made it more engaging”. I also got this comment, which made me want to cheer as this was exactly what I was going for:
I also got this comment, which despite being a tad double-edged, made me smile too. I would have been in my first year of teaching when I saw these students in their first year, so I certainly hope my teaching has improved since then!
When I do this again in future (and I will), there are a couple of things I would do differently. I will probably re-word some of the definitions slightly, and maybe drop the number of questions in the quiz. I will allow more time for it, and won’t try to cram so much other material into the lecture!
I would also think about how I could evaluate what the students have learned from the quiz. I think it was a great tool for introducing concepts, checking prior knowledge and stimulating discussion, but I don’t really have a way of knowing how much they learned. I think it would be good to have a second, shorter activity, aimed at getting them to apply some of the concepts we discussed. I’m not sure how to do that in already limited time though, so would have to give that some thought!