TB Below are two recent postings to a teaching listserv I am on about "clickers." If you are interested in using clickers in your teaching please contact either Mark English or myself. ******* post one ******** The posting below is an excerpt from al longer article, Teaching with Clickers, by Erping Zhu, coordinator of instructional technology at the Center for Research on Learning and Teaching (CRLT) [http://www.crlt.umich.edu/] at the University of Michigan. She has a Ph.D. in Instructional Systems Technology. The full article can be found at: [http://www.crlt.umich.edu/publinks/CRLT_no22.pdf]. It is part of the CRLT Occasional Papers series published on a variable schedule by CRLT ©Copyright 2007 The University of Michigan. Reprinted with permission. Teaching with Clickers CRLT Occasional Papers, No. 22 Excerpt What Do Students Appreciate Most about Clickers? In a class of several hundred students, it is virtually impossible for each student to participate and interact with the professor. I like the Quizdom system because it allows each student to actively participate and thus gauge their comprehension. They allow me to interact with the material and make sure that I understand the lecture. They force me to apply what I've learned, also ensuring that I will be better able to remember it in the future. Using the clicker gives me a chance to think about what I'm actually writing down in my notes, rather than just having a collection of incomprehensible formulas scattered through my notes. Sample of student survey responses (Zhu, Bierwert, & Bayer, 2006, 2007) What Is a Clicker? A clicker system consists of three components: 1) clickers: wireless handheld transmitters that resemble small, TV remote controls; 2) receiver: a transportable device that receives signals from the clickers; and 3) software: an application installed on the instructor's computer to record, display, and manage student responses and data. Although radio frequency transmission seems to have become the standard for now (Duncan, 2006), infrared transmission is also still in use. The design of clicker pads varies widely, and the different clicker systems -Classroom Performance System (CPS), Audience Response System, Qwizdom, TurningPoint, H-ITT, Classtalk - are incompatible. How Are Faculty Using Clickers in the Classroom? Since the 1980s, the use of clickers has proliferated on college campuses. Faculty from various disciplines such as biology, chemistry, history, mathematics, political science, law and psychology have introduced clicker systems into their classrooms. Faculty use clickers for various purposes depending on their course goals and learning objectives. The most common uses of clickers include the following: Assessing students' prior knowledge and identifying misconceptions before introducing a new subject Prior knowledge is necessary for learning but can be problematic if it is not accurate or sufficient. It is a good practice for faculty to assess students' prior knowledge of a subject and identify common misconceptions in order to find an appropriate entry point for introducing a new topic. By using clicker multiple-choice questions, faculty can quickly gauge students' knowledge level. For instance, in a Fall 2006 Chemistry class at U-M, the professor started each lecture with clicker questions asking students to identify new concepts or distinguish between various new concepts discussed in the assigned readings. Checking students'understanding of new material Clicker technology makes it easy for faculty to check students' mastery of lecture content. The immediate display of student responses enables faculty and students to see how well students understand the lecture. As a result, faculty can decide whether there is a need for further instruction or supplementary materials. By seeing peers' responses, students can gauge how well they are doing in relation to others in the class and determine which topics they need to review or bring to office hours. Using Peer Instruction and other active learning strategies Peer Instruction (Mazur, 1997) and Think-Pair-Share (Lyman, 1981) are cooperative learning strategies that faculty often use to probe students'understanding of lecture content and encourage them to discuss, debate, and defend their answers during lecture. The strategy entails posing a question to students, giving them time to think and discuss their responses with a partner, and then describing the results to the whole class. Clicker technology makes the use of these strategies feasible and manageable, even for large classes. For example, the instructor will plan for each lecture several concept questions that focus more on the analysis and evaluation of information than simple recall, rote memorization, or calculation. Students are asked to share and discuss their responses with partners. Some faculty ask students to respond twice to difficult questions, once right after they read the question and then again after they talk to their partners. The faculty member then reviews and explains students' different responses, helping them clear up their misconceptions. Research in physics (Crouch & Mazur, 2001) shows that students' cognitive gains from peer instruction are significant: students' scores on tests measuring conceptual understanding improved dramatically; their performance on traditional quantitative problems improved as well. Starting class discussion on difficult topics The anonymity of responses facilitated by the clicker technology allows faculty to initiate class discussion and debate on sensitive topics that might otherwise be difficult to explore. For example, questions on controversial issues in a political science course can sometimes be met with absolute silence (Abrahamson, 1999), but the use of clickers can help change classroom dynamics. Faculty can start the class lecture or discussion by posing controversial questions and offering "common-sense" multiple-choice responses. Students' responses, and their questions about their peers' responses, can provide an opening for class discussion. When students recognize their own opinions and co-direct a class discussion, they may feel a greater sense of ownership over the lecture and discussion. As a result, they will be more engaged in and responsible for their own learning. Also, instead of drawing conclusions from the most vocal students, the faculty member receives a far more accurate overview of opinions from the entire class. Most important, the anonymous feature of the clicker system ensures that viewpoints that might not otherwise be expressed during class discussion are given a voice. Administering tests and quizzes during lecture The relative ease of managing students' responses has made the clicker system a helpful device for testing and grading during lecture. Features such as automatic scoring and record-keeping for each student enable faculty to administer all sorts of tests and quizzes in large lecture halls. For example, in one physics class at U-M, students' responses to questions posed during lecture are scored. Students who answer the questions correctly earn points that count toward a small percentage of the course grade (allocating too many points to a clicker quiz can increase the likelihood of cheating). Moreover, with instant feedback from students, faculty can adjust the pace of a lecture and the amount of content presented, assist students in identifying their knowledge deficiency, help students re- evaluate their study strategies, and determine what additional resources they might need to provide. Gathering feedback on teaching With clicker technology, faculty can gather anonymous feedback on their own teaching by asking students to respond to questions regarding the lecture, class discussion, homework assignments, group activities, or the overall learning experience in the course. If used early in the term, faculty can make changes to the class that benefit students before the end of the term. Recording class attendance and participation Taking attendance in a large lecture course is usually daunting, if not impossible. But with a system that recognizes each student, it is feasible and convenient for faculty to take student attendance in a large lecture. For example, students' responses to questions asked at the beginning of the lecture often serve as a record of their attendance. The instructor can easily run reports on student responses and find out who is present or absent from the class. Admittedly, faculty hold different views on student class attendance. Some firmly believe that being in class and listening to a lecture is an integral part of learning, making class attendance a must; others think it is not essential for learning and it can be left to the students to decide. Similarly, student opinions about mandatory class attendance vary. Some U-M students surveyed in 2006 and 2007 responded negatively when clickers were used only to check class attendance (Zhu, Bierwert, & Bayer). There are many other creative ways clickers are being used in classrooms. Draper, Cargill, and Cutts (2002) list three: Students can use them to give anonymous feedback on their peers'class presentations by responding to a brief post-presentation survey. Faculty can create a sense of community and group awareness by clustering people's hobbies, habits, and preferences through student responses to anonymous surveys. Faculty may also use clickers for psychological experiments. Kam & Sommer (2006) note the use of clickers for campaign simulation and polling research, as well as the technology's ability to monitor and facilitate individual and group games. In summary, the only limitation on innovative applications of clickers is the creativity of the instructor. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- Reminder, the full article with following additional sections: * What Are Student and Instructor Attitudes towards Using Clickers in the Classroom? * Challenges and Best Practices * Recommendations for Using Clickers can be found at: [http://www.crlt.umich.edu/publinks/CRLT_no22.pdf]. Also for additional information and examples regarding the use of clickers, visit the page "Engaging Students in Large Lectures Using a Classroom Response System" at the CRLT website (http://www.crlt.umich.edu/inst/responsesystem.html). References (full list from article) Abrahamson, A. L. (1999, May). Teaching with Classroom Communication System -- What it involves and why it works. Paper presented at International Workshop, New Trends in Physics Teaching, Puebla, Mexico. Retrieved January 15, 2007, from http://www.bedu.com/Publications/PueblaFinal2.html Audience Response Systems. http://www.audienceresponse.com/ Beatty, I. D., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., & Dufresne, R. J. (2006). Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching.American Journal of Physics, 74(1), 31-39. Beekes, W. (2006). The "Millionaire" method for encouraging participation. Active Learning in Higher Education: The Journal of the Institute for Learning and Teaching, 7(1), 25-36. Classroom Performance System (CPS). http://www.einstruction.com/ Classtalk. http://www.bedu.com/ Conoley, J., Moore, G., Croom, B., & Flowers, J. (2006). A toy or a teaching tool? The use of audience-response systems in the classroom. Techniques (The Journal of the Association for Career and Technical Education), 81(7), 46-49. Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics Teachers, 69(9), 970-977. Cue, N. (1998). A universal learning tool for classrooms? Proceedings of the First Quality in Teaching and Learning Conference, Hong Kong International Trade and Exhibition Center. Retrieved on January 15, 2007 from: http://celt.ust.hk/ideas/prs/pdf/Nelsoncue.pdf Draper, S., & Brown, M. (2002). Use of the PRS (Personal Response System) handsets at Glasgow University, Interim Evaluation Report. Retrieved January 15, 2007, from http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/%7Esteve/ilig/interim.html Draper, S.W., Cargill, J., & Cutts, Q. (2002). Electronically enhanced classroom interaction. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 18(1), 13-23. Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., Mestre, J. P., & Wenk, L. (1996). Classtalk: A classroom communication system for active learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 7(2), 3-47. Duncan, D. (2006). Clickers: A new technology with exceptional promise. Astronomy Education Review, 5(1), 70-88. Greer, L., & Heaney, P. J. (2004). Real-time analysis of student comprehension: An assessment of electronic student response technology in an introductory earth science course. Journal of Geoscience Education, 52(4), 345-351. Hall, R. J., Collier, H. L.,Thomas, M. L., & Hilgers, M. G. (2005). A student response system for increasing engagement, motivation, and learning in high enrollment lectures. Proceedings of the Eleventh Americas Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1-7).Omaha, NE. H-ITT Classroom Response System. http://www.h-itt.com/ Hoffman, C., & Goodwin, S. (2006). A clicker for your thoughts: Technology for active learning. New Library World, 107(1228/1229), 422-433. Judson, E., & Sawada, D. (2002). Learning from past and present: Electronic response systems in college lecture halls. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(2), 167-181. Kam, C. D., & Sommer, B. (2006). Real-time polling technology in a public opinion course. PS: Political Science & Politics, 39(1), 113- 117. Knight, J., & Wood, W. B. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology Education, 4, 298-310. Lyman, F. (1981). The responsive classroom discussion: The inclusion of all students. In A.S. Anderson (Ed.), Mainstreaming Digest (pp. 109-113). College Park: University of Maryland. Mazur, E. (1993). Understanding or memorization: Are we teaching the right thing?Proceedings of the Resnick Conference on Introductory Physics Courses, Rensselaer Polytechnical Institute, Troy, NY. Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user's manual.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Qwizdom Response System. http://www.qwizdom.com/ Shapiro, J. A. (1997). Student response found feasible in large science lecture hall. Journal of College Science Teaching, 26(6), 408-412. Silliman, S. E., Abbott, K., Clark, G. C., & McWilliams, L. (2004). Observations on benefits/limitations of an audience response system. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved February 20, 2007, from http://www.asee.org/acPapers/2005-1686_Final.pdf Simpson , V., & Oliver, M. (2006). Electronic voting systems for lectures then and now: A comparison of research and practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 23(2), 187-208. Stuart, A. J., Brown, M. I., & Draper, S. W. (2004). Using an electronic voting system in logic lectures: One practitioner's application. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(2), 95-102. Tomorrow's Professor Blog, (2006). Posting #757. Retrieved February, 2006, from http://ampstools.mit.edu/tomprofblog/archives/2006/11/ Wit, E. (2003). Who wants to be... The use of a personal response system in statistics teaching. MSOR Connections, 3(2), 14-20. Uhari, M., Renko, M. & Soini, H. (2003). Experiences of using an interactive audience response system in lectures. BMC Medical http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/3/12. Zhu, E., Bierwert, C., & Bayer, K. (2006). Qwizdom Student Survey December 06. Unpublished raw data. Zhu, E., Bierwert, C., & Bayer, K. (2007). Qwizdom Student Survey March 2007. Unpublished raw data. Acknowledgements: Jeff Chun, a graduate student in the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education and a CRLT Graduate Research Assistant, contributed to the literature review and the summary of survey data. ********* post two ********* The posting below is a follow-on to the previous posting, #883 Teaching with Clickers. It is a summary of the highlights of a publication: Clicker Resource Guide: An Instructor's Guide to the Effective Use of Personal Response Systems (Clickers) in Teaching (see link in posting below). The article is by Beth Simon, CSE Department, University of California, San Diego, and is taken liberally from the full guide -- with the permission of the CWSEI (Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative at the University of British Columbia). What Every Faculty Member Should Know about the Effective use of Clickers in Teaching * Why is it that every faculty member who is experienced with using clickers effectively swears by them? * Why are the students in classes using well-implemented clicker questions dramatically more engaged and asking more numerous and deeper questions? * Why do the students in these classes overwhelmingly recommend that clickers should be used in all lecture classes? This article highlights a guide written to help instructors understand the answers to these questions, and to help them use personal response systems ("clickers") in their classes in the most comfortable and pedagogically effective manner. The authors are involved in the Science Education Initiative at the University of Colorado and the Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative at the University of British Columbia. They have supported many different instructors as they introduced or refined the use of clickers into their courses, several of them have used clickers extensively in teaching, and the have observed a large number of classes - both those which use clickers and those which do not. They have also carried out a number of studies on clicker use and their impact on students and on student opinions about their use. What are Clickers? Clickers (or personal response systems) are physical devices which allow each student to electronically submit an answer to a question from their seat in class. Using what looks like a television remote control, students usually answer multiple choice questions posed to the class. Students register their answer by pushing the appropriate button, and a computer records their response. A histogram of responses can be shown to the whole class. There are a number of commercial clicker systems available. Using Clickers Effectively for Learning The first point about clickers that must be emphasized is that clickers in themselves are not a solution to anything. Like a chalkboard, they can only serve to extend the capabilities of the instructor. Although clickers can be, and unfortunately often are, used primarily to encourage attendance, they are most effective when they are used expressly to facilitate intellectual engagement of the student and communication between student and instructor. When used this way, the amplification of a good instructor's capabilities can transform a classroom and result in dramatically improved student learning, particularly in large classes. In the words of one instructor known to be an exceptionally good traditional lecturer when half way through his first term of using clickers: "This is great fun. My worst day using clickers is about as good as my best day using standard lecture [in the past]." An experienced insightful instructor, when giving a traditional lecture, can tell when many of the students are not engaged and can often tell when students do not understand the material. However, it is more difficult to know *why* they are disengaged and/or confused, and how to fix these problems. Clickers, when used well, can provide the *why* and *how to fix* for experienced instructors. For other instructors, in addition to serving those functions, clickers can also help them know much better *when* students are disengaged and confused. It is essential to recognize that these benefits do not happen automatically when one introduces clickers to the classroom. These desirable outcomes are only achieved when the instructor thinks carefully about his or her instructional goals and how clicker questions and related discussion can help achieve those goals. It can take some time to tap the full potential of clickers in the classroom. The "Clicker Resource Guide: An Instructor's Guide to the Effective Use of Personal Response Systems (Clickers) in Teaching" (available here: http://cwsei.ubc.ca/resources/instructor_guidance.htm) not only outlines a common progression of clicker use, but also describes in detail recommended approaches, writing effective questions, and logistics (including dealing with unexpected situations). It also provides an extensive FAQ and an appendix of example questions from the sciences. Below is a review of the key points from the guide: * Clickers are not a magic bullet - they are not necessarily useful as an end in themselves. Clickers become useful when you have a clear idea as to what you want to achieve with them, and the questions are designed to improve student engagement and instructor-student interaction. * What clickers do provide is a way to rapidly collect an answer to a question from every student; an answer for which they are individually accountable. This allows rapid reliable feedback to both you and the students. * Used properly, clickers can tell you when students are disengaged and/or confused, why this has happened, and can help you to fix the situation. * The best questions focus on concepts you feel are particularly important and involve challenging ideas with multiple plausible answers that reveal student confusion and generate spirited student discussion. * A common mistake is to use clicker questions that are too easy. Students value challenging questions more and learn more from them. Students often learn the most from a question that they get wrong. * For challenging questions, students should be given some time to think about the clicker question on their own, and then discuss with their peers. * Good clicker questions and discussion result in deeper, more numerous questions from a much wider range of students than in traditional lecture. * Listening to the student discussions will allow you to much better understand and address student thinking. * Even though you will sacrifice some coverage of content in class, students will be more engaged and learn much more of what you do cover. * When clickers are used correctly, students overwhelmingly support their use and say they help their learning. Mr. James B. Greenberg Director Teaching, Learning and Technology Center Milne Library SUNY College at Oneonta Oneonta, New York 13820 blog: The 32nd Square at http://32ndsquare.blogspot.com wiki: The 32nd Square at http://32ndsquare.wikidot.com email: [log in to unmask] phone: 607-436-2701 fax: 607-436-3081 IM: oneontatltc Twitter: greenbjb "Ignorance is curable, stupidity lasts forever"