Student Response Systems

LTMS 510Susan Miller

QuestionHow many of you have used a student response system?

Description and purpose History How they work Implementation Benefits Leading tools and Web 2.0 options Considerations Best practice

Objectives

Student Response Systems

Audience Response System

Electronic Voting System

Personal Response System

CLICKER

S!Classroom Response System

Classroom Communication System

Student Response Systems

“technology products – combinations of software and hardware – designed to support communication and interactivity in classes” ~ Beatty, 2009

“any system used in a face-to-face setting to poll students and gather immediate feedback in response to questions posed by instructors” ~ Deal, 2007

Engagement

Collect data

Formative assessment

Purpose

“Three features inherent in interactive white boards have a statistically significant relationship with student achievement. The first is the learner-response device. Using voting devices was associated with a 26 percentile point gain in student achievement.” ~ Robert Marzano, 2009.

Hollywood and advertising polling◦ 1940s◦ Audience Studies Institute◦ Used knob; later ‘yes’ and ‘no’

University adoption◦ 1960s◦ Rice ◦ Stanford◦ Hard wiring and computers

History ~ 1st generation

Classtalk ~1985◦ 1st device popular in higher education◦ Funded by National Science Foundation◦ Strong grounding in instruction

1990s◦ eInstruction, Educue◦ New systems easier to use◦ “Clickers”

History ~ 2nd generation

College Wi-Fi systems ◦ laptops and Pocket PCs with Windows Mobile

software◦ Project Numina and Numina II, U. of North

Carolina (1999)◦ Class in Hand, Wake Forest U (2001-2003)

3rd Generation – Web-Based

How they work ~ Hardware Signal

◦ Radio frequency◦ Infrared◦ Web-based

Hub

Devices

Stand-alone function ~ for use with any application

Integration with ◦ Office◦ Online Textbooks◦ Classroom management systems ◦ Online educational programs

Software

Poll results

Reports

Data

Continues to be a valuable tool

Entertainment

Meetings◦ Engagement◦ Collect large amount of data quickly◦ Portability

Industry

Most prevalent in math, and medical & other sciences

Most common usage:◦ Assessment (formative, diagnostic, summative)◦ Student engagement◦ Share feedback◦ Discussion-starter

Increasingly positive findings

Universities leading the way◦ University of Wisconsin

Higher Education

K~12 Education Usage mirrors higher education

◦ Assessment◦ Engagement◦ Feedback◦ Discussion

Prepare for standardized tests

Provide instructional variety

Benefits Classroom environment:

◦ Positive affect on attention, engagement, participation and attendance

◦ Anonymity

Learning:◦ Discussion◦ Modification◦ Achievement

Assessment:◦ Regular feedback◦ Teacher and student

eInstruction (CPS) Interwrite H-ITT Quizdom Turning Point IWB-specific

Popular Systems

Poll Everywhere

MobiOde

Web-Based Options

Level of functioning

Integration

Data management

Cost

Considerations ~ Software and Hardware

Instructors◦ Familiarity with technology◦ Flexibility◦ Interactive white boards

Audience◦ Age◦ Adaptability◦ Attitude about monitoring

Considerations ~ The Users

Successful use dependent on good teaching /questioning practice!

Instructor training Audience understanding of use, problem-solving

Allow time for design and use Use class roster and reports

Best Practice

Do not use for attendance-taking Avoid high-stakes assessment Use frequently throughout a course or unit

Do not over-use within a lesson Use answers to pace the class

Best Practice

Power of the tool dependent on good teaching practices

Potential for increasing student achievement

Future most secure in K-12 education

Conclusions

(2008). What Do Wireless Response Systems Cost?. T+D, 62(6), 88. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Adams, H., & Howard, L. (2009). Clever Clickers: Using Audience Response Systems in the Classroom. Library Media Connection, 28(2), 54-56. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Beatty, I. (2004, February 3). Transforming student learning with classroom communication systems. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research Research Bulletin, 2004(3), 1-13. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu / ir/ library/ pdf/ ERB0403.pdf

Beckert, T., Fauth, E., & Olsen, K. (2009). Clicker Satisfaction for Students in Human Development: Differences for Class Type, Prior Exposure, and Student Talkativity. North American Journal of Psychology, 11(3), 599-611. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

References

Cain, J., & Robinson, E. (2008). A Primer on Audience Response Systems: Current Applications and Future Considerations. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 72(4), 1-6. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Deal, A. (2007, November). Classroom response systems [White paper]. Retrieved February 20, 2010, from Carengie Mellon University website: http://www.cmu.edu/ teaching/ resources / PublicationsArchives/ StudiesWhitepapers/ ClassroomResponse_Nov07.pdf

Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., Mestre, J. P., & Laura, W. (1996). Classtalk: A classroom communication system for active learning. In Better education inc. Retrieved March 16, 2010, from http://www.bedu.com/ Publications/ UMASS.html

Edens, K. (2008). The Interaction of Pedagogical Approach, Gender, Self-Regulation, and Goal Orientation Using Student Response System Technology. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(2), 161-177. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

References

EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. (2005, May 15). Seven things you should know about clickers [Educause learning Initiavie]. Retrieved March 19, 2010, from http://www.educause.edu/ ELI/ 7ThingsYouShouldKnowAboutClick/ 156805

Ferriter, W. (2009). Student Responders: Feedback at Their Fingertips. Educational Leadership, 67(3), 83-84. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Jay, H., Jensen, M., & Moore, R. (2005, July/ August). Manna from heaven or clickers from hell? Journal of College Science Teaching, 34(7), 36-39. Retrieved from http://ctl.stanford.edu/ PRS/ Hatch_Jensen_Moore_PRS _College_Bio.pdf

Kay, R., & Knaack, L. (2009). Exploring the Use of Audience Response Systems in Secondary School Science Classrooms. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 18(5), 382-392. doi:10.1007/s10956-009-9153-7.

References

Kay, R., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 53(3), 819-827. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.001.

Keller, C., Finkelstein, N., Perkins, K., Pollock, S., Turpen, C., & Dubson, M. (2007). Research-based Practices For Effective Clicker Use. AIP Conference Proceedings, 951(1), 128-131. doi:10.1063/1.2820913.

LaRose, J. (2009). Engage Your Audience. Professional Safety, 54(6), 58-62. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Marzano, R. (2009). Teaching with Interactive Whiteboards. Educational Leadership, 67(3), 80-82. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

References

Penuel, W., Boscardin, C., Masyn, K., & Crawford, V. (2007). Teaching with student response systems in elementary and secondary education settings: A survey study. Educational Technology Research & Development, 55(4), 315-346. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9023-4.

Student response systems (SRS). (2010). University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Retrieved March 6, 2010, from http://www4.uwm.edu/ ltc/ srs/

Photos: Classtalk: http://www.bedu.com Turning Technologies: http://www.turningtechnologies.com eInstruction: http://www.einstruction.com/ Poll Everywhere: http://www.polleverywhere.com Responders in public schools: http://www.nytimes.com Responders in industry and higher education: AP Photo and

http://www.gettyimages.com

References