Student Response Systems (Part II)


Linda Smelser
Instructional Support Specialist
Center for Support of Instruction
Published: January-February 2010

Category: » Online-pedagogy » Teaching-tools

The first article in this two-part series, entitled Student Response Systems Part I, explained the types of Student Response Systems (SRS), their purpose, and how they are used in the face-to-face classroom. Online options were also briefly described. Part II below discusses an SRS pilot conducted at the Universities at Shady Grove (USG) during the spring 2009 semester, including general feedback and reactions from two UMUC faculty who participated in the pilot.

USG Clicker Pilot Program

According to USG's Center for Academic Success (CAS) Director Marsha Youngblood, the idea for a clicker pilot was expressed by faculty at the USG Issues and Innovations for Effective Teaching roundtable discussion in October 2008. In April 2009, the CAS and IT departments collaborated to facilitate their first pilot program in which faculty could borrow (via a check-in/check-out procedure) SRS devices and software purchased from Turning Technologies. Twenty-three faculty from five University System of Maryland (USM) institutions attended online, text-based, or face-to-face training on using the system, offered and supported by USG's IT staff.

Clicker Pilot General Feedback

According to Dr. Youngblood, the mid-term pilot assessment results submitted by seven faculty indicated that the SRS pilot was overall a positive experience for them and their students. All seven faculty reported that student engagement had increased and "made the class more fun and light-hearted, gave students instant feedback, and enabled them to better evaluate for themselves what they knew and what they didn't know."  As far as instruction, faculty said that "using clickers improved their teaching because it improved students' enjoyment and retention of information, allowed them to slow down and ask questions, and kept them engaged." 

Negative responses related mainly to difficulties with technology. For example, the SRS system uses Microsoft Office 2007 products, but not all classrooms at USG had been updated with this software during the pilot. One faculty said that using clickers was too time consuming, but did not provide further explanation. The majority of faculty said they have plans to use clickers again in future classes.

Comments from UMUC Faculty in the Clicker Pilot

Two UMUC faculty members, Dr. Joyce Henderson (HRMN, EDCP) and Dr. Constance Woolcock-Henry (IFSM, CMST), were involved in the USG SRS pilot and plan to continue using clickers based on their positive experiences. Their answers to the questions below about their own and their students' experiences show that using SRS in the classroom can assist faculty with instruction and encourage student engagement.

Did you find using SRS a positive experience? BOTH: Yes 

CWH: I find that whenever I used the SRS, students were more engaged and class participation increased. Students were eager to know if their answers made a difference in the scores and tended to prepare the assigned readings more.
What differences did you find in your classroom? CWH: The most observed differences I found in my classroom were higher attendance, more class participation, maintained concentration, and more completion of reading assignments. 

JH: The SRS allowed the students to be a little more engaged—you can't hide when the responses are shown on the screen! The students were able to answer questions on their own without knowing what the other students were going to answer and then see if their answer differed from the others—without letting on how they answered. I still used my basic teaching methodology of posing questions with PowerPoint but occasionally added the SRS for variety, review, or emphasis.
Did using SRS change your methodology for teaching, facilitating, etc.? If so, how? CWH: Using the SRS, I changed my methodology of teaching from purely lecture and discussion to lecture, interjected by review questions and discussion questions to reflect on students' understanding of the material. 

JH: It enhanced my methodology and allowed more in-depth discussion.
Did using SRS change the way you deliver content? If so, in what way did it change? CWH: Using the SRS did change the way I delivered content. On occasion, the materials were presented in a question format so students were forced to think and problem-solve. Questions and answers were prepared as part of the lecture notes. 

JH: The only change was that I added some questions for the SRS use and also used the SRS to review for the final exam. I think that's the piece that the students liked the most and found helpful. 
Did you find that the SRS experience added educational value? If so, in what way? CWH: The SRS helped to achieve active communication and is a quick form of feedback between the students and myself. It also increases comprehension, which is an essential added educational value. 

JH: The fact that the students could freely answer the questions and know if they answered in the same way as the other students was helpful. There were times when the minority answer was the correct one. Without the SRS the student may not have spoken up if it appeared they were the only one with a different answer.
Would you recommend SRS to your colleagues? If so, do you have any recommendations on usage? CWH: I would strongly recommend its use especially in classes where instructors tend to do a lot of lecture—it reinforces key topics by posting questions during or after a lecture. SRS is a good method to collect students' immediate feedback and test their understanding about what they were taught. 

JH: Definitely would recommend it. The only suggestion is to allow the time to design the questions; it takes time to load everything and set it up the first time around.
Did your students find the SRS experience positive? BOTH: Yes 

JH: Since the class was an evening class with most students arriving after working all day, they liked the entertainment value of the SRS. It helped them stay alert.
Were students more engaged? Or, did student active learning / participation in their learning increase? How? (Critical thinking, participation, understanding, etc.) CWH: Students loved the engagement and interaction the SRS provides. In most cases, the students thought the system was helpful especially with participation and comprehension. They liked the fact that their answers could be kept anonymous and the possibility of comparing their answers with other students. Students also liked the fact that they could immediately obtain the correct answers to questions. 

JH: I believe that critical thinking was enhanced since they had the ability to question each other after seeing the answers—and I questioned them also.
Did student attendance change as a result of SRS usage? CWH: Although there was no marked increase or decrease in attendance during the time SRS was used, students enjoyed coming to class and actively participating, The SRS system provided timely breaks in the lecture and also a quick review of materials learned.

CAS Response to Increasing Interest

Director and faculty interest continued to grow during 2009 with requests for more clickers and advanced training. In response, CAS purchased 50 more clicker sets and IT provided further training in the fall on SRS technology, instruction, and best practices. Since the fall training session, Dr. Youngblood noted that 18 faculty from six USM institutions are currently using clickers in their classrooms and said that recent feedback from faculty currently using SRS continues to be positive. Dr. Youngblood noted that one instructor recently reported an increase in scores on reading comprehension quizzes using clickers, and several faculty commented that interactive clicker questions promote effective critical thinking.

The extended USG SRS pilot continues at the Shady Grove campus. UMUC faculty who would like to use the clickers in classes at the Shady Grove campus can contact Dr. Marsha Youngblood at sg-cas@umd.edu and request to participate in the program.

Resources

EDUCASE has a list of excellent resources that provides information on best practices, how to develop questions for clicker use, case studies, and evaluation results.

For a more comprehensive list of resources on clickers, check out EDUCAUSE's complete list.

About the Author(s)

Linda is an instructional designer in the Center for Support of Instruction and an adjunct faculty for SUS. She also teaches faculty development workshops for the Center for Teaching and Learning. Linda understands the needs of adult learners from both first-hand experience and in her previous role as a UMUC academic advisor. She started her college career as a working single mother and eleven years later received her Masters in instructional systems development from UMBC. Along with her academic advising experience, Linda brings her expertise in the areas of quality customer support, corporate training, technical writing and instructional design to CSI. Linda appreciates working in a true learning community and developing solutions that meet the needs of a diverse clientele.

In her spare time, Linda enjoys reading, yoga, mountain biking, dancing, and traveling to California and Philadelphia to visit her children and grandchildren.

Rating: Not yet rated



Comments

No comments posted.

Post a Comment / Vote

You must be logged and be a member of the UMUC community in order to comment.

If you have a guest account but are Faculty/Staff of UMUC please send an email to the DE Oracle Site Mananger so that your guest account can be updated.

If you don't have a log in, please register for a FREE account.