Clickers in the Classroom
One of the most promising instructional technologies in the last 10-15 years is classroom clickers/audience response systems. Clickers can be used for a variety of classroom tasks such as taking attendance, getting instant feedback from students about classroom topics, or for other formal means of assessment such as quizzes and exams. The level of clicker integration, i.e., how they are used in the classroom, depends on the teacher. This past summer 2011, 22 faculty from different disciplines participated in clicker training. They were introduced to a variety of different pedagogies and techniques using clickers such as contingent teaching, peer-instruction, classroom assessment techniques (CATS), and interrupted case studies, etc. Here’s a link to a video of a few faculty members’ testimonials of the three day workshop.
We just completed another ONE day workshop scheduled on the Monday following final exams, December 12, 2011.
The Turning Point clicker system was adopted after a year-long review/discussion of the different clicker systems on the market. Though an earlier different system is being utilized in one of the classrooms, i.e., the iClicker, the Turning Point system was selected because it accepts more data input types than the older system on campus. In terms of its reporting capability, its feature set is comparable to other brands. Here’s a link to a PDF user guide for the ResponseCard NXT clicker that the college adopted. Students can purchase clickers in the SBCC college bookstore. They can resell them back to the bookstore when they are finished using them. Note, some teachers will be able to make use of clicker systems on a trial basis in order to experiment with clicker technology. Teachers interested in borrowing a set of clickers should contact Rob Brown in the FRC at RLbrown2@sbcc.edu or at X2860.
Clicker guide CURRENT clicker used – ResponseCard NXT clicker model User’s Guide –http://www.turningtechnologies.com/resources/ResponseCard-NXT-User-Guide.pdf
To download a copy of the TurningPoint ANYWHERE software to your office or home computer so you can begin constructing clicker questions, go tohttp://www.turningtechnologies.com/responsesystemsupport/downloads/and select the TurningPoint Anywhwere link. Then choose the PC or Mac version.
Still confused? Here’s a link to TurningPoint Anywhere’s for PC and Mac Quick Start Guide to installing software and polling/seeing results of students.
GUIDES TO USING CLICKERS
SBCC Clicker training handouts
The Pdf slide show is a copy of the clicker tool and strategy presentation by Mark Ferrer and Rob Brown in December, 2011.
- The Effects of clickers on Student Learning (DOCX)
- Clickers – Getting Started (DOCX)
- Clickers in college classrooms – Fostering learning with questions(PDF)
- Clickers – An active learning approach (PDF)
- Crouch & Mazur – Peer Instruction (PDF)
- Application of Peer Instruction (DOCX)
- Playing Jeopardy with Clickers (PDF)
Peer Instruction Techniques
- Peer Instruction and Clickers – David Wong
- Mazur and Abbot’s – Four steps to using Peer Instruction and clickers
Interrupted Case Studies
Using Classroom Assessment Techniques and clickers
Other college/university clicker guides
Turning point brand system
Bibliography of Clicker Research by discipline:
• Brewer, C. A. (2004). Near real-time assessment of student learning and understanding in biology courses. BioScience, 54(11), 1034-1039.
• Brickman, P. (2006). The case of the druid dracula: A directed “clicker” case study on DNA fingerprinting. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(2), 48-53. Business, Accounting, and Management
• Beekes, W. (2006). The “Millionaire” method for encouraging participation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 7(1), 25-36.
• Carnaghan, C., & Webb, Alan. (2007). Investigating the effects of group response systems on student satisfaction, learning, and engagement in accounting education. Issues in Accounting Education, 22(3), 391-409.
• Freeman, M., Blayney, P., & Ginns, P. (2006). Anonymity and in class learning: The case for electronic response systems. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(4), 568-580.
• Guthrie, R. W., & Carlin, A. (2004). Waking the dead: Using interactive technology to engage passive listeners in the classroom. Presented at the Tenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, New York, NY.
• Addison, S., Wright, A., & Milner, R. (2009). Using clickers to improve student engagement and performance in an introductory biochemistry class. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 37(2), 84-91.
• Asirvatham, M. R. (2005). IR clickers and ConcepTests: Engaging students in the classroom. Paper presented at the Winter 2005 CONCHEM: Trends and New Ideas in Chemical Education, online.
• Barrett, M. S., Bornsen, S. E., Erickson, S. L., Markey, V., & Spiering, K. (2005). The personal response system as a teaching aid. Communication Teacher, 19(3), 89-92.
• Rice, R. E., & Bunz, U. (2003). Evaluating a wireless course feedback system: The role of demographics, expertise, fluency, competency, and usage. Presented at the 89th National Communication Association Convention, Miami, FL.
• Cutts, Q., Carbone, A., & van Haaster, K. (2004). Using an electronic voting system to promote active reflection on coursework feedback. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computers in Education, Melbourne, Australia.
• Cutts, Q. I., & Kennedy, G. E. (2005). Connecting learning environments using electronic voting systems. Presented at the Australasian Computing Education Conference, Newcastle, Australia.
• Fan, K.-Y. D., & van Blink, C. D. (2006). A comparison and evaluation of personal response systems in introductory computer programming. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Chicago, Illinois.
Earth & Environmental Science
• Czekanski, A. J., & Roux, D.-M. P. (2008). The use of clicker technology to evaluate short- and long-term concept retention. Presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Middle Atlantic Section Spring Conference, Baltimore, Maryland.
• 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.
• Elliott, C. (2003). Using a personal response system in economics teaching. International Review of Economics Education, 1(1), 80-86.
• Freeman, M., & Blayney, P. (2005). Promoting interactive in-class learning environments: A comparison of an electronic response system with a traditional alternative. Paper presented at the 11th Australasian Teaching Economics Conference, Sydney, Australia.
• Harper, B. E. (2009). ‘I’ve never seen or heard it this way!’ Increasing student engagement through the use of technology-enhanced feedback. Teaching Educational Psychology, 3(3).
• Johnson, T., & Meckelborg, A. (2008). Student response systems: A cure for lecturalgia?. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008 (pp. 4709-4717). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Engineering • Auras, R., & Bix, L. (2007). Wake Up! The effectiveness of a student response system in large packaging classes. Packaging Technology and Science, 20, 183-195.
• Boyle, J. T., & Nicol, D. J. (2003). Using classroom communication systems to support interaction and discussion in large class settings. Association of Learning Technology Journal, 11(1), 43-57.
• Chen, J. C., Whittinghall, D. C., & Kadlowec, J. A. (2010). Classes that click: Fast, rich feedback to enhance student learning and satisfaction. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(2), 159-168.
• Felce, A. (2007). A critical analysis of the use of electronic voting systems: Ask the audience. Emirates Journal for Engineering Research, 12(1), 11-26.
• Jenkins, A. (2007). Technique and technology: Electronic voting systems in an English literature lecture. Pedagogy, 7(3), 526-533.
Health Professions (Other than Nursing)
• Barour, M. E. (2008). Electronic voting in dental materials education: The impact on students’ attitudes and exam performance. Journal of Dental Education, 72(9), 1042-1047.
• Cain, J., Black, E. P., & Rohr, J. (2009). An audience response system strategy to improve student motivation, attention, and feedback. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 73(2). • Cain, J., & Robinson, E. (2008). A primer on audience response systems: Current applications and future considerations. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 72(4), 77.
Mathematics & Statistics See also the bibliography available at Project Math QUEST’s resource page.
• Blodgett, D.L. (2006). The effects of implementing an interactive student response system in a college algebra classroom. Retrieved June 17, 2007.
• Bode, M., Drane, D., Kolikant, Y. B., Schuller, M. (2009). A clicker approach to teaching calculus. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 56(2), 253-256.
• Butler, M. (2005). What I learned from using a personal response system. Mathematical Association of America FOCUS, 25(3), 15.
• Berry, J. (2009). Technology support in nursing education: Clickers in the classroom. Nursing Education Perspectives, 30(5), 295-298.
• DeBourgh, G. A. (2008). Use of classroom “clickers” to promote acquisition of advanced reasoning skills. Nurse Education in Practice, 8(2), 76-87.
• Moredich, C., & Moore, E. (2007). Engaging students through the use of classroom response systems. Nurse Educator, 32(3), 113-116.
• Skiba, D. J. (2006). Got large lecture hall classes? Use clickers. Nursing Education Perspectives, 27(5), 278-280.
• Immerwahr, J. (2009). Engaging the “thumb generation” with clickers. Teaching Philosophy, 32:3, 233-245.
• Stuart, S. 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.
Physics and Astronomy
• Beatty, I., Gerace, W., Leonard, W., & Dufresne, R. (2006). Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching. American Journal of Physics, 74(1), 31-39.
• Beuckman, J., Rebello, N. S., & Zollman, D. (2006). Impact of a classroom interaction system on student learning. Presented at the Physics Education Research Conference, Syracuse, New York.
• Bullock, D. W., et al. (2002). Enhancing the student-instructor interaction frequency. The Physics Teacher, 40, 30-36.
• Burnstein, R. A., & Lederman, L. M. (2001). Using wireless keypads in lecture classes. The Physics Teacher, 39, 8-11.
• Byrd, G. G., Coleman, S., & Werneth, C. (2004). Exploring the universe together: Cooperative quizzes with and without a classroom performance system in Astronomy 101. Astronomy Education Review, 3(1), 26-30.
• Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970-977.
• Dufresne, R. J., & Gerace, W. J. (2004). Assessing-to-learn: Formative assessment in physics instruction. The Physics Teacher, 42, 428-433.
• Beavers, S. L. (2010). Some days, things just “click” in the classroom: Clicker technology in the introductory US politics classroom. Presented at the 2010 Meeting of the Western Political Science Association, San Francisco, California. • Kam, C. D., & Sommer, B. (2005). Real-time polling technology in a public opinion course. Accessed November 15, 2007.
• Briggs, L. (2008, September 24). Using classroom clickers to engage every student. Campus Technology.
• Campbell, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). Questioning as an instructional method: Does it affect learning from lectures? Applied Cognitive Psychology, online.
• Cleary, A. M. (2008). Using wireless response systems to replicate behavioral research findings in the classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 35(1), 42-44.
• Edens, K. M. (2009). The interaction of pedagogical approach, gender, self-regulation, and goal orientation using student response system technology. Jounal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(2), 161-177.
• Mollborn, S., & Hoekstra, A. (2010). “A meeting of minds”: Using clickers for critical thinking and discussion in large sociology classes. Teaching Sociology, 38(1), 18-27.