Presentation created for Harrisburg University class, March 2010.

1. Student Response Systems LTMS 510 Susan Miller

2. Question How many of you have used a student response system?

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

4. Student Response Systems Audience Response System Personal Response System CLICKERS! Classroom Communication System Electronic Voting System Classroom Response System

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

6. Purpose Engagement Collect data Formative assessment “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.

7. History ~ 1st generation Hollywood and advertising polling 1940s Audience Studies Institute Used knob; later ‘yes’ and ‘no’ University adoption 1960s Rice Stanford Hard wiring and computers

8. History ~ 2nd 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”

9. 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

10. How they work ~ Hardware Signal Radio frequency Infrared Web-based Hub Devices

11. Software Stand-alone function ~ for use with any application Integration with Office Online Textbooks Classroom management systems Online educational programs

12. Poll results Reports Data

13. Continues to be a valuable tool Entertainment Meetings Engagement Collect large amount of data quickly Portability Industry

14. Higher Education 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

15. K~12 Education Usage mirrors higher education Assessment Engagement Feedback Discussion Prepare for standardized tests Provide instructional variety

16. Benefits Classroom environment: Positive affect on attention, engagement, participation and attendance Anonymity Learning: Discussion Modification Achievement Assessment: Regular feedback Teacher and student

17. eInstruction (CPS) Interwrite H-ITT Quizdom Turning Point IWB-specific Popular Systems

18. Poll Everywhere MobiOde Web-Based Options

19. Considerations ~ Software and Hardware Level of functioning Integration Data management Cost

20. Considerations ~ The Users Instructors Familiarity with technology Flexibility Interactive white boards Audience Age Adaptability Attitude about monitoring

21. Best Practice 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

22. 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

23. Conclusions Power of the tool dependent on good teaching practices Potential for increasing student achievement Future most secure in K-12 education

24. References (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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. 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