1. UMD sought to adopt a personal response system ("clickers") to increase student engagement and learning in large lecture classes. 2. An initial pilot program tested different clicker systems, but different departments choosing different systems created support issues. 3. UMD then decided to choose a single campus-wide clicker system. Various clicker systems were demonstrated and evaluated based on factors like cost and ease of use. 4. After selecting a system, integration work and training helped campus-wide adoption, though the document notes that formal assessment of impact is still needed.

1. Click it to stick it … or how UMD adopted the Personal Response System

2. The challenge Image from: http://www.english.ucla.edu/faculty/mcgurl/bored%20students%202.JPG

3. Goals for large lecture classes Increase student engagement Increase learning and retention Early target classes Biology Education Psychology Largest class at UMD: 320

4. Our intrepid crew – stage 1 Faculty technology team Cross functional, multi-college team Information Technology Consultants Instructional Development Services Faculty members Collegiate academic directors Advise on purchase and development of teaching technology Technology training development

5. Pedagogies Pose a questions for class to answer in writing … answer revealed during class as mini-lectures or as the culmination of the lecture Having students solve a problem in pairs, answer passed forward, then worked by the professor

6. Drawbacks Difficult to evaluate class responses while in class If students don’t see results of their interaction, engagement drops off

7. Technical Solution Personal/student response system (aka “clickers”)

8. Overview of clicker systems Image from: http://www.essex.ac.uk/elen/student/images/prs-image.gif

9. Phase 2 - Pilot Projects Faculty from the Faculty Technology Team start testing with help from the Classroom Management team Small classrooms Wired systems first Infra-red systems for checkout Successful and began to spread over a couple of years – Chancellor’s small grants, tech fee grants

10. Great! …. But …… Different departments bought different systems – hard to support and train Registration of clickers done each class Moving around and setting up time Loss of response units Difficult for faculty to assess individual students Infra-red systems often did not read accurately

11. Phase 3 - Time for a campus solution Systems had become robust and attractive Integration with PowerPoint Radio units available and reasonably priced Textbook and clicker bundles System vendors willing to talk about standard file formats Campus buzz Commitment from our original departments

12. But which one? Radio vs. IR Cost to student Size Range/accuracy in large lecture halls Type of inputs (multiple choice, T/F, numbers) Ease of use for instructors Registration of units Integration with PowerPoint Integration with other systems Textbook vendors bundles

13. New players take over Classroom technology management team Information Technology staff Work closely with facilities management

14. How to decide?? Asked faculty currently using systems Vendors presentations in open meetings Attendees at these meetings rated each vendor Example sets loaned out for department meetings Bookstore manager recruited to work on bundled/unbundled options

15. In the background ….. Application developers worked on how to register each clicker for a class How to import scores from a class session into the campus-wide grade calculation and reporting program

16. Phase 4 - Integration and Training phase Instructional Development Service offers workshops on teaching with clickers Online training materials on how to use the tools developed Clickers added as a instructional topic in Tech Camp Experienced faculty do presentations or discussions at other events

17. But did we succeed??? Anecdotal evidence from faculty is positive More students participate in the large lecture classes Faculty have a better sense of the class’s understanding during class Grades or other measures??