Presentation at DDR2011 conference at CPUT, Cape Town, 26th of September 2011

3. Introduction

4. CPUT invested in 100 clickers at the end of 2009 for use in the Extended Curriculum Programme (ECP). ECP allows lecturers more time to develop interactive approaches to teaching and learning

6. A main challenge in the ECP Graphic Design course is the lack of student participation & engagement in class discussions

7. 7 10 22

8. Student engagement is the single best predictor of a student’s learning and personal development (Kuh, 2009)

9. (Sandholtz et al., 1994)

10. Literature

11. Clickers & Engagement Studies link student engagement,improved attention and focus to clickers. Improved attendance, enjoyment and fun experienced inlectures are also attributed to clickers (Addison, Wright, & Milner, 2009; Preszler et al., 2007; Stagg & Lane, 2010; Trees & Jackson, 2007)

12. Clickers & Participation They offer students an opportunity to participate in class without “fear of ridicule, should they volunteer an incorrect response” (Banks, 2006)

13. Clickers & Participation Second language learners often struggle to participate in class because of cultural factors inhibiting active participation, such as lack of competency in the language of instruction (Stagg & Lane, 2010)

14. Small Classes “very little attention has been paid to the impact of clickers in small classes” (Walker & Barwell, 2009:3)

15. Clickers & Engagement In smaller classes, clickers’ main benefit lies in “collaborative learning [amongst students] rather than the knowledge transfer from teacher to learner (Walker & Barwell, 2009)

16. Clickers & Peer Learning Mazur (1997) is one of the main proponents of using clickers for peer learning, which can help normally struggling students to improve in examinations.

17. Context

19. During 2010 three clicker interventions were designed and implemented The interventions encouraged discussion through non factual questions and peer voting

20. Data Collection

22. Findings

23. simplicity, novelty and entertainment 3 themes safe, non-threatening class environment sharing opinions and learning from each other

24. Attention

25. I enjoyed myself during the clicker class.People get kind of involved in the process. No one left the class bored or tired [but] happy and comfortable. After the questions were all done, I wanted more! Simplicity, novelty and entertainment (Kay & Lesage, 2009)

26. I find it to be very innovative, exciting and it grabs my attention You have to refresh your mind and think about what you are going to answer ... it keeps our minds think[ing] all the time.

27. Participation

28. Staying anonymous [is good]: people are unsure of their answers or they’re too embarrassed to say their answers or they’re scared that some people might think of them differently, if they say something wrong. Corresponding to other findings in the literature (Simpson & Oliver, 2007) the anonymity that clickers offer decreased fear

29. …feel free to talk with your own language ... then you can have a reason. Because you’re not that perfect in English. That’s why you feel so scared. But I have a reason in isiXhosa, but I don’t know how to say it in English. Stagg and Lane (2010)

30. I like that clicker answers are anonymous

31. Peer Learning

32. You hear other people’s opinions and then you can weigh it up with your own ... and with that you can formulate a better answer. You hear different explanations from other people about the things that you don’t even know about.

33. The more people speak out their ideas, the more I think on adding to what they have said. It helps widening the thinking and helps the flow of thinking juice.

34. I like to see what others are thinking

35. Clickers help us learn from each other

36. Each student should have their own clicker

37. Conclusion

39. Even if the process of collaborative decision-making necessitated through peer-voting is not always a comfortable experience for students, the development of this skill is crucial for future graphic designers.

40. The findings strengthen our view, that collaborative learning, rather than knowledge transfer from teacher to learner, should be emphasised in small clicker classes.

41. Question

42. Thank You

44. Astin, A. 1987. Achieving educational excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

45. Astin, A. 1984. Student involvement: A development theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25: 297-308.

46. Astin, A. 1999. Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), pp.518-529. Available WWW: http://www.middlesex.mass.edu/TutoringServices/AstinInvolvement.pdf [Accessed September 27, 2010].

47. Banks, D.A. 2006. Preface. In D. A. Banks, ed. Hershey PA: Idea Group Inc: vii-xv.

48. Caldwell, J.E. 2007. Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE -Life Sciences Education, 6(1): 9-20. Available WWW: http://www.lifescied.org/cgi/content/abstract/6/1/9 [Accessed September 27, 2010].

49. Crouch, C.H. & Mazur, E. 2001. Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69: 970-977.

50. D'Inverno, R., Davis, H. & White, S. 2003. Using a personal response system for promoting student interaction. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 22(4): 163-169. Available WWW: http://teamat.oupjournals.org/cgi/doi/10.1093/teamat/22.4.163. [Accessed October 6, 2010].

51. Davies, C. 1996. Assessment and transferable skills in art and design. Assessment and transferable skills in art and design, 3: 327-331.

52. Draper, S. & Brown, M.I. 2004. Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(2): 81-94. Available WWW: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00074.x/pdf [Accessed October 6, 2010].

53. Draper, S., Cargill, J. & Cutts, Q. 2002. Electronically enhanced classroom interaction. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 18(1): 13-23. Available WWW: http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~quintin/papers/AJET2002.pdf [Accessed September 27, 2010].

54. Fies, C. & Marshall, J. 2006. Classroom response systems: a review of the literature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1): 101-109.

55. Graham, C.R. et al. 2007. Empowering or compelling reluctant participators using audience response systems. Active Learning in Higher Education, 8: 233-258. Available WWW: http://alh.sagepub.com/content/8/3/233.abstract [Accessed September 27, 2010].

56. Hu, J. et al. 2006. Wireless Interactive Teaching. In D. A. Banks, ed. Hershey PA: Idea Group Inc, pp. 209-221.

57. Hull, G.A. et al. 2006. Many versions of masculine, Available WWW: http://www.uclinks.org/reference/research/Hulletal.Masculinitypaper.pdf [Accessed January 21, 2011].

58. Kay, R.H. & LeSage, A. 2009. Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 53: 819-827.

60. Laurillard, D.,2002. Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies 2nd ed., London: Routledge.

61. Mazur, E. 1997. Peer instruction: a user's manual, N.J. Prentice Hall.

62. McKillop, C. 2005. Storiesb About... Assessment’: On-line storytelling to support collaborative reflective learning. In Brighton, England.

63. Papert, S. & Harel, I. 1991. Situating Constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel, eds. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.

64. Patry, M. 2009. Clickers in Large Classes: From Student Perceptions Towards an Understanding of Best Practices. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(2). Available WWW: http://www.et.kent.edu/fpdc-db/files/psych 2.pdf [Accessed October 27, 2010].

65. Patterson, B., Kilpatrick, J. & Woebkenberg, E. 2010. Evidence for teaching practice: The impact of clickers in a large classroom environment. Nurse Education Today, 30(7): 603-607. Available WWW: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNX-4Y23JK3-2&_user=3956543&_coverDate=10/31/2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1514330731&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000061727&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=3956543&md5=b96312d4f5f469644a8a7a04ef08d88a&searchtype=a [Accessed October 27, 2010].

66. Preszler, R. et al. 2007. Assessment of the effects of student response systems on student learning and attitudes over a broad range of biology course. CBE -Life Sciences Education, 6: 29-41. Available WWW: http://www.lifescied.org/cgi/reprint/6/1/29.pdf [Accessed September 27, 2010].

67. Robinson, W. 1951. The logical structure of analytic induction. American Sociological Review, 16: 12-18.

68. Sandholtz, J.H., Ringstaff, C. & Dwyer, D.C. 1994. Student Engagement: Views from Technology-Rich Classrooms. Apple Computer, Inc. Available WWW: http://www.apple.com/nl/images/pdf/acotlibrary/rpt21.pdf [Accessed September 27, 2010].

69. Simpson, V. & Oliver, M. 2007. Electronic voting systems for lectures then and now: A comparison of research and practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(2): 187-208. Available WWW: http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet23/simpson.html [Accessed September 27, 2010].

70. Stagg, A. & Lane, M. 2010. Using Clickers to Support Information Literacy Skills Development and Instruction in First-Year Business Students. Journal of Information Technology Education, 9. Available WWW: http://jite.informingscience.org/documents/Vol9/JITEv9p197-215Stagg800.pdf [Accessed October 27, 2010].

71. Trees, A. & Jackson, M. 2007. The learning environment in clicker classrooms: Student processes of learning and involvement in large university-level courses using student response systems. Learning, media and technology, 32(1): 21-40.