Running Head: The Effect of Clickers in the Classroom

The Effect of Clickers in the Classroom and Their Impact on Student Learning Anissa Bigler April 17, 2010 Kansas State University for EDSEC 786 Emerging Technologies Dr. Clark Harris - Instructor

The Effect of Clickers in the Classroom

The Effect of Clickers in the Classroom and Their Impact on Student Learning The concept for engaging students and making them active participants in their education can be traced back to John Dewey (1916), who wrote in Democracy and Education that students learn by doing and that learning needs to be an active process. The truth of this statement is proven daily in classrooms around the world. Teachers know that an engaged student is an active learner. Yet it is probably safe to bet that Mr. Dewey could not imagine a day when students could hit a button on a cordless, handheld device and a radiofrequency signal would instantly put a bar graph on the wall to represent that exact active learning process he believed in so strongly. This incredible system, known as clickers or audience response system (ARS) is changing the complexion of what engaged learning looks like in the classroom since the days of Mr. Dewey. Many are familiar with the use of clickers on the television game show Who Wants to be a Millionaire, where clickers are used by contestants to ask the audience their opinion in one of the shows lifeline options. The studio audience can choose the answer they believe is correct using a clicker. The results are immediately displayed on a graph showing the relative percentage of the audience that chose each answer, A, B, C, or D (Dunnett & Trenholm, 2006). This same game show approach is available in our classrooms. Modern clicker units are two-way, meaning that the clicker not only sends a signal but also indicated whether it was received. Although early clickers were often connected to the rest of the system by wiring, modern systems are wireless and use wither infrared (IR) or, more recently, radiofrequency (RF) signalsthe feature of an ARS that allows this

The Effect of Clickers in the Classroom incoming mass of student answers to be rapidly collected, tabulated, and displayed is the coupling of a proprietary receiver unit with an ordinary classroom computer and projection system (Caldwell, 2007 p. 9). In layman terms, kids punch in the answer they want to a teachers question on a small remote control and the answers are tabulated and put instantly onto a graph at the front of the room for everyone to see. This input device that lets (students) express their views in complete

anonymity, and the cumulative view of the class appears on a public screen. Each input device is numbered, however, so the instructor can download responses for recordkeeping after the class session ends (Martyn, 2007). Any teacher worth his salt knows that to keep a students mind stimulated he must keep it engaged. Hand raising has been used for decades as the primary methods of most teachers to see if their students are getting it. Although this traditional method of having students raise their hands provides an opportunity for active response by the student who is called upon, all other students in the classroom are relegated to passive participation (Narayan, Heward, & Gardner, 1990 p. 484). Students who are shy, unsure, or nonresponsive gain very little from the teachers attempt to engage them with hand raising. Narayan et al. (1990) moved one step closer to our modern day clicker system by experimenting with student response cards or whiteboards. Each student would answer the teachers interactive questions by responding on his card or whiteboard. All students were expected to participate, and the teacher can see the immediate understanding of the class. The cumulative effect of using response cards for just twenty minutes per day over an entire school year (180 days) would provide each student in the class with more than 5,000 additional

The Effect of Clickers in the Classroom

opportunities to respond (Narayan et al., 1990 p. 489). Though this was one definite step in the right direction, whiteboards still kept reluctant learners from taking a risk. Neighbors could easily be copied if students were unsure of answering by themselves or unwilling to participate on their own. Teachers could get immediate feedback, but the authenticity of it was compromised by the possible sharing of answers. But ARS takes this student involvement and teacher assessment to the next level. All students are anonymously engaged all the time and teachers are able to assess learning of all students immediately with every question authentically answered. Perhaps one of the strongest draws to the ARS is that students can remain absolutely anonymous as they participate. Students who might be too shy to participate in class any other way have the freedom to answer the questions without the feared ridicule which might come from incorrectly answering. One teacher who took part in a study of using clicker in the classroom said of students having individual clickers and the ability to remain anonymous, They (the students) were able to have their own clickers and take ownership (in a private sort of way) for their answers (Swan, Kratcoski, Hooft & Campbell, 2007 p. 9). Perhaps some of the most amazing data shows the increase in learning and participation with these reluctant learners; students who might be slow to raise their hand, risk the wrong answers, or lack the confidence to share feel safe to answer when using an ARS. Graham et al. (2007) found that ARS impact this subgroup of learners in a strong way. The majority of students in each of these conditions reported that the use of the response devices was helpful. Forty-seven per cent (322 out of 688) of the student responders reported wanting to know peers opinions coupled with a reluctance to share their own opinions publicly in class. Of those, over 80 percent felt that the response devices helped

The Effect of Clickers in the Classroom increase their awareness of peers opinions and attitudes and allowed them to understand their own performance in relation to their peers. Sixty-four percent (443 out of 688) reported that they were hesitant to ask questions in class when they feel uncertain about their understanding of the material. Of these hesitant responders, 90.8 percent felt the response devices helped them to participate in class and 67.5 percent felt that the ARS helped to make their input an important part of class (p. 245). But clickers are not just beneficial to reluctant learners. Anyone who has spent much time with kids knows that attention spans are short. In fact in these days of fast paced video games and action packed television, attention spans seem to be getting shorter. Sometimes the latter half of lectures is lost; because the average human attention span is no more than 20 minutes, recall of information drops drastically after 15-20 minutes (Burns, 1985); clickers can be extremely helpful in keeping students focused. A carefully placed clicker question can rejuvenate students and get them actively engaged after a few minutes of downtime. But the end of class is not the only time important time for a teacher to keep their students focused, the beginning of class is also extremely valuable. It is thought that the most remembered part of a lecture is the first five minutes (Burns, 1985 ), so using clickers to

emphasize an important concept at the beginning of class makes good use of this time, as well as helping student to focus and settle down at the start of class (Elliot, 2003). Knowing that class will start with clicker questions could also help cut down on tardies and encourage students to be in their seats ready to begin when the bell rings especially if participation points are given for the opening questions. A teacher can be dynamic the first five minutes and change things up the last ten, but students are still going to become unfocused and have trouble staying engaged. Many instructors

The Effect of Clickers in the Classroom

have adopted clicker technology to compensate for the passive, one-way communication inherent in lecturing and the difficulty students experience in maintaining sustained concentration (Caldwell, 2007). Lack of concentration is not the only classroom distraction clickers have been shown to help. Jackson and Trees (2003) share that especially when students answers and participation are linked to their grades less sleeping takes place while alertness and attendance increases. Higher quality discussions are also reported. Critics would say it is not the clickers per say; it just using technology in the classroom. All kids like that, right? So lets just use the technology we already have in our school. Is it really necessary to buy clickers to increase student engagement? Swan et al. (2007) mention it is interesting to note in this regard that observers rated student engagement as essentially the same in lessons employing no technology, the document camera, or wireless writing pads (other technology forms). However, on average, observers ranked student engagement in lessons employing student response systems more than one full level higher than student engagement in all the other lessons. While it might be argued that the use of the student response system forces behavioral engagement, it could also be argued that is the point student response systems are designed to support the active participation of all students (p. 9). No more sitting idly, pretending to pay attention. It is not only obvious to the teacher if a student is not participating when clickers are being used; it is notice by the other students. While clickers are anonymous, the answer graph shows which numbers have answered and if anyone is missing. When Swan (2007) collected student responses to using the ARS she found, that in lessons employing the student response system, an overwhelming majority of the students

The Effect of Clickers in the Classroom indicated they were authentically engaged, and only one student during one lesson indicated passive compliance. So the benefits to the students are apparent, but how do teachers like the clickers in the classroom. Is it too complicated? Does it take up too much class time? It is important that teachers find the ARS to be beneficial for them to truly be used. Caldwell (2007) says that although this conglomeration of technological hardware may sound complex, the instructor typically can ignore all but the software interface during

class. This software is used to create and administer questions which is usually not much more complicated than creating or displaying PowerPoint slides. Most systems are said to be easy to use with only an intermediate level of computer skill, thereby freeing the instructor to consider pedagogy rather than technical operations (p. 10). Checking for immediate student understanding is one of the greatest benefits for teachers. Many of the questions to be used during class are made in advanced and embedded into the PowerPoint, but as Caldwell (2007) shares instructors can also add on-the-fly questions during class when sudden inspiration strikes or students seem to be struggling with a concept and teachers want to check for further understanding. Caldwell (2007) also shares the following comments from a biology instructor who found using clickers in the classroom truly helped him be a better teacher. After discovering (through clicker questions) that although 90% of his students recall a rule of genetics, only 48 % were able to apply itthat over half the class didnt get itBecause I had already explained the phenomenon as clearly as I could, I simply asked the students to debate briefly with their neighbors and see who could convince whom

The Effect of Clickers in the Classroom about which answer was correct. The class erupted into animated conversation. After a few minutes, I asked for a revote, and now over 90% gave the correct answer (p. 12). Teachers also find that once the initial set up of the clickers is done and questions are written that time is freed up from grading papers because it has been done by the clickers. Integrating technology can actually save teachers time as teachers try to manage a differentiated classroom environment (Parsons, 2005). This benefit can be a slippery slope, however, because

studies have shown that, especially with reluctant learners, when the ARS was used primarily for
grading there was a perception among some students that the benefits to the instructors, in terms of efficiency, were greater than the benefits of learning for the students. One student commented: [The ARS] was used more to ease the grading of busywork for the professor more than it was used to benefit the understanding of the students (Graham et al., 2007 p. 241). Students responses were more positive when the ARS was used in a pedagogically to increase student learning and not just for teacher-centered applications. Students wanted to know that it was increasing their knowledge and not just making the teachers life easier (Graham et al., 2007). Strong technical support is an absolute must when using clickers in a classroom setting. Faculty that has a bad first experience with clickers will be reluctant to use them again.

Therefore, it is imperative that technical support and training be available and that clicker performance match faculty expectations before widespread use is encouraged (Barber & Njus, 2007 p. 8). A lack of sufficient training and support could find the clickers nestled in their box not being used. Graham et al. (2007) says that students as well express that one of the drawbacks to using clickers is the technical difficulties which are sometimes experienced. Perhaps you needed no encouragement to use clickers in your classroom, but the economics times we are struggling through has made the purchase of a classroom ARS next to impossible, but they may not be as out of reach as first thought. A student keypad is

The Effect of Clickers in the Classroom approximately $25. If an entire building decided to implement the use of clickers, a student could purchase his own personal unit for around this price. He would then be able to use it for the next four years of high school, for example. This brings the cost down to less than five dollars a year. Buildings would have to purchase base receivers, which run around $300 and software is included with the hardware purchases. The benefits of the ARS certainly outweigh the nominal cost of installing clickers into a building (Barber et al., 2007). The key would be making sure teachers are adequately trained to use them, so they will become a part of every classroom. Past studies on learning outcomes suggest that better learning outcomes result from changes in pedagogical focusfrom passive to active learningand not from use of a specific technology or technique (Martyn, 2007 n.p.) which makes one ask Is it the clickers or the change in teaching style? Does it really manner? Whichever it may bestudents are actively engaged; teachers are getting immediate feedback on student learning, and everyone is enjoying class more. Students can say it best themselves; I think the use of clickers greatly affected student learning in this course because it gave

us, the students, an initial test to gauge our own understanding and what we needed more work on. It was also beneficial to our instructor in showing [her] where the class was struggling as a whole and the things they should go over (Dunnett & Trenholm, 2006 p. 12). I think the use of clickers had a positive effect on student learning in this course. Students in my class seemed nervous to speak out because they feared they would be wrong and

The Effect of Clickers in the Classroom look stupid. Clickers gave them a chance to try questions without the rest of the class knowing if they were right or wrong (Dunnett & Trenholm, 2006 p. 12). Overall, clickers have the potential to improve classroom learning, especially in large classes. Students and instructors find their use stimulating, revealing, motivating, andas an added benefitjust plain fun (Caldwell, 2007).

10

The Effect of Clickers in the Classroom References

11

Barber, M., & Njus, D. (2007). Clicker evolution: Seeking intelligent design. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 1-8. Burns, R. A. (1985). Information Impact and Factors Affecting Recall. Presented at Annual National Conference on Teaching Excellence and Conference of Administrators, Austin, TX, May 2225,1985. (ERIC Document No. ED 258 639) Caldwell, J. (2007). Clickers in the Large Classroom: Current Research and Best-Practice Tips. Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9-20. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: an introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Macmillan. Dunnett, J., & Trenholm, B. (2006). When it all "clicks" - The effectiveness of using game show technology in the classroom. The Journal of the Academy of Business Education. Retrieved March 21, 2010, from www.abe.sju.edu/proc2007/Bdunnett.pdf Elliott, C. (2003). Using a personal response system in economics. International Review of Economics Education, 1(1), 80-86. Graham, C. R., Tripp, T. R., Seawright, L., & Joeckel, G. L. (2007). Empowering or compelling reluctant participators using audience response systems. Active Learning in Higher Education, 8(3), 233-258. Jackson, M. H., & Trees, A. R. (2003, December 19). Clicker Implementation and Assessment. Department of Communication | University of Colorado at Boulder. Retrieved March 18, 2010, from http://comm.colorado.edu/~jackson/clickerreport.htm Martyn, M. (2007). Clickers in the classroom: An active learning approach. Educause Quarterly, 30(2), n.p.

The Effect of Clickers in the Classroom Narayan, J. S., Heward, W. L., & III, R. G. (1990). Using response cards to increase student participation in an elementary classroom. Journal of Applied behavior Analysis, 23(4), 483-490.

12

Parsons, C. V. (2005). Decision making in the process of differentiation. Learning and Leading in Technology 33(1), 810. Swan, K., Kratcoski, A., Hooft, M., & Campbell, D. (2007). Technology support for whole class engagement. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 3(1), 1-12.