iClickers

 Opinion Piece –

Using iClickers is more effective than showing of hands or using computer response systems

Student Response Systems (SRS) are a flexible set of hardware and software that make it possible for a group to respond to a question simultaneously.  While exploring the effectiveness of Student Response Systems, I determined that iClickers provide students with the most positive benefits. 

Two arguments against using Clickers are the arguments that similar learning outcomes are possible through ‘show of hands or paddles’ (Brady) or simply by accessing programs available on-line (Muyingi).  I strongly disagree and allege both formats may hinder learning whereas research has proven that clicker use

Research has indicated that the use of clickers often leads to increased emotional or psychological student investment in learning; student engagement is a significant predictor of student learning outcomes.  Clickers engage students and have a unique participatory nature that transforms the learning.  In one study, use of clickers increased the number of A’s earned by 4.7%, reduced the rate of withdrawal by nearly 3%, and decreased the combined proportion of students earning D’s, F’s, or withdrawing by 3.8%. These results suggest that active engagement in class boosts achievement for at least some students and prevents others from dropping or failing the course (Baldwin p.13).

However, students reported that they were twice as likely to work on a problem presented during class if answers were submitted by clicker than by show of hands—(Baldwin p.13).  Moreover, instructors noted that discussions were often richer when clickers were used to explore opinions or review for exams that led to increased learning.  For example, during a set of practice questions a class improved from 16% correct to 100% correct after three questions. Furthermore, when asked a similar question one week later, 80% still answered correctly (Baldwin p.12).

Research indicated that students agreed that they were more engaged in learning and felt safer to participate when using clickers, but they added that they participated because they valued the anonymity that is not afforded them when using a show of hands (Brady).  Research also suggests that clicker answers are more honest, shyness is reduced, and use of the clicker response system may reduce shame and social conformity (Brady et al).  When show of hands or paddles were used to assess learning, some students admitted they were more inclined to wait before making a choice so they could choose their response according to the majority of answers chosen.  They added that they commonly changed their answers to match those of the majority in the class.  Interview data suggests that learning process is interrupted when students are uncomfortable with comfortable peer comparisons (Brady).

Anonymity seems to provide for the involvement shy students without peer pressure, a process that is linked to metacognition.  Brady et al (2013) “found that clicker groups consistently outperformed low technology polling [such as show of hands or paddles] nurturing the learning process and promoting critical thinking.”

Interestingly, even though many of today’s learners, ‘digital natives’, readily share aspects of their personal lives that may seem inappropriate on social media, interviews with these same learners show that they value anonymity in the classroom and would rather use clickers than paddles or show of hands.  Clickers provide today’s learners with ‘breaks’ that many crave and appear to engage learners, yet provide a safe environment to increase learning (Wood).

Conversely, ‘digital natives’ and many in society assume that today’s learners can able to learn while multi-tasking.  Classroom access to computers and the Internet may be indispensable for teaching and research both for the student and the teacher.  Yet, these technologies can also be an impediment to learning as students may engage in actions unrelated to classwork such as texting, web browsing, e-mailing, online gaming, online shopping or a myriad of other activities (Muyingi).  So, while multi-tasking is often cited as a beneficial attribute of the e-learner, there is evidence that switching between competing activities is highly distracting for many students (Winter).  Further analyses indicate that learners who use clickers in class outperformed students who used some form of technology. Consistent with the cognitive bottleneck theory of attention (Welford, 1967 in Wood) and contrary to popular beliefs, attempting to focus on learning while engaging technologies for off-task activities often has a detrimental impact on learning (Wood).

Furthermore, instructors report improved alertness and better student retention when using clickers versus other technologies.  With clickers versus no technology or access to technology within the classroom, roughly 4% of students stopped attending by the final exam. This attrition rate was noticeably higher without the clickers, ranging from 8 to nearly 12% when using clickers (Baldwin p.13).

As with any technological tool or learning activity, the philosophy of teaching that informs the development of questions will either facilitate or impede learning.  Moreover, researchers concur that it takes practice to carefully design questions.  They recommend using a variety of questions including those that assess students’ background knowledge, make students aware of others’ views, locate misconceptions and confusion,  distinguish between related ideas, show parallels or connections between ideas, explore or apply ideas in a new context. Clickers are only as effective as the questions posed to students.  Yet, research confirms that a positive correlation between student engagement and integration of clickers is evident (Kulatunga)

Furthermore, clickers have the most potential to improve classroom learning for student.  Being able to respond anonymously to questions and focus on the lesson without technological distractions, helps increase student engagement, student learning, and—as an added benefit— is just plain fun (Baldwin p.19).

Sources

Baldwin, L., (2014). Editorial.  Active Learning in Higher Education, 15:1 (March), 3-10. DOI: 10.1177/1469787413514655

Ball State University (2015). Instructional uses of clickers.  Retrieved from: http://cms.bsu.edu/about/administrativeoffices/educationalexcellence/instructtech/clicker/instructuse

Brady, M., Seli, H., & Rosenthal, J. (2013). Metacognition and the influence of polling systems: how doclickers compare with low technology systems. Educational Technology Research & Development, 61(6), 885-902. doi:10.1007/s11423-013-9318-1

Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the Large Classroom: Current Research and Best-Practice Tips. CBE - Life Sciences Education,6(1), 9-20.

Kulatunga, U., & Rameezdeen, R. (2014). Use of Clickers to Improve Student Engagement in Learning: Observations from the Built Environment Discipline. International Journal Of Construction Education & Research, 10(1), 3. doi:10.1080/15578771.2013.826754

Muyingi, H. (2014). Factors contributing to technology-enabled distractions in the classroom: a case study of students at the Polytechnic of Namibia. Nawa: Journal Of Language & Communication, 8(1), 1-17.

Science Education Resource Center at Carleton College (2004). Electronic Student Response  Technology. Retrieved from http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/interactive/esr-gsa.html

Siau, K., Sheng, H., & Fui-Hoon Nah, F. (2006). Use of a Classroom Response System to Enhance Classroom Interactivity. IEEE Transactions on Education, 49:3, 398- 403.

Trainers Warehouse (2015). Simple, Intuitive, Reliable.  Retrieved from http:www.trainerswarehouse.com/iclicker2-software.pdf

Winter, J., Cotton, D., Gavin, J., & Yorke, J. D. (2010). Effective E-Learning? Multi-Tasking, Distractions and Boundary Management by Graduate Students in an Online Environment. ALT-J: Research In Learning Technology, 18(1), 71-83.

Wood, E., Zivcakova, L., Gentile, P., Archer, K., De Pasquale, D., & Nosko, A. (2012). Examining the impact of off-task multi-tasking with technology on real-time classroom learning. Computers &     Education, 58365-374. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.029