Running Head: C IS FOR CLICKER 1

C is for Clicker: Effective Use of Classroom Response Systems

A Master Project

Presented to

Dr. Bijan Gillani

And

Dr. Li-Ling Chen

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

Master of Science, Options in Educational Technology

Leadership Program

By

Ian Maslen

Spring 2016

California State University at East Bay

C IS FOR CLICKER 2

A Master Project

Presented to

Dr. Bijan Gillani

And

Dr. Li-Ling Chen

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

Master of Science, Options in Educational Technology

Leadership Program

Submitted by

Ian Maslen

June 6, 2016
C IS FOR CLICKER 3

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 Introduction.........................................................................................................4

Chapter 2 Literature Review................................................................................................6

Chapter 3 Project Design...................................................................................................10

Chapter 4 Project Assessment............................................................................................12

Chapter 5 Conclusion........................................................................................................13

References..........................................................................................................................16
C IS FOR CLICKER 4

C is for Clicker: Effective Use of Classroom Response Systems

Chapter 1 Introduction

Classroom response systems (CRSs) are a form of electronic polling technology. They are

referred to broadly by a variety of labels including, audience response systems, student

polling system, electronic voting systems, personal response system, student response

system and colloquially as clickers, to name a few (Beatty & William, 2009). Regardless of

the term used, a central feature of all CRSs is their ability to record and analyze student

responses to questions posed by the instructor. In a standard CRS, a central unit receives wireless

signals from buttons on remotes units held by the students. The teachers computer either has

software installed that monitors the signals transmitted or is logged in to a cloud-based software

that can determine which individual devices sent which answer.

A typical CRS application will have a multiple choice question presented to a group of

students via a computer or overhead projector and students answering by their personal signaling

device. As responses are collected, the software tabulates the results and presents it numerically

and/or as a bar graph on the teachers computer. The teacher can determine how many (and

which) students got the answer correct and to take actions based on that information.

As a technology, classroom response systems have been around for many years. An early

CRS was used at Stanford University in 1966. As is often the case with an emerging technology,

it was very expensive, difficult to use and didnt always work (Kay & LeSage, 2009). Over the

years the technology improved and the cost was diminished to the point that by the early 2000s

CRSs were no longer limited to just elite universities. Today, they are not only used in colleges
C IS FOR CLICKER 5

and universities, but in secondary and elementary schools as a way for instructors to both

monitor and encourage student participation (Gray, Thomas, Lewis, & Tice, 2010).

Improvements in technology has brought cost down, increased reliability and the ease of

use of classroom response systems. However their potential use presents us with questions. What

drawbacks or limitations do they have? Other than a novel way to answer questions, what

tangible benefits are CRSs in classroom? Can the same functions and benefits be achieved in

other ways? The intent of this review is to address these questions and determine the potential

value of this technology in a diverse public school science classroom.

C IS FOR CLICKER 6

Chapter 2 Literature Review

The majority of the literature seems to be centered on the use of CRS technology in

higher education (Kay & LeSage, 2009). Indeed, it follows from the fact that the technology is

more established in such institutions and studies are able to be conducted more easily if the

infrastructure being examined is already in use. This is logical given the number of students in

introductory core class and the resources available to colleges and universities compared to

secondary public education. Studies targeted at secondary schools are much more limited so its

necessary to look at both higher education and secondary studies to get a better sense of the

application, benefits and drawbacks of CRS technology.

Theoretical Framework

While the classroom response systems themselves are not a method of teaching, their use

as a means to encourage classroom discussion and participation is supported by educational

theory. The discipline of science requires students to develop and refine scientific concepts. The

practice therefore falls within the tenets of constructivism as articulated by Russell Tytler,

namely; learning involves the construction of meaning through the active engagement of the

learner (Tytler, 2002). The author goes on to say, that from a social cultural perspective, the

teachers role is both that of a promoter of discourse and the architect of a classroom learning

environment where individual student conceptions are examined.

These principles are also shared by Beatty and William (2009) who feel that scientific

learning is both a cognitive process where knowledge is constructed and a social construct where

scientific ideas are framed in classroom discussion. Expanding on these ideals they suggest that

talk in the classroom be used as a both a linguistic tool for prompting scientific thinking and a
C IS FOR CLICKER 7

social interaction between individuals to stimulate learning. They also set forth a new pedagogy,

Technology-Enhanced Formative Assessment (TEFA), designed for CRS classrooms which is

based on principles that stem from constructivism.

Classroom Response Systems as an Assessment Tool

Since all CRSs have the ability to record and analyze responses to questions, the most

often cited use of the technology is as a means of assessment. In the Vanderbilt Center for

Teaching clicker guide the author suggests that CRSs can be used as a means of both

summative and formative assessments (Bruff, 2015). The author highlights several types of

questions ranging from simple recall questions to question requiring more advanced critical

thinking. Bruff cautions though that writing highly effective CRS based multiple-choice

questions is not a trivial task. In addition, the use of such question as a formative assessment

requires an instructor that can change a lesson in an instant if responses dictate.

Another caveat mentioned about CRSs in formative assessment use is the importance of

communication to students about the objectives of the instructor. Lack of communication can

lead to suspicion or mistrust of the technology and this can have a negative impact on learning

outcomes (Ducan, 2009).

Another key feature of CRSs as an assessment tool is the ability to gather and display

data collects from student responses. Most CRSs have the ability to display graph and charts of

responses. This can benefit students when use in a formative role because students can receive

immediate feedback and can compare their own responses to the responses of other students in

the class. Instructors can track student data over time and make assessments about instruction

(Deal, 2007).
C IS FOR CLICKER 8

Classroom Response systems as a Peer-Based Instruction Tool

In addition to using CRS as an assessment tool, or more accurately in conjunction with it,

an enticing application of CRS technology is its use in peer-based instruction. In a peer-based

instruction model, students are presented with a question which they consider individually and

answer. Results are tabulated and students are given the opportunity discuss possible answers

before deciding on a final response. What makes CRS technology particularly useful is its ability

to collect and display student response data instantly. Students can see how the class responded a

whole, but their individual answers are anonymous, so ideally discussions are centered around

the reasoning behind selecting an answer. Chasteen (2009) outlines several different scenarios of

how to use this feature to achieve the most student engagement during the discussion process in a

lecture setting. Likewise, Weiman and others (Wieman, Perkins, & Gilbert, 2009) stress peer

discussion in their recommendations of effective use of CRSs. Just as is the case when CRSs are

used as an assessment tool, the aforementioned authors also stress that the level of the questions

need to be sufficiently challenging in order to provoke meaningful discussion. Over reliance on

simple recall level questions is discouraged.

Another area of concern in CRS peer-based instruction is that although the percentage of

correct responses usually increases after peer discussion, that outcome isnt always certain.

Research showed that in some cases there are also students who switch their initially right

answer to a wrong answer, or a wrong answer to another wrong answer. To minimize this, it has

been suggested by Miller and others (Miller, Schell, Ho, Lukoff, & Mazur, 2015) that instructors

need to be ready to provide additional support to help students answer these more challenging

questions.
C IS FOR CLICKER 9

Research Questions

A review of existing literature sources indicates that an important key to effective CRS

use relies on presenting students with questions that are challenging enough that answering them

requires more than simple factual recall. In the case of a peer-based instruction model, the

questions must be thought provoking enough that the answers elicit a discussion. The challenge

for the instructors with CRSs is to have a plethora of such question that can be added to a lecture

as needed. Instructors that have been teaching a particular course for years probably do, but new

teachers or instructors teaching a new course might not. Even veteran teachers might want to

share or exchange ideas with other instructors. An on-line resource of CRS questions and support

might be an answer to this need. To what extent will teachers benefit from a database of

questions and support information when utilizing CRSs? In what ways will this support and

exchange of information yield positive learning outcomes to their students?

Significance of the Project

The value of CRS has been well documented, but effective implementation of this

technology is left up individual instructors. Resources to aid implementation are sparse at best,

even at the colligate level of instruction. Resources at the secondary level of instruction are even

scarcer. Having a common resource available for instructors to share information, including

questions and CRS discussion tips could enhance the effectiveness of CRS implementation. This

resource should include a database of high quality CRS questions, tips, ideas and FAQs. The

information should be relevant to the subject being taught. A web-based resource would be a

convenient way for teachers to share effective resources for CRS instruction. In turn, more

effective implementation of CRS technology can have a positive learning outcome for students.
C IS FOR CLICKER 10

Chapter 3 Project Design

This project with be used by science teachers at Rancho Medanos Junior High School, a

northern-California middle school. Rancho Medanos is a diverse campus, with a demographic of

seventy-three percent Hispanic students, twelve percent African American, six percent Filipino,

three percent white, two percent Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander and two percent of more

than one race. Rancho Medanos is a Title I school with about eighty-eight percent of students

eligible for free or reduced meals. About 80% of the students in the study are below proficient in

math or English.

The project will be piloted by two of the seven science department instructors. Up to one

hundred fifty students will be served by the web site resources. The students ranging in age from

twelve to fourteen. Data on family income is unavailable but the community surrounding the

school is comprised of low to mid-income families. The students and facility have little

experience with CRS technology. The two sets of CRSs are available with enough remove units

so every student has access to one.

The CRS technology consists of two sets of e-Instruction 360 classroom response

systems, two LCD projectors, and two Dell touchscreen desktop computers. The desktop

computers will host the data collection hubs and access the question database. The LCD

projectors will project the questions, and the students will respond using the handheld units. The

support website will be hosted at weebly.com which can be accessed through any web browser.

Weebly was chosen as the site host because the free plan offers the best set of features compared

to other websites. In particular it offers robust communication tools like forums and blogs,

unlimited levels of page hierarchy, and is free from advertisement (except for a small Weebly
C IS FOR CLICKER 11

logo at the bottom of the page). In addition, the entire website is downloadable so it can be

hosted at another location if necessary.

Because Weebly offers drag-and-drop webpage design and unlimited page hierarchy each

CRS question can be hosted on a separate web page. This will also allow question that arent

merely text, but questions which have visual, auditory and multimedia components to them.

Students will be able to see or experience a phenomena before they discuss and answer questions

about the experience. For example, instead of asking a text question about the characteristics of

molecules in different phases of matter, they could see an animation of molecules interacting and

be asked to determine their state of matter based on their observations and then justify their

answer based on their knowledge the phases of matter. The content of the website will be mainly

the CRS questions which will be organized first by grade level, then by topic (e.g. Energy, Cells,

Climate Change) and finally by lesson. Other supporting content like contact information will

branch off the main page.

Main
Main Page
Page

About
About Resources
Resources Contact
Contact
Chap
Grade
Grade 88 Grade
Grade 77 Grade
Grade 66
ter 4

Energy
Energy Cells
Cells Climate
Climate

Lesson
Lesson 11 Lesson
Lesson 22 Lesson
Lesson 11 Lesson
Lesson 22 Lesson
Lesson 11 Lesson
Lesson 22
questions questions Etc.
Etc. questions questions Etc.
Etc. questions questions Etc.
Etc.
questions questions questions questions questions questions

Figure 1. Site Architecture diagram for project website.

Project Assessment

The project contents will be overseen by two subject matter experts (SME) who will

ensure its validity and reliability. The first SME is an expert in educational technology, the

second an expert in subject content.

C IS FOR CLICKER 12

Within the project design the developer will establish a site feedback form for users to

post concerns about the site and its contents. If the site isnt meeting the needs of either the

instructor or the students the developer will revise the site to address the concern. In addition,

each question page will have a rate this question feature. Questions with low rakings will be

reevaluated. Then based on the results, the question will either be modified, replaced with a

different question, or removed entirely. To help ensure overall quality, the developer will

periodically meet with the SMEs and faculty users to discuss the effectiveness of the project and

possible improvements.
C IS FOR CLICKER 13

Chapter 5 Conclusion

As previously mentioned, the advantage of classroom response systems is their ability to

quickly gather and display information on student responses. CRSs offer the instructor multiple

methods for recording such data. The methods differ from system to system and different

learning institutions favor different CRS vendors. Vanderbilt University for example, uses the

more traditional Turning Technologies devices exclusively which it sells at its bookstores (Bruff,

2015). One of the more progressive CRS designs is sold by Poll Everywhere. This design relies

on pervasiveness of personal electronic devices like mobile phones and tablets to respond to

questions either by sending a text message or logging in to a website ( Poll Everywhere, 2015).

The CRS vendor i>clicker" has partnered with University of Colorado, University of Delaware

and Ball State University (to name a few) and offers a hybrid of either traditional clickers or

polling by downloading an app for a smartphone and/or access via a website (i>clicker, 2015). In

an interesting twist on technology Plickers Inc. has developed a system to replace the remote

devices with unique paper QR codes which can be oriented in a variety of positions to represent

different answers. These are scanned by the camera in either a smartphone or tablet that the

teacher holds up in front of the class (Plickers Inc., 2015).

The data uncovered on the effectiveness of CRS seems encouraging. A study of library

instruction classes (Buhay, Best, & McGuire, 2010) suggests CRS use led to significantly higher

difference scores during testing. Its worth noting that results indicated that the benefits of CRSs

are not limited to individual access to remote unit and group use of a single unit was as effective.

A recent study (Barth-Cohen, et al., 2015) measured the efficacy of peer discussion

between middle school students after initial questioning and before final responses. The results
C IS FOR CLICKER 14

indicate that even at a middle school level students are able to make use of question led

discussion (a key feature of peer base instruction).

Another study (Walsh, 2012) examined a polling technology that utilizes multiple mouses

to achieve the same effect as signaling devices of a typical CRS. It concluded that the use of the

technology in the classroom increased participation as well as mental engagement. This result

was based on a survey of teachers and students (not on testing data).

CRS technology has been around for decades, and a considerable amount of study has

been conducted on its use. However, most of the early research and much current research has

centered on the use of CRS in colleges and universities (Kay & LeSage, 2009). Research of CRS

in a public school setting is more limited. Other problems with available research information on

CRS in a secondary school setting include; studies that are provide only platform specific

information (Walsh, 2012), studies with a focus on populations with a limited demographic

diversity (Barth-Cohen, et al., 2015), studies focused on qualitative results more than quantitative

(Kay & Knaack, 2009), and studies that are missing established pedagogy or have other

theoretical short comings (Beatty & William, 2009).

Recommendations for further study would include more information on the effectiveness

of CRS technology in secondary school settings. While data on collected at the college level

clearly validates CRS technology in a large lecture hall type setting more data at a secondary

science where classes are smaller would strength the argument for its use in public schools. A

study by Barth-Cohen et al. (2015) did focus on the efficacy of student discussions between

questions response periods at the secondary level, but the study indicated that this was measured

in a very ethnically homogenous and economically sound school district. Similar data in a more

diverse and less affluent setting would support the existing study. Overall the literature provides
C IS FOR CLICKER 15

a clear support of the efficacy of the technology at the collegiate level. The data at the secondary

level isnt quite as strong.

C IS FOR CLICKER 16

References

Poll Everywhere. (2015). Text mesage (SMS) polls and voting audience response system.

Retrieved from Poll Everywhere: https://www.polleverywhere.com/

Barth-Cohen, L. A., Smith, M. K., Capps, D. K., Lewin, J. D., Shemwell, J. T., & Stetzer, M. R.

(2015). What are middle school students talking about during clicker questions?

Characterizing small-group conversations mediated by classroom response systems.

Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1-12. Retrieved from

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10956-015-9576-2#/page-1

Beatty, I., & William, G. (2009). Technology-enhanced formative assessment: A research-based

pedagogy for teaching science with classroom response technology. The Journal of

Science Education and Technology, 18, 146-162. doi:10.1007/s10956-008-9140-4

Bruff, D. (2015). Classroom response systems (clickers). Retrieved from Vanderbilt University

Center for Teaching: https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/clickers/

Buhay, D., Best, L. A., & McGuire, K. (2010, June 21). The effectiveness of library instruction:

Do student response systems (clickers) enhance learning? The Canadian Journal for the

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(1). doi:10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2010.1.5

Chasteen, S. (2009, December 14). How to use clickers effectively. Retrieved from YouTube:

https://youtu.be/z0q5gQfQmng

Deal, A. (2007). Classroom response systems. White Paper, Carnegie Mellon University,

Pittsbugh.

Ducan, D. (2009). Tips for successful clicker use. Retrieved from University of Colorado:

http://casa.colorado.edu/~dduncan/clickers/Tips.htm
C IS FOR CLICKER 17

Gray, L., Thomas, N., Lewis, L., & Tice, P. (2010). Teachers use of educational technology in

U.S. public schools: 2009. National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education

Sciences. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

i>clicker. (2015). Clicker & audience response systems - i>Clicker. Retrieved from Clicker &

Audience Response Systems - i>Clicker: https://www1.iclicker.com/

Kay, R., & Knaack, L. (2009). Exploring the use of audience response systems in secondary

school science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(5), 382-

392. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.proxylib.csueastbay.edu/stable/20627718

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.

Miller, K., Schell, J., Ho, A., Lukoff, B., & Mazur, E. (2015). Response switching and self-

efficacy in peer instruction classrooms. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics

Education Reasearch, 11(1), 010104. doi:10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.11.010104

Plickers Inc. (2015). Using Plickers. Retrieved from Plickers: https://www.plickers.com/help

Tytler, R. (2002). Teaching for understanding in science: Student conceptions, research and

changing views of learning. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 48(3), 14-21.

Walsh, P. (2012). The power of a mouse! SRATE Journal, 21(2), 39-46.

Wieman, C., Perkins, K., & Gilbert, S. (2009, June 1). Clicker resource guide. Retrieved from

Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative:

http://www.cwsei.ubc.ca/resources/files/Clicker_guide_CWSEI_CU-SEI.pdf