Audience Response Systems: A Mode for Enhancing Student Learning Colleen F. Visconti, Ph.D., CCC-SLP...

Audience Response Systems: A Mode for Enhancing Student Learning

Colleen F. Visconti, Ph.D., CCC-SLPBaldwin-Wallace College

ASHA Poster Session #0475November 16, 2006

Miami, Florida

Abstract

The educational environment is forever changing and technology is a large part of the changes that have occurred. The Audience Response System is one of the new technologies available for enhancing student learning in the classroom. The purpose of this presentation is to discuss the TurningPoint Audience Response System, the various uses of this technology in the fields of communication sciences and disorders, and its benefits for both the students and the faculty in the classroom setting.

System Requirements to Support TurningPoint Windows 98, 2000 or XP Microsoft Office 2000, XP or 2003, should

include PowerPoint, Excel, Word and Outlook Pentium 3 Processor with 650MHz, 128 MB

RAM 100 MB free disk space

The “Clicker”

Hardware

Types of Interaction

Reality Check Knowledge Check View Check Choice Check Fact Check Self Check Group Check Pulse Check Fun Check

Reality Check

Practical application – the intent is to move from ideas to action. What would you do if ? How would you treat X patient? How would you ?

Knowledge Check

Testing understanding – measure effectiveness What did you learn? Practice exam questions Quizzes Terminology understanding Causes for disorders Treatment options Assessment options

View Check

Opinion surveys – gather data from the audience Ethical issues Case management issues Environmental causes Caregiver roles Cultural issues

Choice Check

Spark controversy – think hard about an issue What would you choose? Theoretical controversies Opposing treatment philosophies

Fact Check

Share information – activates interest in a topic What do you know about X disorder? The preferred treatment approach for X

disorder is . Which factors impact treatment goals? Statistics about various disorders.

Self Check

Self-assessment – audience self-analysis What do you think you know? Reviews before exams Introductions to a topic Application of concepts

Group Check

Audience Profiling – get audience demographics Who are you?

Year in school Major Minor Courses completed Areas of interest

Pulse Check

Speedometer – Stay in touch with the audience How do you feel? How is this class going? Pacing of information Types of activities

Fun Check

Lightening up the pace – humorous interlude Can you smile? Are you awake? I want to go home.

The Basics

Create a PowerPoint presentation with TurningPoint

Present presentation to class Students then respond to specific slides Data is automatically generated and projected

after each slide Data can be saved for later Can check specific student performance, if

student is assigned a specific “clicker” number

Use at Baldwin-Wallace College

2005-2006 - faculty members began using Audience Response Systems

Currently 18 faculty members are trained in its use

12 faculty members responded to a survey regarding use and the following data is based on those results.

It is being used in at least 24 different courses, some with multiple sections

0

1

2

3

4

Daily 1-2x per week Couple Timesper month

Once a month 1-2x perSemester

Once aSemester

Once a year

Frequency of Use

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

RealityCheck

KnolwedgeCheck

ViewCheck

ChoiceCheck

Fact Check Self Check GroupCheck

PulseCheck

Fun

Types of Interaction

Faculty Benefits

Greater participation & engagement Opens up class discussion Eliminates group induced bias Makes all students think about the question(s) Quick assessment of student understanding Identifies areas of confusion Anonymity Teaches students to read simple statistics Students own the data which leads to ownership of

the class Less grading time of quizzes

Student Benefits

Keeps them engaged Confirms their understanding of the material

compared to their peers Participation without speaking Immediacy of feedback Anonymity More interesting for the students

Faculty limitations and downsides

Preparation Time Preparing the PowerPoint Handing out remotes

Doesn’t fit all courses Students don’t take notes when using it Passive tool for students – although it does

generate discussion Technical glitches

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Positive Response -Students like it

Neutral Response -Students don't really

care

Negative Response -Students don't like it

Student Response to the Clickers

Impact on Learning

Currently, it is not clear how the use of clickers impacts learning. It is believed that since the students are more engaged in the course content, there should be an increase in the retention of the material.

One faculty member, Dr. Margie Martyn, is currently investigating the impact of using clickers in the classroom on learning outcomes.

Some Classroom Response Systems

Response Card from TurningTechnologies, LLC (www.turningtechnologies.com)

Classroom Performance Systems from eInstruction (www.einstruction.com)

InterWrite Personal Response System from GTCO CalComp Corp. (www.gtcocalcomp.com)

Classoom Reponsse System from Hyper-Interactive Teaching Technology (www.h-itt.com)

Uses Outside of the Classroom

Faculty training for grading reliability of common course papers

Faculty meetings – vote on faculty governance issues

Polling faculty on campus issues

“Technology is not the lesson, but the mode of delivery for the lesson.” (Baker & Baker, 2004, p. 151)

Suggested Readings Astleitner, H. & Leutner, D. (2000). Designing instructional technology

from an emotional perspective. Journal of research on computing in education, 32(4), 497-510.

Baker, P. & Baker, P. (2004). Teacher adjustment to technology: Overcoming cultural mindsets. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 33(2), 147-156.

Brewer, C.A. (2004). Near real-time assessment of student learning and understanding in Biology courses. BioScience, 54(11), 1034-1039.

Draper, S. W., & Brown, M. I. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of computer assisted learning, 20, 81-94.

Fitch, J.L. (2004). Student feedback in the college classroom: A technology solution. Educational technology research & design, 52(1), 71-81.

Hines, L. (2005). Interactive learning environment keeps Modesto students engaged. T H E Journal, 33(2), 40-41. Retrieved January 20, 2006, from Academic Search Premier.

Zemsky, R. (2000). The mission and the medium. Policy Perspecitves, 9(3), 1-12.

Special Thanks to -

John DiGennaro, Manager Educational Technology, Information Technology. Thank you for training me in the use of the Audience Response System and for answering all of my questions.

Dr. Susan Oldrieve, Director of the Center for Transformational Learning. Thank you for all of your ideas, suggestions and support.

Thanks also goes to the Scholarly Teaching Program for providing funding to attend and present at the ASHA convention.

For a copy of the handout for this poster session, please visit the ASHA convention website or email me at cviscont@bw.edu