Upload
sharon-flynn
View
2.174
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Powerpoint file from presentation at Plymouth E-learning Conference 2011
Citation preview
Clickers for large class teachingSupporting Academic Staffat NUI Galway, Ireland
Sharon Flynn &
Fiona Concannon
CELT, NUI Galway
Context of Higher Education in Ireland
Growth in student numbers at undergraduate level Concern about lack of student participation Poor retention of first year students (non-presence
rates of 11%), especially in Science, Agriculture and Veterinary (HEA, 2010)
Anecdotal concerns around decreased student performance at end of year exams
Clickers for Student Engagement in Large Class
Teaching
Other Irish pilot studies
In Ireland… Johnson and Lillis (2010)- UL McLoughlin (2008) – DCU Bowe & Cowan (2004) – DIT Surgenor (2010) - UCD
And beyond… Mazur, Bruff, Caldwell, Fies & Marshcall. Caldwell (2007) notes, “The reviews of the literature,
however, also agree that much of the research so far is not systematic enough to permit scientific conclusions about what causes the benefits”.
NUI Galway First Year Pilot
Distributed 762 “eInstruction cricket” devices to incoming first year undergraduate science students
Over 40 RF receivers distributed to members of academic staff
Installed software in lecture theatres
First Year Curriculum 60 ECTS, Full Time, Level 8 3 x 1 hour-long lectures and lab
practical sessions per week Core modules:
Biology Physics Mathematics Chemistry
Other modules: Biomedical Science Earth & Ocean Sciences Environmental Science Financial Maths & Economics Computer Science
How was the technology adopted?
Used in large classes
Class size varied between 100 and 300 students
Mixed variety of use in practice, depending on discipline individual lecturer organisation of teaching
within the module Not used in lab sessions
or practical sessions
Adoption of clickers for staff
Mapping the technology to the existing teaching practices
Process of transforming the underlying pedagogy to accommodate for increased interaction (whether discussion, conceptualisation or reflection)
Supporting Staff
Support and Training
Training Workshops (6) Workshops with practitioners (3) Group meetings (3) Resource website and recordings Individual support (4) In-lecture standby (9)
Training
Pre-teaching Semester 1 Semester 20
5
10
15
20
25
7
30
2
3
0
2
5
2
5
11
2
4
OtherPhysicsMedicineMathsChemistryBiology
The Reported ExperienceBy students and by academic staff
Staff
Mandatory use
Consistency of use
Attendance monitoring
Content and flowTechnical issues
Disciplinary differences
Teaching organisation and
style
49%50%
1%
Gender
MaleFemaleNot answered
N=272 (35% response rate)
Student Feedback
66%
26%
3%4%
Frequency with which clickers were brought to class by students
Every classMost classesFew classesHardly ever
Student Reported Frequency of Use in Lectures
Applied M
aths
Biolo
gy
Chemist
ry
Computin
g
Earth and O
cean Scie
nces
Math
s
Physics
050
100150200250
Greater than 80%50-80% 20-50%Less than 20%Never
N=272
What is good about using clickers?
Active Learn
ing
Mark
s for P
articip
ation
Lecture
r Feedback
Anonymity
Novel
Social
0
50
100
150
200
250192
18 15 20 3 2
N=272
What is not good about using clickers?
Disrupt l
ecture
How they are
used
Tech new to
lectu
rers
Not bein
g used
Particip
ation m
arks
Problem
s with
device
Forget d
evice
Expense
Data st
orage
0
10
20
30
40
50
60 53
34 32
20 19 1611
6 3
N=272
Gaps
Marks for participation Attendance monitoring and concerns over data and
privacy “Covering the material” “Interrupting the flow” Mixed cohort groups as a barrier to use? Balancing academic buy-in vs. promoting consistency
of use
Lessons learnedWhere to from here…
What did the students say?
Worth using clickers again?
79%
9%
1%1%
Would you recommend that clickers are used with first year students again next year?
YesNo Don't knowNot answered
78%
15%
7%
Would you like to use clickers again next year?
YesNoDon't know
What would improve your experience of using clickers?
Incr
eased use
Particip
ation M
arks
Better u
se
Impro
ved tech
Train
ing fo
r sta
ff
Feedback
Don't use
Attendance
Free batte
ries
No particip
ation m
arks
01020304050607080
69
22 20 1610 7 3 2 2 1
N=272
Conclusions
Adoption of the technology is unique to the culture and context within the discipline
Experience of experts is very persuasive Staff looking for “just-in-time” support In supporting staff, need to listen to both staff and student
voices Overwhelmingly positive student feedback Need for evolving improvements in question design and
pedagogic strategies adopted Minimise technical breakdowns It’s the journey, not the destination…