Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Umeå University Library]On: 19 November 2014, At: 16:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Innovations in Education and TeachingInternationalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/riie20
New uses for a familiar technology:introducing mobile phone polling inlarge classesSusanne Voelkela & Daimark Bennetta
a School of Life Sciences, The University of Liverpool, Liverpool,UK.Published online: 27 Feb 2013.
To cite this article: Susanne Voelkel & Daimark Bennett (2014) New uses for a familiar technology:introducing mobile phone polling in large classes, Innovations in Education and TeachingInternational, 51:1, 46-58, DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2013.770267
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.770267
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
New uses for a familiar technology: introducing mobile phonepolling in large classes
Susanne Voelkel* and Daimark Bennett
School of Life Sciences, The University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
We have introduced a real-time polling system to support student engagementand feedback in four large Level 1 and 2 modules in Biological Sciences. Theaudience response system makes use of a technology that is ubiquitous andfamiliar to the students. To participate, students send text messages using theirmobile phones or send a message via their smartphone, and poll results areimmediately displayed within a Powerpoint presentation during the lecture. Inthis case study, student evaluations indicate that mobile polling has been verywell received and been of real value to students in helping them to gainincreased awareness of their strengths and weaknesses. Students also reportincreased engagement during lectures that has provided an additional incentiveto attend classes. Importantly, this innovative approach has the potential to bewidely disseminated with minimal training and technological requirements.
Keywords: mobile phone; audience response; clickers; SMS; text messages;feedback; engagement
Introduction
Feedback from the UK National Student Survey (HEFCE, 2012) indicates that moreneeds to be done to improve the student experience, particularly through betterengagement and by providing more effective feedback to enhance learning. Engage-ment has attracted a growing interest among researchers, practitioners and policymakers as a way to address common problems such as low student achievement, dis-affection and high dropout rates, as well as providing a measure of quality of highereducation institutes (Coates, 2009; Kuh, 2003). Educational research indicates thatlearning and teaching should be interactive with frequent, timely and meaningfulfeedback (Gibbs, 2010). Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006) suggested ‘seven princi-ples of good feedback practice’ including the need to clarify what is expected of thestudent, to provide the opportunity for the student to ‘close the gap between currentand desired performance’, and also to give the teacher information about the statusof the students’ learning. The authors emphasise that good feedback practice playsan important role in helping to develop the students’ capacity to self-regulate theirown performance, which is a key part of the concept of student-centred learning.
However, such interaction and feedback is often impossible to implement inlarge lecture classes with traditional, non-technology-enhanced methods. It is alsoquite difficult for the teacher to know how well students are doing, whether theyhave understood a particular concept and are ready to move on. Quick diagnostic
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 2014Vol. 51, No. 1, 46–58, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.770267
� 2013 Taylor & Francis
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
16:
59 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
tests using a ‘show of hands’ or response cards can be done (e.g. Marmolejo, Wil-der, & Bradley, 2004), but it is often difficult to gauge the response, not leastbecause students shy away from openly displaying their opinion and the potentialembarrassment of providing a wrong answer. The latter might be a particular prob-lem in-classes that include students from different cultures who are not used to con-tributing to class discussions (Beekes, 2006).
Dedicated electronic voting systems have the potential to increase studentengagement and to overcome the aforementioned problems. Although in-class audi-ence response systems are becoming increasingly commonplace (Fies & Marshall,2006), the capital costs of setting up and maintaining such voting systems can behigh, and their management, training and setup complex (King & Robinson, 2009).These considerations often prevent the widespread use of these systems. In lookingfor alternative approaches, we decided to capitalise on the high usage of mobilephones among the student population. A recent study at the University of Wolver-hampton found that 98% of students owned a mobile (Brett, 2011). Using thesefamiliar and ubiquitous devices, in combination with a Short Message Service(SMS)-based polling technology for in-class response, we aimed to enhance the stu-dent experience in large classes, to give students regular feedback and to give infor-mation to teachers about students’ progress to help shape their teaching. To date, nostudy reports the implementation of this novel technology. In this study, we thus offera case study of the use of mobile phone polling in large classes of undergraduateBiological Sciences students. Our purpose is to assess the viability of this technologyin a specific setting, drawing out initial lessons for its possible wider adoption. Here,we investigate whether students perceive the polls as valuable for their learning andwhether or not the modest costs involved prevent them from participating. As afurther indication as to whether students find the polls worthwhile, we also assess iflecture attendance increases after implementation of the technology. Finally, weanalyse possible effects on student performance as a measure of student learning.
The innovation
It was important for us to be able to carry out live audience response polling in anyclassroom with Internet access. It was also important that costs for students and setup costs are low and that the technology is easy to implement, requiring only mini-mal staff training and set up time at the start of each lecture. These conditions weremet by the Poll Everywhere (http://www.polleverywhere.com/) text-based audienceresponse system, which offers an easy-to-use interface for staff, real-time feedbackin-class and different response options (such as SMS, smartphone or Twitter).Importantly, the system allows students’ responses to multiple-choice-typequestions, as well as free text responses, to be displayed immediately within thesession on a web page or embedded within a Microsoft Office PowerPoint slide. Todisplay the poll or view results in real time, the presenting computer must have alive Internet connection. To vote, the audience needs to have a mobile phone signal(or connect to an Internet source via wi-fi, if available), but texting works reliablywith even the lowest signal levels. Poll Everywhere does not charge anyone for vot-ing on a poll, but individual wireless carriers may charge.
We implemented the technology during the 2010–2011 academic year in fourBiological Sciences theory modules on undergraduate degrees at the University ofLiverpool (Table 1). We designed suitable self-assessment questions/tasks that could
Innovations in Education and Teaching International 47
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
16:
59 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
be used for instant formative assessment to check understanding, encourage applica-tion and thinking and to enable adaptive teaching. These were then developed aspolls for PowerPoint using the online Poll Everywhere software (Figure 1). At thebeginning of each class the lecturer had to access the Internet and log into the web-site. With the website open in the background, the Powerpoint presentation thenproceeded in the normal way. Opening the poll slide at the appropriate point in thelecture, the result of the poll was displayed, showing the percentage of people whochose each option, as well as the number of participants (Figure 2).
Data collection
Student evaluation
To investigate students’ views on the new polling system, we evaluated the impactof the SMS polls via in-class or out-of-class polls using the same technology as forthe self-assessment questions. In addition, students were invited to comment on theteaching on these courses through a mature end-of-semester online questionnaire,which has nearly 100% uptake and is routinely used to evaluate all modules withinthe department. The questionnaire includes satisfaction ratings (1 = poor to 5 = out-standing) but also invites free text comments. In BIOL2B, we also used an onlinesurvey in the Virtual Learning Environment. Answers to open questions from allsurveys were examined using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
Attendance, performance and participation
Lecture attendance was monitored in the second year lectures by using hand-heldstudent card scanners. Module performance data were recorded as overall percent-age. In both first year modules and in one second year module, assessment wasexam only, whereas in BIOL2B, the module mark consisted of 60% exam and 40%continuous assessment. Poll participation data were provided through pollevery-where.com that displays the number of participants of each poll on the website.
Results
Teachers’ experiences
Setting up the poll questions prior to lectures was quick and easy, taking onlya few minutes at the beginning of lectures to access the Internet and log into the
Table 1. Use of SMS phone polls in four Biological Sciences theory modules (18 lectureseach). BIOL1A and 1B included the same group of students, whereas BIOL2A and 2Blargely comprised of a different cohort, although there were some students who took both.
Moduleno.
Yearofstudy
Classsize
No. oflectureswithphonepolls
No. ofpollsper
lecture
Type of question (%)
Conceptualunderstanding
Factualknowledge
Numerical/application
Problemsolving
BIOL1A 1 350 9 1–3 70 6 12 12BIOL1B 1 350 7 1–3 35 40 20 5BIOL2A 2 220 1 6 56 44BIOL2B 2 72 16 1–4 18 55 27
48 S. Voelkel and D. Bennett
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
16:
59 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
Polleverywhere website. Students were quick to grasp the technology and once theyhad saved the telephone number (or Internet address) polls took only a couple ofminutes until results could be displayed. The method proved to be very reliable,and problems with access only occurred occasionally when the Internet connectionfailed. By far the most challenging aspect of this technology was the design ofsuitable poll questions and the necessity to keep the lecture flexible, as poll resultssometimes highlighted the need to go back a few steps or to address misconcep-tions. Overall, the phone poll system was a lot quicker and easier to use than click-ers, but offered the same possibilities for engagement and feedback.
Students’ views
Students responded enthusiastically to the introduction of phone polls. Satisfactionratings went up in all modules on average by 7 ± 4% in comparison with the previ-ous year. Polls undertaken in three modules showed that students liked the teachingmethod: 60% said polls made the lecture more interesting, and almost 20% said
Figure 2. Powerpoint slide showing the result of the above poll question (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Powerpoint slide showing an example poll question.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International 49
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
16:
59 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
they learnt more (Figure 3). Many said they wished other lecturers would also adoptthe technique (Figure 4).
Response rates during evaluation polls were usually around 50% of the class. Itwas important to us, however, to capture the view of all students, including thosewho did not take part in the polls or were not present in the lecture. In particular,we wanted to know why a certain percentage of the class did not participate. Wetherefore used an online survey within the Virtual Learning Environment for oneYear 2 module (BIOL2B). About 86% of the class took part in this survey. Theresults show that an overwhelming majority of the respondents had a very positiveview of the SMS phone polls (Figure 5). Students did not only think the polls werefun and gave them a break, but also that the polls made them think and providedfeedback for their learning. More than 80% of the respondents said they took partin the polls most of the time or always (Figure 6). 14% of the respondents said theydid not (or not always) take part in the polls because they found it too expensive.A smaller group preferred to just think about the question, and 6% said that theydo not always have their phone with them (Figure 7).
From the text comments from the end-of-semester module evaluations, weselected only those comments that were clearly directed to the use of the phonepolls in lectures. A total of 154 comments were identified from the end-of-semesterevaluations and from the online survey in BIOL2B. The items were coded into 4major themes and 13 subthemes (Table 2).
The most frequently mentioned themes fall into the category ‘Learning process’,among which the subthemes Feedback and Engagement were most abundant. Thesecond major theme was ‘Learning experience’ which comprised comments sayingthe polls made lectures more fun and interesting. ‘Problems with technology’ wasless often mentioned, but within this theme, the cost of sending text messages wasmost frequently mentioned. The majority of complaints about costs were raisedwithin BIOL2B, whereas only one student raised the issue in BIOL1A and none inthe other two modules. Overall, very few people said they disliked the phonepolling.
Figure 3. Results of in-class SMS polls in three modules. BIOL1A, n= 110; BIOL1B,n= 95; BIOL2A, n= 120. Respondents could pick one answer only.
50 S. Voelkel and D. Bennett
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
16:
59 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
Poll participation
The phone polls show the number of respondents for each question. In those lec-tures where attendance registers were kept, the percentage of respondents was cal-culated. Response rates were usually around 50%, but varied between 20 and 75%of attendees. It was noted that participation was lowest when questions were com-plex, for example when they included calculations. In BIOL2B, participation ratesdropped from initial 76 to 53% in the last four lectures.
Figure 5. Results of an online survey in BIOL2B, n= 62. Respondents could tick as manyanswers as they liked.
Figure 4. Results of in-class SMS poll in BIOL1A, n= 110. Respondents could pick onlyone answer.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International 51
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
16:
59 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
Attendance
Attendance could only be monitored in the year two modules, because in the largeyear one classes with 350 students the attendance scanners tended to get lost. InBIOL2A, where SMS polls were used in one self-assessment lecture, attendance inthis lecture was 81% as opposed to 64% in the previous year. In BIOL 2B, where
Figure 7. Results of an online survey in BIOL2B. 20 students responded to this question,but percentages refer to all survey participants (62). Respondents had to choose one answer.Students who normally took part in the polls were advised to skip this question.
Figure 6. Results of an online survey in BIOL2B, n= 62. Respondents had to choose oneanswer.
52 S. Voelkel and D. Bennett
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
16:
59 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
polls were used throughout average attendance increased significantly from 68 ± 9%in 2009/10 to 74 ± 6% in 2010/11 (p< 0.001).
Performance
Analysis of the module results showed that student performance improved in com-parison with previous years in all four modules where polls were used (Table 3).Although the mean module mark went up by less than one per cent in the two firstyear modules, performance in the two second year modules went up significantly.Mean marks for BIOL2A and 2B were higher than the average year two marks forthis cohort and the fail rates were lower than average. The mean exam mark acrossall modules, of both year one and year two cohorts were slightly lower than in theprevious year. Therefore, the increased performance in the four study modules was
Table 2. Major themes and sub-themes identified within all free text comments.Percentages refer to the number of items that were grouped into one theme in relation to thetotal number of items (154).
Themes Sub-themes Typical phrase
Learning experience(34%)
Fun (21%) ‘Loved the text polls, they made thelectures more interesting’, ‘The polls duringthe lectures were fun’
Like (7%) ‘I liked the voting system’, ‘The textmessage thing was a really good idea’
Break (3%) ‘Text messaging broke up the lectures’Want more (4%) ‘I have missed them in the last few
lectures’Learning process(54%)
Feedback (20%) ‘The text in self-assessment was a greatway of testing how much I had understoodof the lecture’, ‘Good text service helpingus to revise and test our knowledge’
Engagement (17%) ‘Loved the interactive questions, got youthinking and kept us awake’, ‘They helpme to engage with the material rather thanpassively taking it in’
Useful (14%) ‘The text-based quiz was useful, especiallyin developing an understanding of what wehad been going through’, ‘I think they aidin understanding’
Class response (2%) ‘I pick an answer and see how my answercompares with the rest of the class whenthe results come up’
Application (1%) ‘The in-class SMS questions were veryvaluable, making me think about what thelecturer had just talked about and applyingthis knowledge’
Problems withtechnology (8%)
Cost (6%) ‘If I wasn’t on pay as you go mobile then Iwould have taken part in more surveys’
Technical problems(2%)
‘I’m not very fast with my texts sonormally by the time I’ve sent it theanswers are already up’
Dislike of approach(3%)
Don’t like (2%) ‘I hate the texting system I find it a wasteof time, disruptive and unnecessary’
Approach (1%) ‘Some of the questions were a little tooeasy and not much of a challenge’
Innovations in Education and Teaching International 53
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
16:
59 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
not simply a reflection of a higher standard of ability for the cohort under investiga-tion compared with previous years.
Discussion and conclusion
Students were overwhelmingly positive about the introduction of SMS phone polls,as shown in-class polls, satisfaction scores and surveys. Students thought the pollswere fun and a good way to break up the lecture and make it more interesting.More importantly, they perceived the phone polls as engaging, making them thinkand providing feedback on their learning. Survey comments (e.g. ‘They help me toengage with the material rather than passively taking it in’.) indicate an increasedlevel of engagement and interaction in the lectures. Increased attendance rates alsosuggest that students perceived lectures as worth going to, although the lecturematerial was available online. These views fit in well with earlier studies usinghandsets (‘clickers’), which showed that students perceived audience response sys-tems as beneficial (Smith & Cogdell, 2010). Draper and Brown (2004) found thatstudents value the sense of interactivity and that asking students questions via thehandsets made them think through the answers much more than with any otherkind of presentation. Earlier studies also confirm the positive effect on attendancerates in some studies (Smith & Cogdell, 2010), but not in all (King & Robinson,2009).
However, even though a large majority of students was in favour of the phonepolls and claimed to take part at least most of the time, the system rarely registeredmore than 75% and sometimes as few as 20% participants. This discrepancy mightbe because some students understood ‘take part’ to mean testing themselves in thelecture and not necessarily to mean responding actively with their phone. Indeed,11% of students enrolled in BIOL 2B said that they prefer to sit quietly and thinkabout the question (rather than answer actively). In addition, some students requiredmore time than was available in the lecture to complete more demanding questions.(‘My only problem with the phone polls is that I’m not very fast with my texts sonormally by the time I’ve sent it the answers are already up’). Indeed, when we
Table 3. Mean exam marks (±SD), fail rates (F, in percent) and number of candidates (n)in all four modules where phone polls were used in 2010/2011. For comparison, data fromtwo previous years are shown. AVG Year 1 and AVG Year 2 are average exam marks andfail rates from all theory modules in year one (14 modules) and year two (19 modules),respectively.
2010/2011 2009/2010 2008/2009
BIOL1A 65.2 ± 13.4(F 3.0%, n 366)
64.8 ± 13.0(F 3.1%, n 289)
63.0 ± 12.5(F 3.4%, n 357)⁄
BIOL1B 59.5 ± 13.0(F 8.0%, n 326)
59.0 ± 13.1(F 7.9%, n 305)
58.0 ± 7.4(F 5.6%, n 340)
BIOL2A 61.1 ± 14.1(F 5.8%, n 206)
53.3 ± 17.6(F 26%, n 150)⁄
55.6 ± 18.7(F 18.2%, n 176)⁄
BIOL2B 64.5 ± 14.6(F 7.8%, n 77)
57.1 ± 10.9(F 5.5%, n 91)⁄
60.2 ± 12.7(F 7.3%, n 82)
AVG Year one 61.2 ± 4.1 (F 7%) 61.4 ± 4.0 60.0 ± 9.1AVG Year two 57.3 ± 4.9 (F 13%) 57.7 ± 5.1 56.1 ± 4.8
⁄Significantly different from the 2010/2011 mean exam mark (t-test, p < 0.05).
54 S. Voelkel and D. Bennett
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
16:
59 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
compared the number of correct answers to total number of responses, we foundthat response rates went down when questions were more complex or difficult.
Another reason for the sometimes low response could have been the fact thatnot all students have ‘unlimited text’ contracts with their phone providers and there-fore have to pay for each text message.
This is supported by the online survey in BIOL2B, which indicated that 14% ofthe class did not participate because of the costs. One student said,
I find the phone polls useful and interesting – they also help me to engage with thematerial rather than passively taking it in. The instant feedback is also helpful. How-ever, the price of texting the poll number is not covered in my current plan, so I incuradditional charges when I do text in – once I realised this, I stopped texting.
This might explain why response rate dropped towards the end of the module. Inother studies where the introduction of handsets incurred costs to students, a signifi-cant number of students were also critical of cost effectiveness (Graham, Tripp,Seawright, & Joeckel, 2007). Even though the costs for a single SMS message aregenerally low (5 to 10 p), this adds up and students might feel resentful of contrib-uting more to their learning than they already pay in University fees. In this con-text, it is interesting to note that BIOL2B was the only module where a relativelyhigh number of students were worried about the costs. This might be due to the factthat first year students are more open to innovative teaching methods because theyare less set in their ways. Alternatively, it may be because a larger percentage offirst year students have smartphones (where the voting mechanism is free) as com-pared to second year students (our anecdotal evidence). Although standard messagecharges is a limitation of the SMS-based system, the latest market research revealsthat contract subscriptions, which typically include a number of ‘free texts’, wentup by 20% over the last year (Office of Communication, 2011). In addition, almosthalf of teenagers now own a smartphone (Office of Communication, 2011). Thesechanges in mobile phone usage are likely to further reduce the number of studentswho are discouraged from voting because of financial constraints.
The feedback we received suggests that even when students did not respondactively by SMS they valued the exercise as it allowed them to assess their under-standing and compare their performance to the rest of the group. As reported else-where (Graham et al., 2007), students liked to see their peers’ responses and werereassured to know that they were not alone in getting questions wrong. Studentsobviously valued the polls as a means to get feedback on their learning and under-standing. This is reflected by the fact that feedback is one of the most frequentlyaddressed subthemes in the text comments (Table 2) and is illustrated by commentssuch as ‘The text in self-assessment was a great way of testing how much I hadunderstood of the lecture’. A large group of students agreed that the polls gavethem feedback for what they learnt and helped their learning and understanding(Figure 5). Feedback is one of the most powerful influences on student learning andeffective feedback can increase students’ confidence and self-regulation (Hattie &Timperley, 2007). Importantly, the phone polls enabled us to provide instant andspecific feedback, which are considered to be important aspects of best practice(Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). The fact that not only the students themselvesbut also we as teachers were able to instantly see students’ answers provided valu-able information on how much students had understood and allowed us to adjust
Innovations in Education and Teaching International 55
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
16:
59 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
our teaching accordingly. The term ‘just in time teaching’ has been coined for asimilar teaching approach which creates a feedback loop between students’ perfor-mance in online tests prior to class and the following teaching session in whichmisconceptions are addressed and students’ knowledge and understanding are takeninto account (Marrs & Novak, 2004).
All modules in which we introduced SMS phone polls showed an increase inaverage exam results in comparison with the previous year. The increase was rela-tively small in the year one modules, but significant in both year two modules. Thiscontrasts with the study of King and Robinson (2009), which found no significanteffects on overall grades or fail rates after the introduction of audience responsesystem. We observed a 7–8% increase in exam performance for the year two mod-ules. However, a number of other teaching interventions were introduced to thesemodules: in BIOL2A, some of the lectures were made available as podcasts, and inBIOL2B, weekly online test assignments and a homework essay were introduced.Therefore, we are unable to conclude that the increased performance in second yearmodules was due to the introduction of the phone polls alone.
One area for future investigation is the impact on international students inundergraduate classrooms. This is of particular interest for us as the University ofLiverpool has formed a partnership with the Xi’an Jiaotong University in China torun a new international university (Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, XJTLU).XJTLU students can transfer to complete part of their studies in Liverpool. In Bio-logical Sciences, these students commonly join us for year two of their studies. In2010/2011, we had our first intake of XJTLU students, and as a consequence 19%of the students in BIOL2A were from our Chinese partner university. Beekes (2006)suggested that Chinese students have the view that good teaching should encourageself-study rather than participation in the classroom. In addition, they might be evenmore reluctant than European students to give answers in the class for fear of get-ting them wrong and ‘losing face’. Beekes found, however, that participation washigh after introduction of an audience response system in her class, which includeda high number of students from the Far East (ibid). She concluded that the use ofhandsets was a good way of increasing participation and engagement from studentsfrom various cultural backgrounds. This is consistent with our (anecdotal) experi-ence in this study.
Phone polls can be further developed within the classroom to instigate peer dis-cussions, as suggested by Gerace, Dufresne, and Leonard (1999). Also, text messag-ing can be used for short answer questions in and out of class or to gather feedbackand questions that the teacher can then peruse after class to address in the next ses-sion. A recent study using SMS for mainly out of class activities such as formativeassessments or short explanations of subject contents found, however, that studentsdid not perceive this approach as beneficial for their learning (Brett, 2011). It seemsthat students regard their mobile phones as personal technology and messages bytutors were often seen as an intrusion, although students did appreciate the use ofSMS for urgent administrative message such as lecture cancellations (ibid). Thesefindings suggest that the out-of-class use of SMS should be approached with somecaution.
In conclusion, we found that the introduction of a novel phone poll audienceresponse system had a positive impact on student learning and experience. Weobserved higher attendance rates and higher exam performance, although we cannotexclude the possibility that other factors contributed to these outcomes. There is
56 S. Voelkel and D. Bennett
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
16:
59 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
scope for much wider adoption of phone polling because it is cheaper and easier toimplement than traditional ‘clicker’ handsets. One limitation is the modest cost oftexting by SMS, which may discourage some students from responding. However,increasing demand for contract subscriptions and the rapid uptake of smartphonetechnology suggest this should not hinder wider use of polling in future.
AcknowledgementWe are grateful to Peter Kahn (Centre of Lifelong Learning, The University of Liverpool)for his helpful comments on this manuscript.
Notes on contributorsSusanne Voelkel has been teaching Zoology and Biochemistry at the University of Liverpoolfor 11 years. She is director of the zoology programme and has been involved in the designand development of several courses as well as in the school’s curriculum review. Hereducational research interests focus on assessment and feedback and include thedevelopment of online assessments, podcasts, audio feedback and text-based polling in largeclasses. She has completed a postgraduate Master’s in Learning and Teaching in HigherEducation at the University of Liverpool in 2011.
Daimark Bennett has been researching and teaching Molecular Genetics for the past 10 yearsat Oxford University and at the University of Liverpool. He has considerable experience inthe management and development of teaching and assessment and is currently director ofthe applied genetics programme, course coordinator and examinations officer. He hasdeveloped on-line assessment and evaluation tools and pioneered the use of text-basedpolling in large classes. His research interests include online technologies, studentengagement and graduate employability.
ReferencesBeekes, W. (2006). The “Millionaire” method for encouraging participation. Active Learning
in Higher Education, 7, 25–36.Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research
in Psychology, 3, 77–101.Brett, P. (2011). Students’ experiences and engagement with SMS for learning in higher edu-
cation. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 48, 137–147.Coates, H. (2009). Development of the Australasian survey of student engagement (AUSSE).
Higher Education, 60, 1–17.Draper, S. W., & Brown, M. I. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic
voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 81–94.Fies, C., & Marshall, J. (2006). Classroom response systems: A review of the literature.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15, 101–109.Gerace, W. J., Dufresne, R. J., & Leonard, W. J. (1999). Using technology to implement
active learning in large classes. Report No. PERG-1999#11-Nov#2-22pp. MassachusettsUSA: University of Massachusetts Physics Education Research Group.
Gibbs, G. (2010). Using assessment to support student learning. Leeds Metropolitan Univer-sity. Retrieved 21 January 2013 from http://www.leedsmet.ac.uk/staff/files/100317_36641_Formative_Assessment3Blue_WEB.pdf
Graham, C. R., Tripp, T. R., Seawright, L., & Joeckel, G. L. (2007). Empowering orcompelling reluctant participators using audience response systems. Active Learning inHigher Education, 8, 233–258.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research,77(1), 81–112.
HEFCE Higher Education Funding Council for England (2012). Teaching quality informa-tion data. Retrieved 21 January 2013 from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/lt/publici-nfo/nationalstudentsurvey/nationalstudentsurveydata/2012/
Innovations in Education and Teaching International 57
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
16:
59 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
King, S. O., & Robinson, C. L. (2009). “Pretty lights” and maths! Increasing studentengagement and enhancing learning through the use of electronic voting systems.Computers & Education, 53, 189–199.
Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarksfor effective educational practices. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35,24–32.
Marmolejo, E. K., Wilder, D. A., & Bradley, L. (2004). A preliminary analysis of the effectsof response cards on student performance and participation in an upper division univer-sity course. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 37, 405–410.
Marrs, K. A., & Novak, G. (2004). Just-in-time teaching in biology: Creating an active lear-ner classroom using the internet. Cell Biology Education, 3, 49–61.
Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Rethinking formative assessment in HE: A theo-retical model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Educa-tion, 31, 198–218.
Office of Communications (2011). Annual communications market report. Retrieved 21 Jan-uary 2013 from http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/market-data/com-munications-market-reports/cmr11/telecoms-networks/
Smith, R., & Cogdell, B. (2010). The use of handset technology in an interactive lecture set-ting enhances the learning of histology. In Effective use of IT: Guidance on practice inthe biosciences. The Higher Education Academy. Retrieved 21 January 2013 from http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/ftp/TeachingGuides/elearn/cs1.pdf
58 S. Voelkel and D. Bennett
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Um
eå U
nive
rsity
Lib
rary
] at
16:
59 1
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
