facilitates clinical decision-making by allowing clarification of the material from the instructor providing rich feedback without fear of any harmful real-life consequences.
The use of student response systems in the classroom has been discussed widely in the literature, and was recently reviewed by Caldwell (2007). Briefly, student response systems (clickers) are small hand-held keypads that allow students to answer a multiple-choice (MC), true and false (TF) question. A receiver on the instructor’s computer collects the information, and it is displayed as a graph of the students’ responses.
Synonyms for clickers include audience response systems (ARS), personal response systems (PRS) or student response systems (SRS). These response systems consist of three parts - clickers (small remote control-like devices used by students), receivers (which receive the clickers’ signals), and a software program contained on the instructor’s computer. The clickers emit infrared signals that are picked up by a receiver and sent to the instructor’s computer.
Davenport University’s School of Health adopted TurningPoint with radiofrequency receivers as the supported clicker technology. The Turning Point Student Response system was used in a first year anatomy and physiology course in 2009 during a series of lectures. In-class questions were administered during lectures using clickers. The questions were based on material covered during the lecture. Students received points based on participation and correct answers. Attendance at the sessions ranged from 15-25 students. Questions were delivered in one of two formats. In the first, a multiple-choice single best answer or multiple best answer questions was shown, and students were given 1-2 minutes to respond individually.
RESEARCH RESULTS
As instructors we found the students voting an exciting and useful tool for activating students during lectures and this survey shows that the students were similarly excited about it. Our experiences were so positive that at present all the teachers are using voting during the lectures in basic anatomy and physiology. The main goal of a lecture is to convey information and explanations, and we think that this was achieved, as about 80% of the students felt that the lectures with the voting enhanced their learning as compared with studying on their own.
The students in our study clearly felt that the clickers enhanced their educational experience. Moreover, they said that they would consider using the clickers in their work. Our data confirmed and amplified the findings of (Miller et al., year) that learners feel more attentive when the clickers are used. Students are shown a series of options and asked to vote using their clickers, with their choices displayed as a histogram on a PowerPoint slide to the whole class. Before voting, they can consult with their neighbors. The instructor asked a few students their thoughts. After students vote, the real results are shown.
The data collected indicated that attendance jumped (85%- 90%). Additionally, students, through student evaluations, write that they greatly value the use clickers over the traditional lecture. Performance on critical-thinking questions improved
MACULJOURNAL |
and class grades also showed an increase. Using clickers promises to offset many of the criticisms that have been leveled at science teaching, especially in large enrollment science courses, as it engages students in real-world problems and challenges them to think every step of the way.
RECOMMENDATIONS
As a faculty we learned a number of tips and tricks when using clickers. Clicker questions engage student attention and participation. A common mistake is to use too many clicker questions during a class. Questions should be spaced at 10-20 minute intervals when presenting a two hour lecture. This will help to bring students back to attention. Clickers are most effective for low-stakes assessments. Finally, start and end a class with a key conceptual question such as a pre and post test question.
CONCLUSION
Regardless of what system you ultimately decide on, it does take class time to administer the questions. You’ll have to adapt or create questions related to the concepts and skills being learned. The systems lend themselves to multiple- choice format (including true/false questions) and would not be useful for open-ended questions or more creative solutions, although I’ve seen ways to capture text messages from cell phones or other devices that sound intriguing.
The clickers by themselves are not a solution to improving student learning. Much depends on the quality of questions that are presented and what the teacher and students do with the results. The clickers can be an expensive, high- tech “quiz machine” or they can be an integral part of a teacher’s strategies to improve participation, determine students’ misconceptions and misunderstandings, and adjust instruction to help all students learn.
REFERENCES
Caldwell, J. (2007). Clickers in the Large Classroom: Current Research and Best-Practice Tips. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 6, 9-20
Case, S.M., & Swanson, D.B. (2002). Constructing written test questions for the basic and clinical sciences. Philadelphia: National Board of Medical Examiners.
DeBourgh, G., (2008). Use of classroom “clickers” to promote acquisition of advanced reasoning skills. Nursing Education in Practice, 8, pp. 76-87.
EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. (2005). Seven things you should know about clickers. Retrieved June 07, 2010 at http://
net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7002.pdf
Kenwright, K. (2009). Clickers in the Classroom. TechTrends,53(1), 74-77.
Meedzan, N. & Fisher, K. (June, 2009). Clickers in Nursing Education: An Active Learning tool in the Classroom. Online Journal of Nursing Informatics (OJNI), 13, (2). Available at
http://ojni.org/13_2/Meedzan_Fisher.pdf
Royse, M., & Newton, S., (2007). How GAMING is used as an innovative strategy for nursing education. Nursing Education Perspectives, 28 (5), pp. 263-267.
Skinner, S. (2009). On Clickers, Questions, and Learning. Journal of College Science Teaching; 38(4), 20-23.
Dr. Julia VanderMolen is the Department Coordinator for Health and Science (online) at Davenport University, Grand Rapids, Michigan. This article is based on her research for quality education. She can be reached via e-mail at:
julia.vandermolen@
davenport.edu
Spring/Summmer 2011 | 29
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36