Promoting Classroom Discussion with Clickers
By Ami J. Friedman, Ph.D., MACUL Grant Recipient The Journey Begins
What began as a way to engage students while reinforcing their understanding of science content ended up being a journey of dynamic classroom discussions and energetic debates. For years, researchers and educators have touted benefits associated with using student response systems (SRS), commonly referred to as ‘clickers’. Benefits commonly espoused are increased stu- dent engagement and enhanced content knowledge (Collins, 2007; Kenwright, 2009; Ribbens, 2007). Riding this wave of encouragement, several articles and websites are now focused on classroom activities and methods that utilize SRS (Center for Research on Learning and Teaching: University of Michigan; Clyde Freeman, 2006; “Engaging Technologies: educating a new generation”).
So here I was, with a new classroom set of eInstruction clickers and a classroom full of students. We were excited to take them out and start working with them. After about two weeks of tin- kering, the kinks were worked out (the best spot for the receiver, the appropriate screen displays, answering without shouting out the answer) and we were ready to go!
Ulterior Motives
The unfamiliarity with the software prompted a slow start. At first, the clickers were simply used to take attendance. As the students and I became more comfortable with using them, new methods of implementation were used. For example, clickers were used at the beginning of class to check student retention of concepts introduced the day before. Soon SRS were used throughout the lessons to guide the direction of lectures and lessons. But I had an ulterior motive. While I aimed to improve student engagement and content knowledge, my ultimate goal was to emphasize the nature of science (or how science works).
The nature of science (NOS) is a critical component for scien- tific literacy. It is given prominence in both national and state science standards (Michigan Department of Education, 2006; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993). However, despite this prominence NOS is difficult to teach, and even more difficult to assess. As opposed to a concrete scientific concept, such as the equation of photosynthesis, NOS is ambig- uous. When exploring NOS students negotiate territory such as:
• What biases are inherent in scientists? Can scientists ever be truly objective in their endeavors?
• How does society shape science? How does science shape society?
22 |
All items listed could arguably be considered the most important factor!
promptly sat dumbfounded with what to do. They looked from one another to me and then back at one another. I just sat and waited. Finally, one brave sole asked what they were supposed to do. “Answer the question,” I replied. Again, more blank stares. A second student remarked, “But we didn’t cover this in class. You never went over this.” I reassured the students, “I know that we haven’t covered this. I want to know what you think.” One by one, students tentatively began to click in their answers, peering over at one another to see what letter their friends had picked. The students were definitely out of their comfort zone, but a great discussion took place once they saw that the results of the poll were relatively evenly distributed amongst the pos- sible choices. As students deliberated, the following questions emerged:
• What role did/does gender play in science?
• How much of science is who you know rather than what you know?
• How did they get their evidence? How much evidence did they have? How reliable was their evidence?
FALL 2012 | MACULJOURNAL
• What constitutes reliable evidence? When is evidence compromised?
• What factors should you, as a citizen, be concerned with when scientists disagree?
Thus, my ulterior motive was to utilize SRS to promote discus- sions about the nature of science to promote scientific literacy!
Making Students Uncomfortable
Students entered class one day to find the following ques- tion on the board [Slide 1]. They picked up their clickers and
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