El-Rady, Johnny

English

NSU Works

Innovate: Journal of Online EducationVolume 2Issue 4 April/May 2006 Article 65-1-2006To Click Or Not To Click: That's The QuestionJohnny El-RadyFollow this and additional works at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/innovatePart of the Education CommonsThis Article has supplementary content. View the full record on NSUWorks here:https://nsuworks.nova.edu/innovate/vol2/iss4/6This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Abraham S. Fischler College of Education at NSUWorks. It has been accepted forinclusion in Innovate: Journal of Online Education by an authorized editor of NSUWorks. For more information, please contact nsuworks@nova.edu.Recommended APA CitationEl-Rady, Johnny (2006) "To Click Or Not To Click: That's The Question," Innovate: Journal of Online Education: Vol. 2 : Iss. 4 , Article6.Available at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/innovate/vol2/iss4/6To Click Or Not To Click: That's The QuestionAll exhibits, tables and figures that have remained available have been included as additional content withtheir respective articles to be downloaded separately. Click here to return to the article page on NSUWorksand view the supplemental files.Unfortunately, not all the supplemental files have survived until 2015 and some will be missing from thearticle pages. If you are an author in Innovate and would like to have your supplemental content included,please email the NSUWorks repository administrator at nsuworks@nova.edu.This article is available in Innovate: Journal of Online Education: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/innovate/vol2/iss4/6To Click Or Not To Click: That's The Questionby Johnny El-RadyIt is not unusual in higher education these days to have classes with large enrollment. Indeed at theUniversity of South Florida (USF) (enrollment 41,000), large classes are the norm. In the eight years duringwhich I have been an instructor in the Biology Department at USF, my mid-level and lower-level classes havehad enrollments ranging from 100-300 students. This large class size generates a few problems, especially interms of engaging students in active learning. While a well-designed traditional lecture can be very effective,students can engage more directly with the material when they actively take part in their learning instead ofsimply passively receiving information. Another problem in large enrollment courses is low attendance,especially by students taking a non-major course. Since the fall of 2000, I have taught BSC 2035, a general education course for non-majors entitled Sex andToday's World. It is a three-credit course with no laboratory component, and its title is quite misleading. Fromthe very first lecture, I emphasize that BSC 2035 is a biology course dealing with human reproduction, tellingstudents, "We will discuss what good is sex, not what is good sex." Since this approach is plainly not whatmany students hope for, attendance rates plummet after the first lecture; attendance rates generally averageat about 50% over the course of a semester. While attendance is not required and while this attendance ratemay not be unusual in large enrollment classes for non-majors, it is still rather disappointing. Yet anotherproblem the course presents stems from the student composition of the class. In a typical semester, the125-150 students represent five to six colleges and 30-35 majors. About 75% of the students areunderclassmen taking their first college-level science course. The diversity of majors and levels makes iteven more difficult to engage students in an active learning environment. The students are generally reluctantto ask or respond to questions. In-class assessment is onerous, especially in the absence of a teachingassistant, so it is hard to gauge students' learning in the midst of a lecture. Consequently, the course gradehas been based on performance on three midterms (the highest two count as 50%), a mandatory final exam(40%), and a student portfolio/project (10%) due at the end of the semester.Electronic classroom voting systems present one method for overcoming the aforementioned problems.These systems are known by various names, including Audience Response System (ARS), Group ResponseSystem (GRS), Student Response System (SRS), and Personal Response System (PRS). All of thesesystems use wireless keypad technology that allows for real-time interactive student-instructorcommunication. Students use pocket-sized transmitters ("clickers") that work on infrared signals to respond toquestions that the instructor poses. Students' responses are submitted to a central server, and the results aretallied instantaneously and displayed in different graphical formats for the entire class. This type oftechnology has been used to enhance the educational experience in many disciplines, including physics(Burnstein and Lederman 2001), biology (Woods and Chiu 2003), earth sciences (Greer and Heaney 2004),pharmacy (Slain et al. 2004), and family medicine (Schackow et al. 2004). To promote a more interactiveteaching/learning experience in my class, I investigated the use of this technology in Fall 2004 and Spring2005.Integration of eInstruction's Classroom Performance System There are a number of vendors for electronic voting systems, including Classtalk Classroom CommunicationSystem (CCS), eInstruction's Classroom Performance System (CPS), Hyper-Interactive TeachingTechnology (H-ITT), and Turning Point System. I used eInstruction's CPS because the course requires aMcGraw-Hill textbook and eInstruction is a partner of McGraw-Hill Higher Education (MHHE). http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=171 1El-Rady: To Click Or Not To Click: That's The QuestionPublished by NSUWorks, 2006To prepare to integrate CPS into BSC 2035, I participated in all four hour-long online information sessionsthat MHHE offers on the CPS technology. These sessions, delivered via WebEx, cover issues such asinstalling the hardware, navigating the software, creating class content, using the grade book, and generatingreports. The use of the technology also required some front-end labor (Exhibit 1). Because I was concernedabout the added cost to students and because I needed more experience handling the system, I was hesitantto include CPS as a course requirement in the first semester, so I decided to use it for extra credit (Exhibit 2). The class had an initial enrollment of 126 students, 111 of whom remained in the course for the entiresemester. In order to set up the system, become familiar with it, allow interested students enough time toregister on CPSOnline (105 eventually did), and perform a few trial runs, I waited until Week 6 of thesemester (after Exam I) to officially launch the CPS technology. While students may have been interested inthe extra-credit, the CPS gradebook indicated that many of those students never actually used CPS in class.It is possible that because CPS was not required, these students did not take the clickers seriously. However,some students did use the clickers in class on a regular basis; a total of 60 students (about half the class)participated in at least 75% of class activities. 43 students missed only three or fewer lectures. At the end ofthe semester, 28 students (about 25%) earned the full 2.5% extra credit.Encouraged by these results and by the students' end-of-term evaluations, I decided to make CPS arequirement for the Spring 2005 course (Exhibit 3). A total of 125 students out of the 128 enrolled in thecourse registered on CPSOnline in Spring 2005. We started using CPS in Week 3 of the semester. In orderto get maximum credit, students had to keep up with the material, be there for the entire class, and participatein class activities using the clickers. At the start of every lecture, I administered a quiz based on the material from the previous lecture; thequizzes were short, typically consisting of two or three multiple choice questions. While paper quizzes taketime to collect and require a lot of time to grade, especially in large-enrollment classes, CPS technologyallows for instantaneous grading and real-time feedback. The CPS receivers collect students' answers andrelay them to a computer to display on a screen; on the screen, each student has a number that changescolor once the answer has been received, and at the end of a preset time (2-4 minutes), the answers aresummarized and displayed using different statistical formats. Such instantaneous grading offered several advantages to the students as well as to myself as the instructor.On the one hand, students no longer had to wait for a few days to get their quiz results. On the other hand,they could no longer afford to wait for the last day(s) to study for the exam; CPS quizzes encouragedstudents to keep up with the material on a very regular basis. Moreover, because the CPS software allowedstudent response scores to be automatically recorded into the gradebook (Exhibit 4) while also generatingcomprehensive grade reports for particular activities (Exhibit 5), class assessment for these activities becamea much less burdensome process.I also used CPS during lecture by posing class participation questions to test students' comprehension of thekey concepts/principles I had just presented to them. I encouraged students to form groups of two or three togo over each question, gave them enough time for consultation, and then asked them to submit theirresponses individually. I then went over the results with them. On occasion, I used Peer Instruction (PI), atechnique developed by Eric Mazur (1997), by requiring students to answer the question first withoutdiscussion and then again after a short period of group discussion with their peers. This activity engagesstudents directly in teaching and learning. The class participation questions provided me with a way to gaugeinstantaneously whether the students understood the topic at hand; in turn, the distribution of studentresponses to some questions prompted further exploration of potential misconceptions and allowed fordiscussion of one or more follow-up questions. This approach promoted interactivity and discussion in classas well as active engagement in peer learning and teaching. Because I posed these questions at 20-30minute intervals throughout the 75 minute class period, this approach also provided timely breaks from theroutine of lecture.http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=171 2Innovate: Journal of Online Education, Vol. 2, Iss. 4 [2006], Art. 6https://nsuworks.nova.edu/innovate/vol2/iss4/6At the very end of the lecture, I took attendance in order to reward those students who stayed until the end.Before CPS, attendance in the class averaged about 50% throughout the semester. In the Spring 2005semester, the lowest attendance rate was 65% (in the lecture following Exam III) and the mean attendancewas about 85%. Of course, mere attendance does not necessarily equal learning. However, the highattendance rate coupled with the quizzes and class participation activities did provide the means forenhanced learning.Quantitative DataThe average on Exam I in Fall 2004 was approximately 61%. Students are not allowed to keep the exam, andI have many fail-safe mechanisms to ensure that they do not. In Spring 2005, I administered the exact sameExam I to a class of about the same size with roughly the same distribution of student major/level. Theaverage was approximately 71%.In order to determine if any significant difference existed between the two Exam I grades, I performedstatistical analysis on the data using SigmaStat software version 3.1. The significant level for all tests was setat p=0.05. The normality test failed, so I used a Mann-Whitney Rank Sum Test to analyze the untransformeddata; in addition, I reran a T-test with square-root transformed data. Both tests revealed that the difference inexam scores between the two semesters was significant (p=<0.001) (Exhibit 6). Encouraged by these results, I decided to administer all of the exact same exams from my Fall 2004 class tomy Spring 2005 students. The average improvement was about 5 percentage points from Fall 2004 to Spring2005 (Exhibit 7). These results suggest that electronic classroom voting systems improve student retention ofcourse material.Evaluation of CPSIn order to get feedback about CPS, I administered a survey in which I asked students to complete thefollowing two sentence stems:• The best thing about CPS is…• The worst thing about CPS is…I gave this survey at the end of the fall semester, and right after Exam I in the spring semester. Studentssubmitted a total of 139 responses, the vast majority of which were anonymous (Exhibits 8, 9, 10, and 11). While students generally praised the CPS system, I would first like to address their most significantcomplaint. A tally of the results revealed that about 55% of the students complained about some aspect ofsignal reception. The keypads we used in BSC 2035 operated by infrared (IF) technology, which requiredunobstructed line-of-sight communication between transmitter and receiver (just like a television remote).Moreover, the technology was limited to a maximum ratio of transmitters to receivers, which, according toeInstruction, ranges from 90:1 to 100:1. These limitations caused the most significant problem in my use ofCPS technology—a bottleneck effect in which too many students tried to send a signal at the same time.Initially, the classroom contained only two receivers. After the survey was conducted in the spring, anotherreceiver was installed in the room, dramatically improving reception. A newer version of the CPS keypads will further solve this bottleneck problem. These keypads utilize radiofrequency (RF) technology, which relies on radio transmissions and thus eliminates the need for line-of-sightcommunication. In addition, the RF technology can support classrooms with as many as 1,000 students withjust a single receiver unit. However, the RF technology costs more than the IF technology ($15 versus $4),and students indicated that the IF keypads and activation fees were expensive. Hopefully, eInstruction will beable to provide a solution that balances cost and signal reliability. http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=171 3El-Rady: To Click Or Not To Click: That's The QuestionPublished by NSUWorks, 2006In addition to these challenges, classroom voting systems in general pose several potential disadvantages fortraditional instruction. Like any technology, classroom voting systems are subject to both hardware andsoftware problems. The CPS software is rather straightforward and eInstruction's customer support isgenerally prompt and very good; however, even in the absence of system malfunctions, it takes some time foran instructor to learn how to use the system. Likewise, it takes time to develop questions that are conceptual,challenging, and discussion-stimulating, and it takes additional time to load those questions into the system (Exhibit 12). Moreover, voting activities take time from traditional lectures. On average, a good conceptualmultiple-choice question will consume anywhere from three to eight minutes. Thus, questions should be usedsparingly to highlight certain points.Despite these potential problems, I believe that the advantages of using electronic classroom voting systemsfar outweigh the disadvantages. For teachers, the technology provides a very fast way to take attendanceand an efficient way to learn about course content and style. More importantly, classroom voting systemsprovide a real-time assessment of material that students are failing to grasp, thereby allowing teachers toconcentrate on these "problem areas."ConclusionFor students, the electronic classroom voting technology enhances the learning experience. In addition toencouraging attendance, classroom voting systems motivate students to stay focused; in any given lecture,students may be expected to discuss important concepts or principles with their peers and to answerquestions accordingly. Moreover, voting systems increase students' interest in course activities. Using theclickers is fun and addictive, allowing students to push buttons and compare themselves to the rest of theclass. Through the use of such systems, a class becomes less formal and the atmosphere much morestudent-centered. Most importantly, voting systems promote interaction and active learning. Instead ofinformation merely passing from the instructor to students, students teach and learn from each other, andteachers can use the class response to generate further discussion. Because individual responses areposted anonymously, the technology is also quite effective for sensitive topics, such as those dealing withethics.Indeed, qualitative survey responses from students have generally praised the system (Exhibit 13). Althougha quantitative assessment of learning as a consequence of electronic classroom voting technology may bedifficult, it is certainly desirable. The results of my comparison of "pre-CPS" and "post-CPS" exam grades areencouraging. However, student satisfaction alone may be reason enough to use this system in class. Furtherstudies with control groups may be warranted, but I strongly endorse this technology as an effective tool topromote student engagement and active learning.[This article was modified from a keynote presentation at the Symposium on 21st Century TeachingTechnologies: A Continuing Series of Explorations in Tampa, FL, March 2005.]ReferencesBurnstein, R. E., and L. M. Lederman. 2001. Using wireless keypads in lecture classes. The Physics Teacher39:8-11.Greer, L., and P. J. Heaney. 2004. Real-time analysis of student comprehension: An assessment ofelectronic student response technology in an introductory earth science course. Journal of GeoscienceEducation 52 (4): 345-351.Mazur, E. 1997. Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Schackow, T. E., M. Chavez, L. Loya, and M. Friedman. 2004. Audience response system: Effect on learningin family medicine residents. Family Medicine 36 (7): 496-504.http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=171 4Innovate: Journal of Online Education, Vol. 2, Iss. 4 [2006], Art. 6https://nsuworks.nova.edu/innovate/vol2/iss4/6Slain, D., M. Abate, B. M. Hodges, M. K. Stamatakis, and S. Wolak. 2004. An interactive response system topromote active learning in the doctor of pharmacy curriculum. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education68 (5): 1-9. Woods, H. A., and C. Chiu. 2003. Wireless response technology in college classrooms. The TechnologySource, September/October.http://technologysource.org/article/wireless_response_technology_in_college_classrooms/ (accessed March31, 2006).COPYRIGHT AND CITATION INFORMATION FOR THIS ARTICLEThis article may be reproduced and distributed for educational purposes if the following attribution is included in the document:  Note: This article was originally published in Innovate (http://www.innovateonline.info/) as: El-Rady, J. 2006. To click or not to click:That's The Question. Innovate 2 (4). http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=171 (accessed April 24, 2008). Thearticle is reprinted here with permission of the publisher, The Fischler School of Education and Human Services at Nova SoutheasternUniversity.To find related articles, view the webcast, or comment publically on this article in the discussion forums, please goto http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=171  and select the appropriate function from thesidebar. http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=171 5El-Rady: To Click Or Not To Click: That's The QuestionPublished by NSUWorks, 2006

To Click Or Not To Click: That\u27s The Question

https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1139&amp;context=innovate

To Click Or Not To Click: That\u27s The Question

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NSU Works