Using a Classroom Response System in an Undergraduate Educational Psychology Course

1
Neag School of Education
Using a Classroom Response System in an
Undergraduate Educational Psychology Course --
A Case Study --
Andri Ioannou Anthony R. Artino, Jr.
Cognition Instruction Program Department of
Educational Psychology
2
What is a CRS?

• Transmitters to send responses
• A receiver to collect inputs
• Computer software to collate responses and
  display results

3
How does it work?

• Keeps records of students answers

• Anonymous mode vs. named mode

4
CRS Under Different Names

• Classroom communication system
• Electronic response system
• Personal response system
• Electronic voting system
• Polling system
• Clickers
• (Fies Marshall, 2006)

5
Past Research on CRS

• ClassTalk, effective use of a CRS in physics
• Engaged students in active learning and enhanced
  classroom communication
• (Dufresne et al., 1996)
• Review of 24 selected publications on CRS
• Improved attendance and participation
• Enhanced perceptions of classroom interactivity
• (Fies Marshall, 2006)

6
Purpose of the Study

• We adopted a CRS for our educational psychology
  undergraduate course to
• Enhance interactivity
• Maintain student interest
• Provide real-time, formative feedback to students
  and instructors

7
How is Our Study Different?

• Introductory course in educational psychology
• No previous CRS studies in social science courses
• Relatively small enrollment class
• Previous CRS studies were conducted predominately
  in large enrollment courses (i.e., 70 students)

8
Method

• Participants
• N 33 undergraduates
• Majors psychology, communications, English, and
  business
• Course
• Convened for 75-minutes
• Twice per week for 16 weeks
• Predominately lecture-based

9
Method contd

• Use of CRS
• Lecture (75 minutes)
• Post a question
• multiple-choice or true-false
• Allow students to think and respond (usually lt 1
  min.)
• Display histogram and correct answer
• Hold class-wide discussion (1-2 mins.)

10
Method contd

• Four Types of Questions
• Check for understanding of concepts
• e.g., Metacognition refers to which of the
  following
• Reveal points of confusion and misconceptions
• e.g., True-False A teacher is employing
  anchored instruction any time a video is used.
• Engage students in reflective thought
• e.g., Which of the following teaching strategies
  reflects the idea of constructivism?
• Stimulate discussion around topics and ideas
• e.g., True-False As an instructor, I believe
  that promoting competition between students is an
  effective motivational strategy.

11
Method contd

• Instrumentation
• A questionnaire was administered 10 weeks after
  the CRS was introduced
• Four Constructs
• Individual interactivity/engagement
• Overall class interactivity
• Ease-of-use of the CRS
• Usefulness of the CRS
• Two individual Likert-type items
• Two open-ended questions
• (Survey modified from Siau, Sheng, Fui-Hoon
  Nah, 2006 )

12
Results

• Descriptive statistics
• 27 of 33 students responded
• Response rate 82
• 24 (89) females
• 20 (74) seniors 7 (26) juniors

13
Results contd
Subscales Statistics (N 27)
Response scale 1 (completely disagree) to 7
(completely agree)
14
Results contd
Individual items statistics (N 27)
Response scale 1 (completely disagree) to 7
(completely agree)
15
Results contd

• Qualitative Results
• Advantages of using the CRS
• Five themes emerged
• Feedback and Comprehension Monitoring
• Interactivity and Engagement
• Anonymity
• Peer Comparisons
• Increased Learning Enjoyment Attention

16
Results contd

• Qualitative Results
• Disadvantages of using the CRS
• Most students did not respond or said that they
  did not see any disadvantages
• CRS took up lecture time (n 4)
• The technology was distracting (n 2)
• The time limit for answering questions was
  stressful (n 2)

17
Discussion

• Findings are consistent with previous research
• (e.g., Duggan et al., 2007 Elliott, 2003 Fies
  Marshall, 2006 Siau et al., 2006)
• Unique affordances of CRS appear to be promising
  in helping to create a more interactive,
  student-centered classroom

18
Discussion

• From Our (Instructors) Perspective
• Kept us informed of student comprehension
• Formative assessment of all students
• Forced us to plan for good questions
• Promoted in-class participation
• Encouraged more students to speak out
• Seemed to help maintain student attention
• Particularly during last 10-15 mins. of class

19
Limitations

• Descriptive account of our experiences with CRS
• Cannot draw causal conclusions concerning the
  efficacy of CRSs in the classroom
• Findings cannot be generalized to other students,
  learning tasks, and/or learning contexts

20
Future Directions

• Plan to continue using the technology in our
  classroom
• In what ways can we use the capabilities
  affordances of media and technology to
  influence learning and other important outcomes
  for particular students, tasks, and situations?
  (Kozma, 1994, p. 18, added by us)
• For example, what are the effects of
• Presenting questions at several time-points
  during lecture
• Not always revealing the correct answer
• Providing students with more up-front practice
• Reviewing the CRS literature regarding
  effectiveness

21
Thank youQuestions?