Exploring the Use of Clickers for the Assessment of Class-Based Learning

Lloyd Leach

Background

The undergraduate students in Sport Science have traditionally not performed well academically in one of my modules, and I was hoping to address this matter by way of utilizing one of the formats we’ve learnt in the Emerging Technologies course.

Intended Outcomes

• To assess the use and/or understanding of key concepts in the module.

• To identify problem areas in the module content and to respond appropriately.

• To identify students with learning difficulties and to implement appropriate remedial action timeously.

The Challenge

• To assess students’ understanding during lectures in order to optimise contact time and student learning.

• Historically, the traditional question-and-answer method was not successful in uncovering students with learning difficulties, and was not conducive to facilitating active student participation in lectures.

Established Teaching Practice

• Essentially, a didactical learning paradigm was used in which the lecturer would present the content and students would participate intermittently by answering or asking questions and taking notes.

• Because students did not perform well academically in one of my modules, the module was under departmental review in an attempt to identify and address the problems around student throughput.

Affordances of the Technology

• Clickers affords the students the opportunity of participating more actively in lectures.

• It provides the lecturer with a means of assessing areas of the module content that may be particularly problematic.

• It affords the lecturer the opportunity of addressing students’ learning difficulties appropriately and timeously.

Literature Review

Caldwell (2007) comprehensively elaborates on the common uses of clickers as being:• To increase and manage student interaction• To assess student preparation• For formative and summative assessment• To improve awareness of student problems and

performance• To track student understanding and progress• To make lectures fun

The Intervention

• I used the clickers in a module entitled, Sport Safety, offered to the third year Sport Science students.

• Unfortunately, this was not the lecture intended for using the clickers but, because classes had ended for the semester and this session was the only one available. Also, the lecture was intended to be a revision session for students.

Lecture Outcomes

• Revision of key concepts:– Classification of sport injuries– Immediate management of sport injuries– Long-term rehabilitation of sport injuries

• Assess the impact of using clickers– Impact on the lecture– Future implications

Lecture Format

• Introduction on the use of clickers• Briefing on the intended learning outcomes• Focus on revision and identification of

problem areas• Students encouraged to indicate areas of

learning difficulty

Sample Question

CASE STUDY: UNFIT SPORT SCIENCE STUDENT

A poorly trained third year sports science student is concerned about not being as fit as her peers and decides to start training after a long absence. She chooses to go for a 10km road run in an “old”, worn-out pair of running shoes on a particularly hot, humid day that eventually causes her to develop debilitating lower leg pain the next day. While running, she also became faint, tripped and fell to the floor, while bumping her head in the process that caused her a mild concussion.

The causes or aetiology of sport injuries can be classified as:

A. PrimaryB. IntrinsicC. SecondaryD. ExtrinsicE. All of the aboveF. None of the aboveG. Don’t know

The causes or aetiology of sport injuries can be classified as:

A. Primary 6 (32%)B. Intrinsic 1 (5%)C. Secondary 1 (5%)D. Extrinsic 0E. All of the above 11 (58%)F. None of the above 0G. Don’t know 0______ 19 (100%)

The type(s) of injury(ies) sustained by the 3rd year SS student was/were the following:A. Debilitating lower leg painB. FaintingC. Bump to the headD. a, b, and c E. a and c onlyF. a and b onlyG. b and c only

The type(s) of injury(ies) sustained by the 3rd year SS student was/were the following:A. Debilitating lower leg pain 0B. Fainting 0C. Bump to the head 0D. a, b, and c 12 (64%)E. a and c only 5 (26%)F. a and b only 1 (5%)G. b and c only 1 (5%) 19 (100%)

The primary, intrinsic cause(s) of the leg pain was/were:

A. Poorly trained/unfit and running too long (10 km run)B. Old, worn-out running shoesC. Wrong mindset and long absence from trainingD. Running on the roadE. Became faintF. Tripped, fell and bumped her headG. Possible dehydrationH. Hot, humid day

The primary, intrinsic cause(s) of the leg pain was/were:

A. Poorly trained/unfit and running too long (10 km run) 16 (85%)B. Old, worn-out running shoes 1 (5%)C. Wrong mindset and long absence from training 0D. Running on the road 1 (5%)E. Became faint 0F. Tripped, fell and bumped her head 1 (5%)G. Possible dehydration 0H. Hot, humid day 0_____

19 (100%)

The primary, extrinsic cause(s) of the leg pain was/were:

A. Poorly trained/unfit and running too long (10 km run)B. Old, worn-out running shoesC. Wrong mindset and long absence from trainingD. Running on the road for 10 kmE. Became faintF. Tripped, fell and bumped her headG. Possible dehydrationH. Hot, humid day

The primary, extrinsic cause(s) of the leg pain was/were:

A. Poorly trained/unfit and running too long (10 km run) 0B. Old, worn-out running shoes 7 (36%)C. Wrong mindset and long absence from training 0D. Running on the road for 10 km 4 (21%)E. Became faint 0F. Tripped, fell and bumped her head 6 (32%)G. Possible dehydration 0H. Hot, humid day 2 (11%)

19 (100%)

AETIOLOGY MATRIXINJURY DEBILITATING LOWER LEG PAIN

CAUSES PRIMARY SECONDARY

INTRINSIC

EXTRINSIC

INJURY MILD CONCUSSION

CAUSES PRIMARY SECONDARY

INTRINSIC

EXTRINSIC

AETIOLOGY MATRIXINJURY DEBILITATING LOWER LEG PAIN

CAUSES PRIMARY SECONDARY

INTRINSIC Poorly trained/unfit and overtrained (10 km run)

Wrong mindset and long absence from training

EXTRINSIC Running on the road for 10 km Old, worn-out running shoes

INJURY MILD CONCUSSION

CAUSES PRIMARY SECONDARY

INTRINSIC Became faint Possible dehydration

EXTRINSIC Tripped, fell and bumped her head Hot, humid day

Do you think using clickers:

A. Keeps you focused for the whole lectureB. Promotes learningC. Promotes constructive student interactionD. Makes the lecture fun E. Improves your understanding of the problemF. Other

Do you think using clickers:

A. Keeps you focused for the whole lecture 1 (5%)

B. Promotes learning 2 (11%)C. Promotes constructive student interaction 1 (5%)D. Makes the lecture fun 1 (5%)E. Improves your understanding of the problem 0F. Other 14 (74%) 19 (100%)

Would you like clickers used for lectures in future?

A. YesB. NoC. Not sure

Would you like clickers used for lectures in future?

A. Yes 18 (95%)B. No 0C. Not sure 1 (5%)

Impact of Using Clickers

• Got the students attention immediately• Students became focused immediately on the

problem/case• Students became more critical of the content

and selective with their answers• Students were more likely to enter into

discussion before answering questions• It was absolutely great seeing the smiles on

students faces after the lecture

Conclusion

Because students are a lot more technological savvy, clickers has the potential to challenge them differently, but is not a “cure for all”.

Recommendations

Admittedly, students should be offered a variety of technological options to address the spread of learning needs.

References• Beatty, I.D., Gerace, W.J., Leonar, W.J. and Dufresne, R.J. (2006). Designing effective questions

for classroom response system teaching. American Journal of Physics, 74(1), 31-39.• Briggs, C.L. and Keyek-Franssen, D. (2010). Clickers and CATs: using learner response systems

for formative assessments in the classroom. Presented at the Annual ELI meeting, January, 20, 2010, Austin, Texas, USA. www.educause.edu/ero/article/clickers-and-cats-using-learner-response-systems-formative-assessments-classroom (accessed 22 April 2013).

• Caldwell, J.E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips. CBE - Life Sciences Education, 6, 9–20.

• Cutts, Q., Kennedy, G., Mitchell, C. and Draper, S. (2004). Maximizing dialogue in lectures using group response systems. Presented at the 7th IASTED International Conference on Computer and Advanced Technology in Education, August 16 – 18, 2004, Hawaii. www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~quintin/papers/cate2004.pdf (accessed 22 April 2013).

• Draper, S.W. (1998). Niche-based Success in CAL. Computer Education, 30, 5-8.• Elliot, C. (2003) Using a personal response system in economics teaching. International

Review of Economics Education, 1(1), 80-86.• Simpson, V. and Oliver, M. (2006). Using electronic voting systems in lectures.

www.ucl.ac.uk/learningtechnology/examples/ElectronicVotingSystems.pdf (accessed 22 April 2013).

• Wood, W.B. (2004). Clickers: a teaching gimmick that works. Developmental Cell, 7(6), 796-798.