Using Mobile Phones and PDAs in Ad Hoc Audience Response Systems

This chapter investigates how to create ad hoc audience response systems using nonspecialist devices. The chapter revolves around two case studies: one involving the use of mobile phones, and the other based on PDAs. Both case studies are carried out in tertiary education institutions, showing how these devices can be used to facilitate audience participation using devices that students might, themselves, bring to lectures. Both are evaluated from the perspective of the student and the educator, using a mixture of observational and interview-based techniques.

Eight Years of Asking Questions

Eight years ago, the Department decided to embark upon a radical change to its first-year teaching. A core feature of that change was the introduction of “classroom feedback systems” in large, engineering science classes, starting with ClassTalk and then moving on to the Personal Response System. This chapter gives a brief history of the reasons for this change, which involved other, complimentary, teaching, and learning strategies, our experiences, current developments, and a look to the future, in particular, the way we would like to see the technology developing.

Audience Response Systems

Surprising to many is the knowledge that audience response systems have been in use since the 1960s. Reviewing the history of their use from the early hardwired systems to today’s computer-integrated systems provides the necessary scope to reflect on how they can best be used. Research shows that the systems have had consistent effects on motivation, and varying effects on student achievement over the years. The intent of this chapter is to consider lessons learned, consider the relation of technology and pedagogy, and to highlight elements of effective use. This chapter emphasizes the crucial role of pedagogy in determining whether audience response systems can lead to greater student achievement.

Creating a Constructed Response System to Support Active Learning

This chapter describes the design and development of a constructed response system. The classroom interaction system (CIS) is a retro-hybrid technology that recovers most of the benefits of traditional slates while overcoming many of their limitations. Using “neo-slates” (handheld computers), students create responses to instructor prompts and submit them wirelessly to the teacher. The teacher may then, anonymously, present enlarged versions of exemplary, alternative, or erroneous student-generated representations to the class to illuminate concepts, enhance discussions and support student learning. The teacher can also review the database of student responses to support assessment, reflection, and follow-up intervention. Continuing development plans are discussed.

Interactive Response Systems in Higher Education

The University of Central Lancashire (UCLAN) undertook an “interactive response system” (IRS) pilot scheme using IML Question Wizard (IML), complete with 100 handsets, during semester one of the 2004/2005 academic year. This case study will explain the scheme rationale and methodology of implementation. A number of example applications will be explored and evaluated, including IRS use by academic and support staff, as well as utilising the system at a number of conferences. The case study will conclude with a look at UCLAN’s future plans to expand the system.

Selected and Constructed Response Systems in Mathematics Classrooms

This chapter examines two types of response technologies (selected and constructed) available to support discussion and participation in the classroom, and describes our experiences using and observing them in a variety of mathematics, science, and computer science classes at various educational levels. Selected response systems (a.k.a., clickers) display multiple-choice questions, and then collect and analyze student responses, and present distribution summaries to the class. Constructed response systems allow students to use handheld computers to generate free-form graphical responses to teacher prompts using various software applications. Once completed, students submit their responses to the instructor’s computer wirelessly. The instructor may then select and anonymously project these authentic student work samples or representations to promote classroom discussion. We review the purpose, design, and features of these two types of response systems, highlight some of the issues underlying their application, discuss our experiences using them in the classroom, and make recommendations.

Evaluating Electronic Voting Systems to Enhance Student Learning

This chapter provides practical advice on the evaluation of electronic voting systems (EVSs), particularly in relation to two evaluation methods. It begins by considering two potential educational advantages of using EVSs in large-group lectures in higher education. Four evaluation questions that are commonly asked by lecturers who use EVSs are linked to these two pedagogical advantages. The main body of the chapter focuses on two methods, observation and audit trails, and shows how these can be used to innovatively evaluate the use of EVSs. The development of an observational coding schema is described, and a case study of its use in two learning contexts is presented. Practical and technical issues associated with the use of audit trails are then discussed before a second case study is presented. The two case studies presented in this chapter draw extensively on data collected in evaluations of EVS implementations at the University of Glasgow.

Practical Lessons from Four Years of Using an ARS in Every Lecture of a Large Class

This chapter explores pedagogical and logistical issues arising from the extension, using an audience response system (ARS), of an existing module based on traditional 1-hour lectures, over a period of 4 years. The principal issues involve the limited time for equipment setup; the significant time taken to present each ARS question, and hence, the need to maximise the learning gain from each question asked; the importance of considering the pedagogical rationale for using the ARS; the complexity of remediation and the acknowledgement that not all student misunderstandings highlighted by the ARS can be addressed effectively within the lecture. The chapter offers suggestions on the following aspects of ARS use: the setting up in theatres, and distribution to students of ARS equipment; a range of pedagogical rationales underpinning question design; guidelines on session format and question structure; remediation issues both within and outside the lecture context.

A Brief History of Networked Classrooms

The objective of this chapter is to explain the huge, burgeoning sense of excitement surrounding response systems, and more generally, networked classrooms today. Also why, for an idea apparently more than 40 years old, it took this long to happen! Beginning with a brief history of early response systems, it takes up the story from the author’s own experience, leading through hardware barriers, misconceptions about pedagogy, and classroom successes, to summarize the variety of uses, and how they lead to improved teaching and learning. It then discusses why this is such a potentially important area of study for improving education, and finally goes on to describe the emerging characteristics of, and rationale for, more powerful types of modern systems.

Reflections on the Use of ARS with Small Groups

Audience response systems are typically used with large groups of students, often in lecture theatre settings. This chapter reflects on 10 years of the author’s use of these systems, and provides examples illustrating the way that a variety of ARS, including a wired system and two infrared systems, have been used with small groups. In the examples outlined here, the data from the ARS was used to trigger discussion, rather than being used for multiple-choice “right or wrong” purposes. In the context of this chapter, groups of between 5 and 50 students are considered as “small” to differentiate from “large” lectures with possibly hundreds of students. Given the likely convergence of numeric keypad technology and text entry systems such as PDAs and mobile phones, the use of a larger, text-entry system is also outlined, to show how such systems can be utilized to explore course evaluation issues.