Annotated+Bibliography



Back to Reflections

Mindy Allee Annotated Bibliography EDET 650 November 29, 2011

= **Student Response Systems in the Classroom **  = The idea of engaging students during classroom instruction is nothing new. I had never heard of response cards before I started this research. These cards allow students to hold up colors, letters, or answers during instruction. This helps the teacher gauge the level of understanding and participation throughout the class. Student response systems in the classroom have been around for quite some time as well. Student response systems work in the same way as response cards, however, they are technology based. Each student holds a clicker, or a remote, during instruction. When the teacher asks a question, students can answer, without feeling shy, on their individual remotes. The data is compiled instantly right in front of the students eyes. This benefits both teachers and students. The clickers offer a motivation for students who often feel bored during class. They offer the teachers a way to formatively assess students at all points of a lesson. I also learned about the challenges that come with using a student response system in the classroom. In some instances, cheating has occurred in college level classrooms. Students feel frustrated and distracted in other classes. Finally, the time and training for new teachers to learn the technology can sometimes become an issue.  I was excited to read about some strategies and best practices for using the student response system in the classroom. One strategy I learned and experimented with was that of a questioning cycle. I asked my students a question to begin the lesson. They all responded, and we analyzed the results. I had the students lead a discussion of what they thought the answer was and why. Then I taught a mini lesson, highlighting some of the points made during the discussion. The students then completed the lesson by answering the same question again. We were all able to see great improvement.  There are many ways to use student response systems in the classroom. When I first started thinking about this technology, my only thought was a way to give quizzes. However, after much research, I have since been able to try many new techniques. Student response systems can be used as a status check during instruction, as an exit poll to close class, to assess prior knowledge, to provoke thinking, elicit a misconception, exercise a skill, build concepts, stimulate discussion, create teachable moments, predict outcomes, test capabilities, demonstrate success, and as a general review. The richness and flexibility of a response system is outstanding. It is a great way to motivate students and encourage participation for an interactive classroom environment.


 * Bartsch, R. A., & Murphy, W. (2011). Examining the Effects of an Electronic Classroom Response System on Student Engagement and Performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(1), 25-33. Retrieved from [] **

The electronic classroom response system allows students to engage in classroom instruction in an anonymous way. It is believed that these response systems improve student learning by increasing student engagement, improving student feedback, and improving instructor feedback. Students also benefit from the response system because the can participate anonymously without worrying about being right or being the center of attention. They receive immediate feedback during the lectures as well. Instructors are able to adjust teaching strategies and focus on concepts that are most needed. The article discusses a study focusing on 52 Master’s level students. The students were divided into separate lectures where they participated in class discussion and quizzes. The results showed significantly higher scores for the group who used the electronic classroom response system. This was a good study, which showed positive results for the response system; however I would like to have seen a larger number of students studied in a variety of classes. The study was also unable to detect a difference in student engagement between the two class styles. Another issue I found with this study was that the lectures were only 10 minutes long. In all my college classes, I have never participated in a 10 minute lecture.


 * Beatty, I. (2004, February 3). Transforming Student Learning with Classroom Communication Systems. EDUCAUSE: Center for Applied Research, pp. 1-13. Retrieved from [] **

Ian Beatty, of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, provides information about student response systems in this article written in 2004. She begins be describing the history of response systems. I found this interesting because the other articles I have read to this point did not address this aspect. She talks about the very first system and how they have evolved. She then goes on to describe how the systems are used. The most valuable part of the article for me was the discussion of benefits and challenges. One major challenge was the fact that instructors would need to be trained on both the technology and proper use of this technology. Teachers need to be able to adapt, be willing to improvise during instruction, experiment, and learn from failures. Students also take on a new role when teaching using student response systems. Students will now be forced to participate, which may be frustrating for lazy students. Another challenge would be for administration and support staff. With any new technology, training, troubleshooting, and glitches are always possible. Lastly, it is a challenge to make sure the new technology of student response systems will be able to be supported by the current system being used in the classrooms. Beatty finishes her article with advice for those who are using, or thinking about using, student response systems in their classrooms.


 * Beatty, I. D., & Gerace, W. J. (2009). Technology-Enhanced Formative Assessment: A Research-Based Pedagogy for Teaching Science with Classroom Response Technology. Journal Of Science Education And Technology, 18(2), 146-162. Retrieved from [] **

Ian D. Beatty and William J. Grace write an interesting article focusing not just the use of classroom response systems, but using pedagogy for technology-enhanced formative assessment (TEFA) within science instruction. This pedagogy is based on four main principles; question-driven instruction, dialogical disclosure, formative assessment, and meta-level communication. The student response system is a vital part of this process that can be utilized in all areas to help teachers improve instruction. The article spends a lot of time discussing the meaning, theoretical background, goals, and principals of TEFA. I was most interested in reading about the “Question Cycle” used with TEFA. The idea is so pose a question to the students, answer the question using the student response system, ask for justifications from students without revealing correct answer, develop student dominated discussion, provide a summary/lecture on topic, and then have students try answering question again. Interestingly, they state that the student response system is not required for this process, but does provide many benefits. A list of reasons to use the TEFA questioning cycle was also provided in the article. I think this list is valuable because they are all ways to use the student response system to better instruction.


 * Carnevale, D. (2005, June 24). Run a Class like a Game Show: 'Clickers' Keep Students Involved. The Chronicle of Higher Education . Grayslake, Illinois. Retrieved from [] **

Dan Carnevale wrote an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education: Information Technology back in 2005 discussing the impact of Clickers used in the classroom. Carnevale begins by posing a question; How do you know when the class truly gets what you’re teaching, or when you need to try a new approach? He talks about the use of student response systems that imulate popular game shows such as Who Wants to be a Millionaire. Mr. Coykendall, a biology teacher, has been using the system for two years and has noticed a significant decrease in students nodding off during instruction. His school (College of Lake County) requires students to purchase a remote and bring it to class like a textbook. The teachers use them for attendance and participation grades. He stated that some teachers have chosen not to use the new technology because “they are just stuck in their ways”. Most feedback from students was positive; however there were some students who thought the student response system was a distraction and waste of money.


 * Duncan, D. (2005). Clickers in the Classroom: How to Enhance Science Teaching Using Classroom Response Systems. San Francisco, CA: Pearson Education. Retrieved from [] **

Douglas Duncan, from the University of Colorado, wrote this book to help you get the most out of clicker use in the classroom. He describes a scenario as a teacher where a lecture is finished and no students have questions. This does not mean everyone understood what was taught. Duncan introduces a better way to increase student involvement in the classroom. When students are using the clickers, they become much more involved and class attendance also increases. The clickers are a great way to engage students not only in lecture, but in peer discussions as well. By instantly seeing a varied response of opinions, an instructor can have students discuss the topic with their neighbors. At the end of the second chapter provided, were some opinions from instructors who have used the clickers in their classrooms. One instructor stated, “Compared to conventional lectures it’s a world of difference- more engagement, better feedback in both directions, makes large classes feel much smaller.” I thought this was an interesting comment because I can see how gaining instant feedback could help identify student who need more instruction or even areas where the instructor needs to improve teaching in order to deliver content effectively.


 * Hafner, K. (2004, April 29). In Class, the Audience Weighs In. The New York Times . Retrieved from [] **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">This is a 2004 article written by Katie Hafner in the New York Times. Student response systems were just making their way into college classrooms around the country. Many who did not know the value of the response system, were very skeptic. However, educators using the system saw their classrooms come alive. A sociology professor from Indiana University stated, “I can instantly see that three-quarters of the class doesn’t get it.” The students are able to use the information we gather immediately. They found a value in not just looking at studies performed ten years ago, but from their own data of ten minutes ago. The students felt a sense of motivation and the increase in participation was evident. In a college class it is difficult to give recognition for student participation, but Wendy Tietz, an accounting professor at Kent State, said “They (student response systems) are a way to encourage teamwork and give credit for class participation.”


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Horowitz, H. Student Response Systems: Interactivity in a Classroom Environment. Thornwood, NY: IBM Corporate Education Center. Retrieved from [] **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Harold M. Horowitz is the Program Director of Educational Technology with IBM corporate headquarters. He presents a paper focusing on the application of interactive student response systems along with the benefits of using them in the classroom. He also provides a comparison of traditional and interactive classroom environments based on student reactions and retention scores. Although I could not find an exact date, I quickly noticed that this article is not very recent. The most recent date found in the references was 1987. The conclusions found from the study of traditional classrooms verses interactive classrooms were not very profound. Basically, he states that the concept of student response capabilities have shown to improve the learning process, and the concept should be explored further.


 * <span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Johnson, D., & McLeod, S. (2005). Get Answers: Using Student Response Systems to See Students' Thinking. Learning & Leading with Technology, 32(4), 18-23. Retrieved from [] **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">David Johnson and Dr. Scott McLead, from the University of Minnesota, introduce the value of student response systems. The article spotlights two institutions who have implemented student response systems within their instruction. Highwood Hills Elementary in Minnesota has used the response system for several years. They are using the response system in all grade levels and have found the students to be engaged in their learning while using the system. The great thing I noticed was the variety of activity and uses the teachers were able to utilize using the system. The second school featured was the University of Cincinnati. The system called Turning Point is introduced which allows instructors to incorporate questions within a PowerPoint and display instant results. The article concludes in stating some of the benefits of using response systems; quick feedback for students and teachers, allowing timely remediation, reducing teacher grading, promoting participation, and building classroom community.


 * <span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Kay, R. H., & Knaack, L. (2009). Exploring Individual Differences in Attitudes toward Audience Response Systems. Canadian Journal Of Learning And Technology, 35(1). Retrieved from [] **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Robin Kay and Liesel Knaack of the University of Ontario Institute of Technology completed a study to examine individual differences in attitudes toward audience response systems. They focused their study on high school students and were able to break down findings by gender, grade, subject area, computer comfort level, participation level, and type of use. Kay and Knaack found that males, students with high computer comfort levels, and students who do not actively participate in class had a much higher attitude toward audience response systems. A interesting note too, it that students had a much more positive attitude toward audience response systems when they were used for formative assessment as opposed to summative assessment. I thought this was interesting, as I have seen the results of similar attitudes in my own classroom.


 * <span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Kenwright, K. (2009). Clickers in the Classroom. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 53(1), 74-77. Retrieved from [] **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">This article is written by Kathy Kenwright, an Assistant Professor at the University of Tennessee. She explores the application of student response systems in the classroom. She stated, “The best application of clickers appears to be the immediate feedback assessment provided to the instructor and the students.” The instructor can use the clickers to assess student understanding and direct lectures to best suit the student’s needs. The students benefit because they know immediately how they are doing in the class. Also, students using clickers, can answer without feeling like they are the center of attention. The article discussed using the clickers for attendance and the possibility of students bring multiple clickers to class to record answers for friends. One complaint presented in this article about using clickers is the amount of time it takes to learn the system and set them up. Another complaint is the cost of the clickers. If the clickers are used in multiple classes, or the program actually purchases the clickers, than I feel like the expense if definitely worth it.


 * <span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Kolikant, Y., Drane, D., & Calkins, S. (2010). "Clickers" as Catalysts for Transformation of Teachers. College Teaching, 58(4), 127-135. Retrieved from [] **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Yifat Ben-David Kolikant, Denise Drane and Susanna Calkins discuss the transformation teachers need to take with their instructional strategies when implementing student response systems. The article focuses on three instructors who have transformed their learning environments to fully utilize student response systems. All three instructors choose to use the SRS because of the opportunity of more class participation and anonymous participation if desired. The immediate feedback on understanding of material and teaching process were stated as valuable reasons for implementation as well. The three teachers had to learn a balance between wanting to interact with their students and the students’ hesitation to speak out in front of the class. The teachers are able to use the information they receive immediately. If students are not getting the answers correct, the teacher knows he or she must review more. The data received from student response systems is a great asset in driving the course of instruction. Another strategy used is to encourage verbal discussion. What I liked about this section was that if the 60% of the students got the answer incorrect, they were asked to talk with a partner or group. They were then asked to answer the question again. This strategy immediately attacks any misconceptions or misunderstandings about the content.


 * <span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Morgan, R. K. (2008). Exploring the Pedagogical Effectiveness of Clickers. InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 331-36. Retrieved from [] **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Robin Morgan, Professor as Indiana University Southeast, attempts to address whether the effectiveness of clickers justifies the purchase of this technology. What I like about this article is she presents not only the positive results from studies about the use of clickers, but also the disadvantages of clicker use. She found that in larger classes, the use of the clickers is preferred by the students to have more engagement with the lecture. However, in smaller settings, some students thought the clickers were distracting from the learning of the content, and the focus seemed to be more on the technology than the material being presented. The study Morgan conducted was on a much larger scale than previous studies I have reviewed. Overall, nearly 300 students participated in this study. They were broken down into 10 classes, 5 clicker groups and 5 non-clicker groups. The 5 courses were of varied content. Student and Faculty comments varied from positive and negative at the completion of the course. Students showed no significant differences in the attrition or grades between both style of course. I think it is interesting to note that all five instructors who participated in the study have discontinued their use because of poor results. It is unknown the degree of training these teachers received in using the systems. It is possible that they did not have a good understanding of how to properly utilize the system, and therefore, experienced poor results.


 * <span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., & National Center on Effective Secondary Schools, M. I. (1990). Student Engagement: When Recitation Becomes Conversation. Retrieved from [] **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">This is a very dated article written by Martin Nystrand and Adam Gamoran of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I choose this article because it addresses a main argument I have for using student response systems, student engagement. The teachers in this study expressed that a class session should involve students and teachers asking questions equally wanting to know more. Over 1100 students were tested for this study from a varied group of schools in the Midwest. They categorized student engagement as either procedural or substantive. The results of this study are unique in that actual conversations from classrooms are dialogued. It is easy to read the dialogue and picture the classroom, and how engaged each student may have been. Teachers are the key to creating classrooms where students become engaged.


 * <span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Robertson, L. J. (2000). Twelve Tips for Using a Computerized Interactive Audience Response System. Medical Teacher, 22(3), 237-39. Retrieved from [] **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">This article, written by Lorraine Robertson, focuses on methods of teaching in medical education. At the University of Dundee, UK, students have traditionally been taught in a lecture setting where the audience plays a passive role. This passive role allows for the audience’s concentration and comprehension levels to fall. Dundee is now using a lecture technique utilizing computerized interactive audience response systems. This article by Robertson is written to provide tips on using this type of system for instruction. Tips are provided for designing your presentation and running your interactive presentation. A few of the most beneficial tips she mentioned were to practice presentation beforehand, provide clear instructions to your audience, and encourage active discussion with your audience. I have seen the most participation and engagement with my own students when I have asked them to discuss an answer with their group of partner. Robertson main focus was on medical education, however, her tips are applicable for all classrooms, large and small, that are utilizing a student response system.


 * <span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Salemi, M. K. (2009). Clickenomics: Using a Classroom Response System to Increase Student Engagement in a Large-Enrollment Principles of Economics Course. Journal Of Economic Education, 40(4), 385-404. Retrieved from [] **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Student engagement is a major challenge when talking about any large-enrollment classroom. Michael Salemi is an experience professor who has utilized classroom response systems to promote engagement within his economics course at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He has written this article to assess the benefits and costs of adopting a clicker system. Salemi taught a 425-student section of economics for two years. His need for an effective student engagement strategy is evident. He fist explains what clickers are and what educators have to say about the connection between learing, engagement, and the use of clickers. He goes on to describe educational strategies for utilizing the clickers effectively during instruction and provides evidence that the clickers have, in fact, improved his teaching of the course. Salemi concludes the article by providing a discussion of cost/benefits for using the classroom response system. Because instructors are all different, it is the instructor who must decide what works best for them.


 * <span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Shaffer, D. M., & Collura, M. J. (2009). Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Personal Response System in the Classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 36(4), 273-277. Retrieved from [] **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Dennis Shaffer and Michael Collura, of Ohio State University-Mansfield, present the results of a study to evaluate the effectiveness of electronic personal response systems in the classroom. They say that students tend to respond less to instructor questions during a lecture when asked to raise their hand. Students in four introductory psychology courses participated in this study. Three classes used clickers to answer four questions throughout the one-hour lecture. The fourth class used the raise your hand method for answering the questions. The results showed that students who used the clickers answered about 8% more correct than the hand-raising group. The study found student reactions to be very positive; more interactive, fun, interesting, and entertaining. Students also rated the lecture as more academically stimulating. I think this was a good study, but I wonder how the students would feel about the response system after using it for several months. Maybe they felt so strongly about the use because it was something new and more interesting than a regular lecture. Would this novelty wear off after being implemented for a while?


 * <span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Steer, D., McConnell, D., Gray, K., Kortz, K., & Liang, X. (2009). Analysis of Student Responses to Peer-Instruction Conceptual Questions Answered Using an Electronic Response System: Trends by Gender and Ethnicity. Science Educator, 18(2), 30-38. Retrieved from [] **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">This article introduces a teaching strategy I know as think-pair-share. In this strategy students are asked a question, and they answer using the student response system. The students then discuss the question with a peer and respond again after that discussion. This technique is proposed to improve student learning. The study this article focuses on 242 students enrolled in four earth science classes at a community college. The data received was sorted by gender and race. While interesting, I found the data presented to be a bit confusing and difficult to understand. The result statement that I found the least helpful was, “Combined analysis of all the response data suggested that there were similarities and differences in the ways that diverse populations respond when using this technology and pedagogical approach.” I did however think the finding of gender neutrality for this system was relevant and useful when determining whether to use this technology in the classroom.


 * <span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Stowell, J. R., & Nelson, J. M. (2007). Benefits of Electronic Audience Response Systems on Student Participation, Learning, and Emotion. Teaching of Psychology, 34(4), 253-258. Retrieved from [] **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">This article, written by Jeffery R. Stowell and Jason M. Nelson from Eastern Illinois University, is a study conducted with an introductory psychology class. They wanted to measure the participation, learning, and emotional changes of the students. A thirty minute psychology lecture was taught to each of the three groups. One group responded using the traditional hand-raising method. The second group used a response card system where students would hold up laminated cards to indicate their response. The third group used an electronic response system (clickers). The results of the experiment showed that the group who used the clickers had the highest participation rate. However, the hand-raising group performed better on the review questions. I think this study is interesting because even though the students participated more, their performance did not improve. I was hoping to see more results about emotion, but feel this is a difficult aspect to study.


 * <span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Stowell, J. R., Oldham, T., & Bennett, D. (2010). Using Student Response Systems ("Clickers") to Combat Conformity and Shyness. Teaching of Psychology, 37(2), 135-140. Retrieved from [] **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">In this study, written by Jeffery Stowell, Terrah Oldham, and Dan Bennett from Eastern Illinois, the level of classroom shyness is measured when answering opinion questions in the classroom. They suggest that students who may be too nervous or shy to participate in a hand-raising classroom environment, would be more likely to participate and not conform to their peers opinions if they were to use clickers. The study included 128 participants from an introductory psychology course. The findings show a greater variability in the keypad responses than the hand-raising classes. This suggests that students were likely to conform to the majority of the class when using the hand-raising method. I think using the response system for controversial questions can allow for participation from all students and lead to more honest discussions.


 * <span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">Sullivan, R. (2009). Principles for Constructing Good Clicker Questions: Going beyond Rote Learning and Stimulating Active Engagement with Course Content. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 37(3), 335-347. Retrieved from [] **

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">This article, written by Roberta Sullivan of State University of New York at Buffalo, is not like the many others that describe the benefits of using student response systems. This article’s focus is on describing tips and techniques to assist instructors in developing effective questions for their instruction. An instructor wanting to implement or improve the implementation of student response systems would greatly benefit from this article. If instructors take the time to investigate the best ways to ask questions, then they will be able to use the response system as an effective teaching tool. The article is unique in that it describes the history of classroom response systems. Bloom’s taxonomy is stated are a guide for addressing different cognitive levels when developing questions. What I really liked about the article are the multiple choice writing guidelines and best practices list for implementing the clickers in the classroom. The article provides many tips for the usage of the clickers and the best strategy for developing effective questions.