Clickers for large class teachingSupporting Academic Staffat NUI Galway, Ireland

Sharon Flynn &

Fiona Concannon

CELT, NUI Galway

Context of Higher Education in Ireland

Growth in student numbers at undergraduate level Concern about lack of student participation Poor retention of first year students (non-presence

rates of 11%), especially in Science, Agriculture and Veterinary (HEA, 2010)

Anecdotal concerns around decreased student performance at end of year exams

Clickers for Student Engagement in Large Class

Teaching

Other Irish pilot studies

In Ireland… Johnson and Lillis (2010)- UL McLoughlin (2008) – DCU Bowe & Cowan (2004) – DIT Surgenor (2010) - UCD

And beyond… Mazur, Bruff, Caldwell, Fies & Marshcall. Caldwell (2007) notes, “The reviews of the literature,

however, also agree that much of the research so far is not systematic enough to permit scientific conclusions about what causes the benefits”.

NUI Galway First Year Pilot

Distributed 762 “eInstruction cricket” devices to incoming first year undergraduate science students

Over 40 RF receivers distributed to members of academic staff

Installed software in lecture theatres

First Year Curriculum 60 ECTS, Full Time, Level 8 3 x 1 hour-long lectures and lab

practical sessions per week Core modules:

Biology Physics Mathematics Chemistry

Other modules: Biomedical Science Earth & Ocean Sciences Environmental Science Financial Maths & Economics Computer Science

How was the technology adopted?

Used in large classes

Class size varied between 100 and 300 students

Mixed variety of use in practice, depending on discipline individual lecturer organisation of teaching

within the module Not used in lab sessions

or practical sessions

Adoption of clickers for staff

Mapping the technology to the existing teaching practices

Process of transforming the underlying pedagogy to accommodate for increased interaction (whether discussion, conceptualisation or reflection)

Supporting Staff

Support and Training

Training Workshops (6) Workshops with practitioners (3) Group meetings (3) Resource website and recordings Individual support (4) In-lecture standby (9)

Training

Pre-teaching Semester 1 Semester 20

5

10

15

20

25

7

30

2

3

0

2

5

2

5

11

2

4

OtherPhysicsMedicineMathsChemistryBiology

The Reported ExperienceBy students and by academic staff

Staff

Mandatory use

Consistency of use

Attendance monitoring

Content and flowTechnical issues

Disciplinary differences

Teaching organisation and

style

49%50%

1%

Gender

MaleFemaleNot answered

N=272 (35% response rate)

Student Feedback

66%

26%

3%4%

Frequency with which clickers were brought to class by students

Every classMost classesFew classesHardly ever

Student Reported Frequency of Use in Lectures

Applied M

aths

Biolo

gy

Chemist

ry

Computin

g

Earth and O

cean Scie

nces

Math

s

Physics

050

100150200250

Greater than 80%50-80% 20-50%Less than 20%Never

N=272

What is good about using clickers?

Active Learn

ing

Mark

s for P

articip

ation

Lecture

r Feedback

Anonymity

Novel

Social

0

50

100

150

200

250192

18 15 20 3 2

N=272

What is not good about using clickers?

Disrupt l

ecture

How they are

used

Tech new to

lectu

rers

Not bein

g used

Particip

ation m

arks

Problem

s with

device

Forget d

evice

Expense

Data st

orage

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 53

34 32

20 19 1611

6 3

N=272

Gaps

Marks for participation Attendance monitoring and concerns over data and

privacy “Covering the material” “Interrupting the flow” Mixed cohort groups as a barrier to use? Balancing academic buy-in vs. promoting consistency

of use

Lessons learnedWhere to from here…

What did the students say?

Worth using clickers again?

79%

9%

1%1%

Would you recommend that clickers are used with first year students again next year?

YesNo Don't knowNot answered

78%

15%

7%

Would you like to use clickers again next year?

YesNoDon't know

What would improve your experience of using clickers?

Incr

eased use

Particip

ation M

arks

Better u

se

Impro

ved tech

Train

ing fo

r sta

ff

Feedback

Don't use

Attendance

Free batte

ries

No particip

ation m

arks

01020304050607080

69

22 20 1610 7 3 2 2 1

N=272

Conclusions

Adoption of the technology is unique to the culture and context within the discipline

Experience of experts is very persuasive Staff looking for “just-in-time” support In supporting staff, need to listen to both staff and student

voices Overwhelmingly positive student feedback Need for evolving improvements in question design and

pedagogic strategies adopted Minimise technical breakdowns It’s the journey, not the destination…