The Personal Response System:A View from the Chalkface

Dr Christopher Wiley

4 June 2009

History of the PRS

• “Classtalk” (invented 1985, commercially available in 1992)

• In the last ten years, a number of wireless products have emerged, using a number of generic names and tradenames

• The functions of these devices are broadly similar (Burnstein and Lederman, 2003)

I: Introduction

Different Names in Use for the PRS

Names

CCS (Classroom Communication System)

CRS (Classroom Response System)

PRS (Personal Response System)

Audience Response System

Electronic Voting System

Wireless Keypad Response Systems

WILD (Wireless Internet Learning Devices)

CATAALYST (Classroom Aggregation Technology for Activating and Assessing Learning and Your Students’ Thinking)

“Clickers” / “Classroom Clickers”

Tradenames

Audience Response System http://www.audienceresponse.com/

Classroom Performance System (CPS) http://www.einstruction.com/

Classtalk http://www.bedu.com/

H-ITT http://www.h-itt.com/

Qwizdom http://www.qwizdom.com/

TurningPoint http://www.turningtechnologies.com/

I: Introduction

Literature on the PRS

Many educational studies have been undertaken on the PRS.

Two important pioneers were:

• University of Harvard, ‘peer instruction’ (Mazur, 1997)

• University of Massachusetts, ‘class-wide discussion’ (Dufresne et al., 1996)

I: Introduction

Structure of this Presentation

I: Background and Introduction (10 mins)

II: Uses of PRS to Support Teaching and Learning (9 mins)

III: Student Feedback, and the Advantages of PRS to Students (10 mins)

IV: Experiences and Challenges of PRS (6 mins)

V: Discussion (10 mins)

I: Introduction

My Background

• Lecturer in Music at HE2/HE3 and Postgraduate level

• Classes of 25-40 students

• Why did I originally turn to PRS?

• Solicited quantitative and qualitative feedback from students about the PRS, throughout the 2008-9 academic year

I: Introduction

Which of the University’s Schools do you represent?

6% 0%19%

0%6%0%

25%

44%

Cass Arts Social Sciences

SEMS Law Informatics

SCHS Other

1. Cass

2. Arts

3. Social Sciences

4. SEMS

5. Law

6. Informatics

7. SCHS

8. Other

I: Introduction

Have you used PRS before as an instructor?

Yes N

o

Abst

ain

44%

0%

56%1. Yes

2. No

3. Abstain

I: Introduction

0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%

100% 0%0%0% 100% 0% 100% 29%

0%0% 100% 0%0%0%0% 71%

0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% 350%

Abstain

No

Yes

Have you used PRS before as an instructor?

Cass Arts Social Scie... SEMS Law Informatics SCHS Other

“Demographic comparison”

I: Introduction

II: USES OF PRS TO SUPPORT TEACHING AND LEARNING

(1) “Acquaintance” • Icebreakers/warm ups• Attendance roster

(2) “Content”• Testing students’ knowledge and/or understanding • Testing recall (e.g. observation of an audiovisual excerpt) • Canvassing student opinion• Providing a focus for discussion

(3) “Form”• Activation of directions for lectures (“branching”) • Module-related logistics• Facilitating the ‘reflective practitioner’ (cf. Schön, 1983, 1987)

II: Uses of PRS

Example: Testing students’ knowledge/understanding

II: Uses of PRS

Example: Testing recall/observation

II: Uses of PRS

Example: Canvassing students’ opinions

II: Uses of PRS

Example: Providing a focus for discussion

II: Uses of PRS

In what year did the composer Beethoven die?

33%

20%

47%

0%0%

A. B. C. D. E.

II: Uses of PRS

A. 1750

B. 1809

C. 1827

D. 1856

E. 1945

Example: Activating directions for the lecture

II: Uses of PRS

Example: Module logistics

II: Uses of PRS

Quantitative Feedback From City Students (1)

III: Feedback & Advantages

Quantitative Feedback From City Students (2)

III: Feedback & Advantages

Existing Studies (Positive Comments)

• Improved student engagement and interactivity

• Enhanced discussion

• Improved students’ understanding of difficult subjects

• Heightened student interest and enjoyment

• Yielded greater understanding of student difficulties on teacher's part

(from Roschelle et al., 2004, quoted in Fies and Marshall, 2006)

III: Feedback & Advantages

Existing Studies (Negative Comments)

• Necessity to invest in a handset

• Technical difficulties

• Limited contribution to the teaching and learning experience

• Disrupts the flow of the lecture

• Usage too basic (e.g. recording attendance)

• Deployed inconsistently

• Absence of feedback on polling

(from Zhu, 2008)

III: Feedback & Advantages

My “Top Three” Advantages of PRS

(1) Novelty value

(2) Provides “Points of Articulation”

(3) Anonymity

III: Feedback & Advantages

Participant Scores

5 Participant 1

5 Participant 5

5 Participant 6

5 Participant 7

5 Participant 9

5 Participant 10

5 Participant 15

III: Feedback & Advantages

Session Reports

III: Feedback & Advantages

IV: EXPERIENCES AND CHALLENGES OF PRS

(1) Logistical challenges

(2) Suitability at Higher Educational Level

(3) Formulation of Appropriate MCQs

(4) Time Matters

IV: Experiences & Challenges

(1) Logistical Challenges Posed by PRS

• IT knowledge to set up the slides

• Acquisition of handset folders

• Resolution of any technical difficulties that may emerge

• Explaining to students how to use the PRS

• Handsets going astray

IV: Experiences & Challenges

(2) Appropriateness of Use of PRS in Higher Education

• Mainly used in the UK in schools and businesses

• University of Strathclyde’s InterActive ClassRoom (1998) included the first classroom response system in Europe (Nicol and Boyle, 2003)

• University of Glasgow trialled PRS in 2001 (Draper and Brown, 2002)

• Other Universities whose use of PRS is visible include Aberdeen, Birmingham, City, Dundee, Sussex, UCL, Warwick

IV: Experiences & Challenges

(3) Formulation of Suitable Multiple-Choice Questions

Key points here include:

• Testing concepts to ensure student understanding

• Not “leading” the class through bias in questioning

IV: Experiences & Challenges

(4) Time Matters

• Preparation time to write and “programme” the questions and to integrate them within your lecture

• Pre-lecture time to distribute handsets

• Lecture (pre-task) time to explain use of the PRS

• Lecture (task) time to take polls and provide comment/discussion

• Post-lecture time to collect handsets back in again

IV: Experiences & Challenges

V: DISCUSSION

• What experiences have you had of using PRS in University contexts?

What advice can you impart?

• How have students responded to PRS?

• How have you modified your teaching in order to incorporate PRS? Is it necessary to redesign the curriculum around the technology?

• For those without experience of PRS, what are your first impressions?

V: Discussion

Bibliography• Barnett, Liz (2008), ‘Key aspects of teaching and learning in economics’, in Heather Fry, Steve Ketteridge, and Stephanie Marshall (eds.), A Handbook for

Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Enhancing Academic Practice , 3rd edn., New York: Routledge, pp. 405-23. • Beatty, Ian (2004), ‘Transforming Student Learning with Classroom Communication Systems’, ECAR Research Bulletin, 3, pp. 1-13. • Biggs, John (1999), Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does , Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education/Open

University Press; 3rd edn., 2007, with Catherine Tang. • Brenton, Sam (2008), ‘E-learning – an introduction’, in Heather Fry, Steve Ketteridge, and Stephanie Marshall (eds.), A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in

Higher Education: Enhancing Academic Practice, 3rd edn., New York: Routledge, pp. 85-98. • Burnstein, R. A., and Lederman, L. M. (2003), ‘Comparison of different commercial wireless keypad systems’, The Physics Teacher, 41, pp. 272-5. • Crouch, Catherine H. and Mazur, Eric (2001), ‘Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results’, American Association of Physics Teachers, 69:9,

pp. 970-7. • Dickens, John and Arlett, Carol (2008), ‘Key aspects of teaching and learning in engineering’, in Heather Fry, Steve Ketteridge, and Stephanie Marshall (eds.), A

Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Enhancing Academic Practice , 3rd edn., New York: Routledge, pp. 264-81. • Draper, Stephen W. and Brown, Margaret I. (2002), ‘Use of the PRS (Personal Response System) handsets at Glasgow University: Interim Evaluation Report’,

<http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/ilig/interim.html>. • Dufresne, R. J., Wenk, L., Mestre, J. P., Gerace, W. J., and Leonard, W. J. (1996), ‘Classtalk: A classroom communication system for active learning’, Journal of

Computing in Higher Education, 7, pp. 3-47. • Fagen, Adam P., Crouch, Catherine H., and Mazur, Eric (2002), ‘Peer Instruction: Results from a Range of Classrooms’, The Physics Teacher, 40, pp. 206-9. • Fies, Carmen and Marshall, Jill (2006), ‘Classroom Response Systems: A Review of the Literature’, Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15:1,

pp. 101-9. • Hake, Richard R. (1998), ‘Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics

courses’, American Journal of Physics, 66:1, pp. 64-74. • Mazur, Eric (1997), Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.• Nicol, David J. and Boyle, James T. (2003), ‘Peer instruction versus Class-wide Discussion in Large Classes: a comparison of two interaction methods in the

wired classroom’, Studies in Higher Education, 28:4, 457-73. • Roschelle, Jeremy, Penuel, William R., and Abrahamson, A. Louis (2004), ‘DRAFT Integrating Classroom Network Technology and Learning Theory to Improve

Classroom Science Learning: A Literature Synthesis’ and ‘Classroom Response and Communication Systems: Research Review and Theory’. Papers presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

• Schön, Donald A. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, London: Temple; rev. edn., Aldershot: Ashgate, 1995. • –––––––––– (1987), Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Towards a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions , San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. • Zhu, Erping (2008), ‘Teaching with Clickers’, CRLT Occasional Papers, 22, pp. 1-8.

V: Discussion