Using Clickers to Engage Students and Maximize Learning

Educational research indicates that students learn better when they’re actively involved in the material. Student-response systems – also known as clickers – help educators boost student engagement and improve educational outcomes.

Clickers can be used in learner-centered teaching to prompt discussion, do practice problems, assess student preparation and understanding, and to gather students’ opinions about the course and its content. Not only will your students learn more, and at a higher cognitive level, but you’ll also have a greater ability to assess their progress.

As both class sizes and interest in learner-centered teaching grow, so does interest in student-response systems. If you’d like to bring clicker technology to your classroom or campus, or maximize the benefit from your current system, you’ll want to get a copy of Using Clickers to Engage Students and Maximize Learning.

Here’s a brief clip from the seminar:

Order the CD + transcript

During this online audio seminar, you’ll learn how clickers can take the educational pulse of even the largest lecture halls and increase student involvement. Dr. Ike Shibley, associate professor of chemistry at Penn State Berks, explains how to:

• Use clickers to deepen student engagement and enrich learning
• Use clickers in different ways, such as gathering information and prompting peer discussion
• Use clicker data to improve assessment
• Use clickers to provide today’s students with the real-time feedback they prefer
• Craft effective multiple choice clicker questions
• Explain to students how clicker technology compliments other course work.

Who Will Benefit
Clicker technology is adaptable for all disciplines and higher education institutions. Using Clickers to Engage Students and Maximize Learning is an intermediate level seminar, of particular interest to people in the following positions:

• Instructors
• Faculty
• Instructional Designers
• Course Developers
• Administrators

When you order the recording of this seminar on CD, you’ll also receive a PDF of the transcript, all for the same price as attending the seminar live.

An optional Campus Access License is available for an additional $200. It allows the purchasing institution to upload the CD of the seminar onto the institution’s password-protected internal web site for unlimited access by members of the campus community.

Order the CD + transcript

Seminar includes a discussion guide for facilitators
Participating in a Magna Online Seminar as a team can help leverage unique insights, foster collaboration, and build momentum for change. Each seminar now includes a Discussion Guide for Facilitators which provides step-by-step instructions for generating productive discussions and thoughtful reflection. You’ll also get guidelines for continuing the conversation after the event, implementing the strategies discussed, and creating a feedback loop for sharing best practices and challenges.

But clickers have come a long way since they were first introduced into the college classroom, says Saunders, while noting that today these student response systems are not only reliable and easy to use, but have become an effective instructional tool proven to improve attendance, grades, and student motivation.

For those who haven’t seen a clicker in action. It basically works like this: The instructor poses a question (often multiple choice or true/false) which is projected in the classroom. Students select their answers by clicking the appropriate button on their wireless handheld device. Software on the instructor’s computer collects the students’ answers, tabulates the responses, and displays them on the screen.

In the recent online seminar Using Clickers to Assess and Engage Student Learning, Saunders explained how clickers can be used for formative assessment and provided examples of different types of assessment questions – from recall to application to opinion surveys. He also discussed research that has uncovered a number of student and instructor benefits to using clickers.

For student, clickers have shown to improve attendance, comprehension and learning; reduce attrition; provide variety and interactivity; increase the perception that the instructor cares about their success; and reduce the anxiety of in-class questions.

Meanwhile, instructors like clickers because they improve classroom management, uncover gaps in learning, support engagement and discussion, add variety and fun to the class, and help assess if pacing matches learning needs.

After hearing about all of these benefits, it’s easy to get excited about using clickers in your class. Saunders recommends first observing a colleague who uses clickers and getting hands-on training. From there, you’ll want to consider the following best practices:

• Limit the number of clicker questions to five per class
• Use PowerPoint to prepare, manage, and display questions
• Reserve questions for specific learning outcomes and goals (What do you want to stress? What cognitive skills do you want to develop? What do you want to reinforce?)
• Allot enough time and use an on-screen timer.
• Check for ambiguity
• Create questions that support peer discussion and instruction
• Use a variety of assessment question types
• Bring index cards for students who forget their clickers
• Consider not just the answer, but the cognitive processes used

“I have no doubt you’re going to have fun with this,” Saunders concluded.

A recent qualitative study generated and analyzed responses from students in two graduate management accounting courses. Class context here was an important part of the study. In both courses the development of critical-thinking skills that apply to management situations were emphasized. Class discussion occurred mostly around case studies. “Students in these classes were told orally and in the syllabus to expect to be called on when their hands were not raised.” (p. 106) And, participation was graded in these courses. On the last day of the class students completed a questionnaire that asked what professors do or say that increases student participation and what professor do or say that increases or decreases the effectiveness of discussion. (p. 106) The questions used to solicit responses on these topics included both closed and open questions.

Responses clustered in six areas and identified a variety of faculty behaviors or characteristics that students said influenced participation and discussion.

• Required/graded participation — Students suggested that both participation and discussion were positively impacted when participation was required, when it counted for a significant part of the grade and when instructors used “cold-calling,” as in calling on students regardless of whether or not they volunteered. [This finding is different than other research highlighted in The Teaching Professor where undergraduate students reported that being allowed to volunteer motivated them to participate more. See reference below]
• Incorporating ideas and experience into discussion — Students value instructor responses that elaborate on their ideas, taking them further and applying them to course content. They also believe participation and discussion benefit when they include real-life examples and experience.
• Active facilitation — A variety of strategies were grouped in this category, including challenging students to answer more in depth, not letting people dominate the discussion, and stopping folks who are just participating for the sake of participating.
• Asking effective questions — This is related to the old adage about the quality of the questions being predictive of the quality of the answers. But there was also this student observation about a response that decreases discussion: “when a facilitator is looking for specific answers and does not consider alternative concepts.” (p. 109)
• Supportive classroom environment — The word “encourage” appears in many student comments as well as admonitions to be patient with students, giving them time to find their way to a right or better answer.
• Affirm contributions and provide constructive feedback — Recommendations here ranged from stressing how the class benefits from wrong answers to making reference subsequently to student answers or writing good student responses on the board.

The authors raise a number of interesting questions about the “cold-calling” strategy: Is it inherently undemocratic because it takes away a student’s right to choose whether or not they should participate? Or is it democratic because it equalizes the amount of participation across students? How should an instructor use the strategy? Does the approach influence students’ comfort levels, perhaps even their learning? Do different student populations respond differently to being called on?

Reference: Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J. H., and Platt, M. B. (2004). Classroom participation and discussion effectiveness: Student-generated strategies. Communication Education, 53 (1), 103-115.

Reference on volunteering from an earlier issue: Auster, C. J., and MacRone, M. (1994). The classroom as a negotiated social setting: An empirical study of the effects of faculty member’s behaviors on students’ participation. Teaching Sociology, 22 (4), 289-300.

Maryellen Weimer, PhD, professor emerita of teaching and learning at Penn State – Berks, is the editor of The Teaching Professor.

Excerpted from The Teaching Professor, Jan. 2005. To read the article in its entirety, download the FREE report Tips for Encouraging Student Participation in Classroom Discussions.

I try to add value to the feedback collected for administrative purposes with a course evaluation form tailored to the particular course. I use the same format in all my courses, and I think this approach contains some good, practical ideas that might benefit faculty, even those who already use other assessment methods to obtain student feedback.

The three-option feedback system I’ve developed is user friendly, requests connections to targeted student learning outcomes, prompts students to reflect on specific components of the course (e.g., the books used, assignments completed, etc.), and requires students to justify their evaluative decisions about those components.

The form starts with basic instructions that direct students to answer candidly, anonymously, and with as much detail as possible. The students are instructed to respond to each designated course component with one of three options: KEEP AS IS, KEEP BUT MODIFY, or REMOVE FROM THE COURSE. Each option is accompanied by an additional request: Justify why it should stay, be changed, or be removed.

The final instruction asks respondents to keep in mind the targeted student learning outcomes of the course that are provided for them directly on the form, cut and pasted from the actual syllabus. Then I list the course components about which I’m requesting feedback, leaving plenty of space between them for student responses. Typically I list such course components as each text, each substantive assignment or classifications of assignments (e.g., journal, reaction papers to books, presentations, etc.), general lecture format, discussion opportunities, course policies, and exam formats.

These feedback forms could be completed in class, but I distribute them during one class and request that they be thoroughly completed for the next class. For those students who may prefer to type their responses, I provide a Blackboard electronic form.

Students return with this supplementary feedback form completed the day they do the more general course evaluation required by the institution. I believe having already reflected on the important components of the course prepares students to complete the in-class evaluation. The supplementary form and the general course evaluation forms are collected in separate envelopes.

I have benefited from feedback that students have provided on the supplementary take-home course assessment. In 15 course sections (seven different course titles) across six semesters, I have always had at least two suggestions that led to course improvement changes. Over half of those changes were based upon sound justifications related to the student learning outcomes stated for the course.

Robert T. Brill, PhD., is an associate professor of psychology at Moravian College. He can be reached at brillr@moravian.edu.

Excerpted from Three-Option Feedback: A Strategy for Improving Course Evaluations, The Teaching Professor, June-July, 2007

After a medical leave, I returned three weeks into the new term to an introductory career-preparation course for 37 equine students. In passing the reins to me, the covering instructor said, “I don’t envy you.” Being raised in an urban area, I had hardly ever seen a horse, never mind knowing anything about the industry. In preparation, I tried to read everything I could find about the equine industry. But I knew that despite my best efforts, I would only be faking what I knew. What was I going to do? After thoughtful contemplation I realized that if I truly wanted to make the class work, I should turn my students into teachers. Instead of trying to relate to them, I decided to make them relate to me.

I came to the first class and began to ramble off names like Vygotsky, Dewey, Piaget, and other educational theorists as quickly as I could, using as many polysyllabic words as possible. As soon as I was sure I had every student confused, I stopped and asked them how they felt. They offered words such as lost, confused, angry, and overwhelmed. “Well,” I said, “that works both ways. Over the next seven weeks, I want you to take what you know about the equine industry, expand it, and then teach it to me. I want to know about your industry but you will have to teach me using plain language and terms I can understand.”

As a symbolic move, I took out a copy of the syllabus and ripped it up. “This class will not be bound by a defined agenda,” I told them. “All the assignments you will design, all the exams you will write, and you will grade yourselves.” Student response was mixed. Some were happy; they thought I’d made the course easy. Some doubted my sincerity. We then discussed the first project. I told the class their assignment was to instruct me about what they wanted to do in their field. They asked me: “How many pages does it have to be?” “Do we need to present it to the class?” “What specifically do you want to know?” I answered each question by simply saying these were their decisions to make.

That made the students angry and frustrated. They continued to grill me with questions, to which I replied, “You can do whatever you want, draw a picture, do a presentation, build a website, write a paper, I don’t care. What I do care about is that you teach me what you have learned in your research.” Two students asked if they could do a joint project because they wanted to do the same thing. I said that would be fine. They then asked if I would visit them at the horse facility, which was about a half hour away. I told them I would. That Friday at 7:45 a.m. I found myself face to face with a horse for the first time in my life. The students described how they were taking the horse for a riding lesson and why this was important. Their faces were glowing and their excitement contagious as they began to show me the horse’s jumping skills.

The next class buzzed with kinetic energy. One student said, “You actually came to the barn. No instructors from the downtown campus have ever come to the barn.” The next Friday I made a second visit, and for several hours the students showed and explained the different styles of riding. Other students gave me business plans for facilities they wished to own, others showed me videotapes of their competitions and explained the finer point of dressage.

Horse trainers lunge a horse in order to help the horse loosened up and to prepare for competition. I used this analogy for the students’ comprehensive project. Explaining to the class that in their professional careers the cover letter was the ticket into the competition and the resume was the competition itself, we began to examine the most difficult class material. We took each step slowly and methodically. Students were concerned about the high level of detail involved in the assignment. I told them, “If you lunged a horse and it made a mistake, would you kill it?” They laughed and agreed that reasoning was illogical. “Then why would I kill you? Send me your drafts, I will grade them and give them back to you. In my teaching career I always had given classes this option, but in the past at most one or two students took me up on the offer. In this class 31 of the 37 students (83 percent) submitted drafts for review. Never before had I given perfect scores on final projects; in this class I gave six.

At the last class, I was very emotional. I did not know what to say or do. Six of the students approached me at the beginning of class and asked me to become the faculty adviser for the equine club. I had protested initially, saying I was not qualified to hold such a position. “Professor Johnson” one student said, “We taught you all you need to know.”