Tracking a pilot project at the University of Bath
Created by nrparmar on 30/09/2008
Last updated: 26/03/10 at 19:41
Audience Response System (ARS) has no followers yet. Be the first one to follow.
Earlier today, and as part of Innovations in Learning and Teaching Week 2010, I ran a two hour session whiced introduced a range of tools available at the university to enable you to support and enhance the learner experience using classroom feedback technologies. In particular, the use of the institutional Audience Response System (ARS).
The session focused on introducing this technology, gaining experience of using it and thinking about how you might use it in your teaching. The slides used appear below.
If you’d like further information about the ARS, or would like to use it to support your learning and teaching related activities, please contact Nitin Parmar, the ARS Project Lead, at: e-learning@bath.ac.uk.
http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/ars/2010/02/25/iltw2010-e-learning-taster-session/
Background
Eric Mazur, Professor of Physics and Applied Physics at Harvard University, developed some years ago what is now commonly known as Mazur’s Peer Instruction course, through administering ConcepTests.
Mazur’s Peer Instruction course, whilst not necessarily revolving around a method of teaching which involves the use of an ARS, is grounded in the psychology of how peers aid learning. The process “involves students in their own learning during lecture and focuses their attention on underlying concepts” [further information].
Mazur’s approach, grounded in his teaching of Mechanics, addressed a long researched principle weakness of his particular subject matter. By following a straightforward path, whereby students were encouraged to work individually and with peers to find a particular answer, students were assessed twice and given feedback n times in a given sequence.
Nicol and Boyle (2003) have written on the nature of Mazur’s peer instruction course versus discussion based activities in large classrooms. The concluded the the type of dialogue and discussion sequence that takes is vital in relation to the effect on students’ learning. Crouch and Mazur (2001) showed that after peer discussion, the number of students giving correct answers to a concept re-test (prior to any teacher feedback) was higher than first time around. They go on to say that peer discussion is critical to the success of peer instruction.
How might peer instruction influence the design of (my) ARS activities?
A number of initiatives involving both the Learning and Teaching Enhancement Office and the Students’ Union have focused on improving the amount of feedback that students receive during units of study. This might be audio and/or written feedback on coursework, or feedback to students’ within a face-to-face context. A range of tools available at the university to enable lecturers to support and enhance the learner experience using classroom feedback technologies, such as the ARS.
Mazur’s peer instruction sequence not only supports the process of giving feedback to students, but also encourages interaction between students within the lecture context, and reflection on the answers to given to multiple choice questions. In turn, this promotes the processes of active learning and engagement by students, and of making lectures more interactive.
An adaptation of Mazur’s peer instruction course has already been used by Prof. James Davenport from the Department of Computer Science, who has used the ConcepTests principle to assess students’ understanding of key Networking related concepts. Students were asked multiple-choice questions individually, and then following peer discussion, answer the question again as a group.
Individual responses
Group responses
As demonstrated by the two TurningPoint-based PowerPoint slides above, responses before and after peer discussion is different. The correct answer (D) appears with most votes on both occasions, but what the process allows the lecture to do is (1) identify through the first slide that more students (58%) chose the incorrect answer than the correct one, and (2) following group discussion, where presumably students’ may have had to convince each other of the correct answer, some misconceptions were addressed. Following the second round of votes, the lecturer gave feedback and explained why D was the correct answer and addressed any further misconceptions. Further (verbal) questions were taken from students were taken at this point too.
Where can I find out more?
There a number of sessions during Innovations in Learning and Teaching Week 2010 this week, which involve the Audience Response System (ARS). For example, one of last years’ successful Dragons Den projects, led by Alan Hayes from the Department of Computer Science, explored and evaluated the use of ARS in learning and teaching and will be discussed at the launch event today.
e-Learning Taster Session 2 on Thursday 25 February 2010 will focus on introducing ARS , gaining experience of using the technologies and thinking about how you might use them in your teaching. A further discussion of this blog post will take place then, and the presenters will be on hand to answer any questions about the the TurningPoint software and hardware, as well as the pedagogical influences on the design on ARS questions. To book a place on the session, please send an email to acdev@bath.ac.uk
References
Crouch, C.H. and Mazur, E. (2001), “Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results”, American Journal of Physics, vol.69, no. 9, pp.970-977 [pdf copy] [Empirical evidence of improved exam pass rates.]
Nicol, D.J. and Boyle, J.T (2003) Peer Instruction versus Class-wide Discussion in Large Classes: acomparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom, Studies in Higher Education Volume 28, No. 4, October 2003 [pdf copy].
http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/ars/2010/02/22/what-is-the-mazur-peer-instruction-course/
My colleague Rania Naguib from the Department of Economics posted a session report last month about her use of a new TurningPoint product, ResponseWare Web.
I am delighted to say that a user guide for this software is now available for downoad via the Resources section of this blog. Many thanks to Dr Siân Lindsay from the Learning Development Centre at City University London for her fine work in producing the first version of the guide.
If you’d like further information about ResponseWare or would like to use the Audience Response System (ARS) to support your work learning and teaching related activities, please contact Nitin Parmar, the ARS Project Lead, at: e-learning@bath.ac.uk.
http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/ars/2010/02/17/responseware-web-guide-now-available/
Unit: Thesis-writing, copyright and plagiarism
Department/School: Department of Chemistry
Level: Research postgraduate
Session devised and led by: Trevor Day, Royal Literary Fund Fellow, at the request of Bridgette Duncombe, Chemistry Teaching Fellow
Keywords [pedagogical]: group teaching, workshop
Keywords [technical]: audience response systems, ars
Background
Aims and objectives of the workshop
The learning outcomes for the 2-hour workshop were that by the end of the session participants should:
have become aware of positive views of academic practice in relation to plagiarism, which uphold the best traditions of rigour, honesty and protection of intellectual property
be able to distinguish between plagiarised and non-plagiarised paraphrasing of source material
be aware of at least five working methods for successfully avoiding plagiarism and to have practised at least two
know how and when to obtain necessary permissions to avoid copyright infringement
What actually took place?
Most of the 18 students, having worked with Bridgette Duncombe, were familiar with using clickers. The clickers were distributed at the beginning of the workshop and were tested by students responding to a question about their favourite season(s) of the year. The clickers were then used at three points in the session:
For students, working in pairs, to respond to whether paraphrased versions of an original were: appropriately paraphrased, plagiarised, or borderline.
Working independently, to respond to whether a paraphrased version of an original was: appropriately paraphrased, plagiarised, or borderline.
Working independently, to choose which one of four options was an incorrect description of copyright.
The use of clickers complemented other interactive question-and-answer elements in the session such as ‘Why do you think students plagiarise?’
What was the role of the technology? What did the technology add?
Having previously used ‘straw polls’ in workshops, where participants raised their hand to give their chosen response to a question, I was aware that peer pressure can influence response. Using clickers should remove or lessen such peer influence while gathering summary data that could be saved and reviewed later. It was also anticipated that the devices might add a technological ‘fun’ element to the workshop
In two of three instances the clickers were used to gather responses after students’ had critiqued written material. In the third instance they were used to test students’ understanding of a concept before they explored it further.
Outcomes
Were the learning outcomes met?
Judging by positive responses in a feedback questionnaire, by and large they were. The meeting of learning outcomes was not tested formally. The use of clickers did meet our expectations.
How did the students find it?
The students had little or no problems using the technology. In feedback questionnaires, many students specifically mentioned the value of the interactive exercises, including those that employed the clickers.
Were there any unexpected outcomes?
The students increased their ease and facility in using the clickers over the time of the workshop. Participants’ answers revealed that they had a higher accuracy when working in pairs rather than singly and that a substantial proportion had relatively poor understanding of copyright before this concept was covered in detail during the session.
What tips do you have for others?
It is advisable to use multiple-choice questions sparingly so that they complement other activities you are using. When using the Turning Point clicker system for the first time, keep the questions simple and test in advance to make sure that the computer and room are properly set up. In a ‘dry run’ we discovered that Turning Point did not work properly with my Apple Mac laptop’s operating system version. We also found out that Turning Point was not installed in the seminar room’s computer. Chemistry’s IT support officer Mark Russell carried out the software installation in the room’s computer and helpfully answered our questions.
http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/ars/2010/01/25/session-report-thesis-writing-copyright-and-plagiarism/
Unit: ES10009 Research and Computing Skills
Department: Economics
Level: Undergraduate
Tutor: Rania Naguib
Session Type: 2 hour lecture
Group Size: 27 students
Background
Aims and Objectives of the Lecture
The session was designed specifically for revision. The unit aims at developing the students’ skills in the use of Microsoft Excel in conducting economic research and models. Examples of topics covered are data description, data analysis, graphs, correlation and regression analysis. The aim was to test the students’ understanding of the main statistical and econometric concepts covered during the term and to prepare them for the end-of-term exam. The questions were designed as True or False and as MCQs and they were designed using the TurningPoint 2008 software. Given that the lectures take place in a computer room, it was a good opportunity to try using ResponseWare instead of the traditional clickers.
How was the lecture planned?
The PowerPoint slides were designed where the students were should a question followed by options (i.e. True or False, or Multiple Choice). As soon as all students submit their answers, I closed the poll, and then a column chart of the percentage of different answers appeared to the students and a correct answer indicator appeared next to the correct answer. Each student could then check whether s/he had answered correctly or not. If I noticed that the majority of the answers were wrong, I briefly went through the concept of the underlying topic and drew their attention to the lecture/ topic that this question is related to so that they go back and revise it well. The questions covered the whole syllabus in no particular order (i.e. you could not say that Q1 -4 was on topic 1, while Q 5-8 are on topic 2). The reason is that I intentionally would have a question that tests the same concept but phrased differently and comes few questions later than the first question. My aim was to test whether the students have really understood the concept that they can answer the question if the relationship questioned is reversed or set in a more indirect sequence.
Outcomes
Were the objectives met?
I believe that running this session helped in testing the students understanding of the topics covered. Moreover, because the questions were designed to focus more on the relevant parts that the exam will be covering (although this was not known to the students prior to the session and the exam questions are not set in the form of MCQs), it helped in drawing their attention to the specific parts they will really need to revise and understand to pass the exam.
The repetition of some questions in different format and to test a reversed relationship was really useful. For example I had about 5 questions to test their understanding of the skewness of data that were scattered through the revision session. When they answered the first question wrong, I explained to them why it is wrong, briefly explained the concept of skewness, and gave an example on positive skewness. When a question on the same topic was repeated but asking about the properties of a negative skewness, some got it write, while others still got it wrong. I re-iterated the concept. By the time, we reached to the fifth question, 100% chose the right answer. So, it was a useful illustration to the students (and an evidence to me) of their learning curve.
How did the students find it?
The students really enjoyed the experience using this technology. Some were actually cheering when they find that they get the right answer (I could feel that their confidence was increasing as we go on!). I had advised them at the beginning of the session to have a piece of paper ready to note which questions they got wrong and which in turn would give an indication as to which topics they would need to revisit when they got an answer wrong. A number of the students took notes during the session and some of them would ask more questions for clarification.
At the end of the session, I asked them about their opinion on the session, they all said that they enjoyed it and that it was very useful for them and the technology was very easy, apart from very few glitches (mentioned below). However, they did not think that these glitches would deter them from using this technology again. Some students even expressed that they wish there would be a report on how each student did or scored per topic covered so that they can have a quantitative measure on how they have performed.
Were there any unexpected outcomes?
Although overall the outcome of the session was positive, there were some few observations and glitches that I was not aware of prior to the session:
Apparently the default definition for participants is set as “Auto” rather than “Anonymous”. So, after the students entered the Session ID on the ResponseWare website, they were asked for their first and last name and user data. It seemed that the students did not mind that because they just entered their names and asked me what a “user data” means, so I told them to just enter their BUCS username in that field. In the class, this does not affect anonymity because there are no names displayed on their monitors or on the projector next to their answers. The only difference is that when the lecturer runs the reports later on, he can produce a report with the answers and score for each student. In that case, I believe, a request for scores or performance which was proposed by one of the students as mentioned earlier can be met.
On the web interface, the correct answer indicator does not appear to the students after the poll is closed. They have a bar chart showing the percentages of answers for each just as it shows on the projector (although with slight difference in layout), but if they need to know what the correct answer is, they will need to look at the displayed slide on the projector.
For slides that included images (e.g. tables or figures that were copied from Excel or Word) or text box, these images do not appear on the web interface. The students only saw the first part of the question which is in text, but not the tables.
Some formatting does not project correctly on the web interface. For example, I had some questions which included mathematical expressions that are raised to powers. On the PowerPoint slide and on the projector the power appeared as superscript as usual. However, to the students on the web, the power appeared as multiplied by the mathematical expression rather than being superscripted. That caused a little bit of the confusion to the students. I then draw their attention to the projector to explain how that item should have been displayed.
Tips for potential users
I believe that the use of ResponseWare is very easy and useful to be used for many purposes. On one hand, it saves the lecturer the trouble on ensuring that all the clickers have been collected at the end of the session. Moreover, in large groups, if you do not have enough clickers, then you can use both the clickers and ResponseWare as some students can log on and participate in the session via their laptops or even the mobile phones (if they are able to connect to the campus wide Wireless Network).
Be ready that some of the formatting may not appear correctly on the web or parts of the question (e.g. tables and figures) will not appear on the web, hence you have to make sure that the students check the projector as well as their screens.
If you want to ensure anonymity, make sure to change the setting of participants from “auto” to “Anonymous”. In that case, when the students log onto RW poll website, they will be only asked to enter the session ID and nothing else.
In terms for the students’ request for a report on their score per each topic, I think this could have been done if the questions were arranged in order per topic so that when a report is run from within the Turning Point software, some scores can be calculated. However, that depends on what you want to test or get from your session. Furthermore, if students want to know their individual scores, then you will have to run the session without anonymity, which many believe that it eradicate one of the most important advantages of the Audience Response System. If what you want is to give some sort of feedback or practice with scores for performance, then there are other software that can be used for that purpose such as eXe or via using the Moodle Quiz activity. (Further information about eXe can be found on the e-Learning Authoring Tools blog.)
http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/ars/2010/01/04/session-report-using-responseware-in-an-economics-unit/
To complement our current TurningPoint RF ResponseCards (or ‘clickers’), the e-Learning team are soon going to be piloting a new solution from TurningPoint, ResponseWare.
With ResponseWare, lecturers can present a question during lectures and have students respond in real-time using a Wi-Fi or data connection. ResponseWare instantly transfers their selection for immediate assessment.
Additionally, ResponseWare can be used seamlessly in mixed environments alongside traditional ResponseCards. ResponseWare can also be used in computer lab sessions for a range of purposes, including formative assessment and evaluation.
Further information about ResponseWare can be found on the TurningTechnologies website at: http://bit.ly/8ALt1r. If you’d like further information about ResponseWare or would like to use it to support your work learning and teaching related activities, please contact Nitin Parmar, the ARS Project Lead, at: e-learning@bath.ac.uk.
What is ResponseWare?
http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/ars/2009/12/24/what-is-responseware/
http://www.banxia.com/training/interwrite-user-meeting2009.html
Introduction
The aim of this How To guide is to give an outline of the Reports utility within the TurningPoint 2008 application. The Reports utility allows users to generate and view a range of reports based on the responses received during a TurningPoint ARS session. These are available within both Word documents and Excel worksheets, and contains data and information about questions, answers, participants and responses gathered during your session.
Why should I use Turning Reports?
“Turning Reports displays a hierarchical menu of reports organised by category, such as Results by Question Reports and Demographic Reports. If you click on one of these categories, the Turning Reports screen displays subheadings of specific report titles, and shows samples of each selected report. Thirty-one reports are available for reporting on the entire audience, by individual participants, by groups, by standards, and on the basis of demographics. If you have specified correct answers or point values, you can “grade” participants and groups, verify that standards are met, and provide valuable feedback to participants.” – TurningPoint 2008 User Guide for Office 2003 [download PDF ].
If you are using the ARS to support undergraduate or postgraduate units, or for staff development sessions, you may wish to upload the generated Excel worksheet into the corresponding Moodle course.
How can I get to it?
On staff Windows-based PCs, Turning Reports is available at: Start > (All) Programs > Turning Technologies, LLC > TurningPoint 2008 > Reports
On BUCS PCs, Turning Reports is available at: Start > (All) Programs > Departments > e-Learning > TurningPoint 2008 > Reports
What next?
Before you proceed, you must have saved your TurningPoint 2008 session using the Save button, on the TurningPoint toolbar. This is, rather than, or as well as, clicking Save (or File > Save/Save As…) within PowerPoint 2003.
Once the Turning Reports utility has opened, select the Sessions tab and then locate your ARS session. If it is not displayed in the list, click on the Open link to locate it. The file should have a .tpz extension type.
Following this, click on the Reports tab. The Turning Reports window displays a list of the categories of
reports you can generate from your session file. Each category of report is listed by name. You can double-click the category or click on the plus sign beside the category to view a list of reports in each category.
You can select multiple reports by selecting multiple check boxes. You can also select an entire category of reports by selecting the check box for the category.
When you are finished, click on the Generate Report button. Depending on the number of reports you are generating, the process may take a few moments. Your Excel worksheet will open automatically once the process is complete.
Where do I go from here?
Give it a go! Further details on reports and report types is are available in the TurningPoint 2008 User Guide for Office 2003 [download PDF ], pp. 345 – 386.
For anything please, please take a look at the project blog at http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/ars/, or get in touch with Nitin Parmar, the ARS Project Lead, at e-learning@bath.ac.uk .
http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/ars/2009/12/06/how-to-turning-reports/
Following the successful launch of the Audience Response System (ARS) pilot project during the 2008/2009 academic year, the e-Learning team has recently purchased an additional 200 TurningPoint RF ResponseCards (or ‘clickers’), thereby doubling the capacity of the system. This is in response to an increased number of bookings for the ARS, which in turn has been driven by students commenting on how useful and engaging they find the increased level of interactivity the system brings to their learning.
The ARS consists of a set of handheld voting pads which allow students to interact in a variety of learning and teaching contexts through responding to questions and viewing the aggregated results. The uses at the University of Bath include giving students feedback on their learning, and allowing students to feedback on the teaching.
Following this recent investment, the ARS at the University of Bath now totals 400 clickers, which are available in bags of 40 or 80 handsets, accompanied by 1 USB RF receiver per bag. For use as a mechanism for giving effective and immediate feedback to students during teaching sessions, this system can be booked through the Audio Visual team. The ARS can also be used for anonymous, formative assessment as well as to promote deep learning by students within a face to face context. Indeed, some colleagues in the Department of Computer Science presented their findings on a small study on the use of the ARS to enhance feedback at the Plymouth e-Learning Conference 2009.
Peter Nuttall, a Lecturer in the School of Management, is delighted to see this increased capacity in the ARS: “The Audience Response System is designed with the audience firmly in mind. Exceptionally easy to use immediately following its introduction to the class, the system adds a dynamic to the lecture which prompts greater creativity and imagination on behalf of the lecturer and enhanced interest and engagement among students. Used strategically, the device replaces the need for breaks during class and maintains a fluent focus on the content and learning outcomes of the lecture.”
If you would like further details on the ARS pilot project, including session reports and information about how you can start to use them in your teaching, please visit http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/ars/. Alternatively, get in touch with Nitin Parmar, the Project Lead, on 01225 384 392 or at e-learning@bath.ac.uk.
http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/ars/2009/12/03/student-demand-leads-to-purchase-of-additional-%e2%80%98clickers%e2%80%99/
http://www.ics.heacademy.ac.uk/italics/vol8iss2/pdf/ItalicsVol8Iss2Jun2009Paper3.pdf
Yesterday, I attended the first event of the recently formed Special Interest Group (SIG), Engaging Students Through In-Class Technology (ESTICT) at the University of Leicester. The aim of the event was to share best practice in the use of in-class technology, with a particular focus on the pedagogic uses of Electronic Voting Systems (EVS).
At the University of Bath, we have been running our institutional pilot of Audience Response Systems (ARS) [project website] since the beginning of the 2008/2009, so this event provided a fantastic opportunity to meet with other colleagues from HE and FE institutions from around the UK to get their thoughts on EVS/ARS, the functionality of the software and hardware, the pedagogy that should drive its use… and everything else.
I’ve written up some of my observations and thoughts from yesterday on my blog, Colligo, at http://colligo.wordpress.com/. Please do head along, have a read and leave a comment (either here or there!).
http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/ars/2009/11/27/estict-event-1-%e2%80%93-university-of-leicester/
Unit: MN20034 Marketing Communications
Department/School: School of Management
Level: Undergraduate
Unit Tutor: Peter Nuttall
Keywords [pedagogical]: large-group-teaching
Keywords [technical]: audience-response-systems, ars
Background
Aims and objectives of the lecture
The overall aim of the session was to increase the students understanding of how brand appeal to consumers through the catalytic effect of traditional advertising methods. To do this, ARS was used to first find out more about the students’ perceptions of some of the best known brands that use advertising as a key communication tool. Ultimately the session led to a discussion surrounding brand resonance and the attachment that students felt towards brands by virtue of the congruence between the values attached (promoted) to the brand and their own value set.
What actually took place?
The clickers were distributed at the start of the lecture and asked not to use them or play with them until instructed to do so. 15 minutes into the lecture session, the students were shown a series of brand logos and then asked to respond to several questions about brand values. The results for the class were discussed after each ‘value’ was voted on and revealed. The last slide asked for something that required more thought and it was noticeable how much extra time the class took to answer. I collected the clickers at the end of the lecture from ach student as they left the theatre (this did delay their departure slightly).
What was the role of the technology? What did the technology add?
Coming relatively early in the lecture, the original motivation for using the technology was not as pertinent, i.e. giving the students a ‘break’ from the more formal lecture mode. However, coming early in the lecture had the effect of creating a more interactive atmosphere and expectation from the start – which prompted more in-depth discussion as the lecture continued after the exercise.
Outcomes
Were the objectives met?
It certainly got the students thinking about the role of brands and more specifically the notion of brand resonance.
How did the students find it?
I did sense some surprise at the use of such ‘populist’ / voxpox type technology in a lecture and felt that some adapted to this new ambience more quickly than others. I overheard one comment that seemed to question the legitimacy of such an application – ‘I thought this was a lecture’. However, comments I received as people left at the end of the lecture suggested a generally positive and in some cases, excited and very appreciative, attitude.
Were there any unexpected outcomes?
The lack of admission to answering in a certain way when asked – which underpins one of the essential benefits of such a system – its anonymity.
What tips do you have for others?
Book/plan well ahead. Plan the lecture slides and give thought to how you are going to make sense of the ‘findings’ – i.e. make sure the live results can be tied explicitly to the lecture’s overall aim and learning outcomes and avoid using just for fun. Think carefully about the in-class logistics of distribution and collection.
http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/ars/2009/11/18/session-report-marketing-communications/
Students currently enrolled on the CM30078 Networking unit will soon be using the Audience Response System (ARS) as part of a coursework assignment. As part of this, they are likely to need to create some TurningPoint-based slides themselves. Students can access the TurningPoint software in two separate ways.
1. Using a TurningPoint 2008 on a BUCS PC
The software can found on all BUCS Windows-based PCs in the Library and on the PCs in the teaching labs around campus (e.g. 1W 2.25)
Once you have logged on, the software can be found in the following way,
Start > (All) Programs > Departments > e-Learning > TurningPoint 2008 > TurningPoint 2008
2. Downloading TurningPoint 2008 onto your computer
The software is available for download via the Audience Response System project blog at: http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/ars
Scroll to the right-hand side section labelled ARS Software Download. Versions of the software for the PC and Mac are available.
Users must have Microsoft PowerPoint installed on their PC or Mac for the TurningPoint 2008 to function. The Mac-based version of this software will only work with Microsoft PowerPoint 2004 for Mac.
Important advice
The TurningPoint 2008 is based around a toolbar as pictured below.
The toolbar will only display, if you launch TurningPoint 2008 from your Windows Start menu (or similar on a Mac). Clicking on the relevant icon/link, will display the Microsoft PowerPoint splash screen first, followed by the TurningPoint one.
If you have any instances of Microsoft PowerPoint open already, you must close these first prior to opening up TurningPoint 2008.
http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/ars/2009/11/11/student-access-to-turningpoint-2008/
Session devised & run by: David Stacey, Subject Librarian
Department/School: Mathematical Sciences
Level: First Year Undergraduate (Induction)
[Martin Reed is Director of Teaching for Mathematical Sciences]
Background
Aims and objectives of the lecture
The target audience were new Undergraduates in the department of Mathematical Sciences. This would be their introduction to what the Library is – more than just the physical building, stock and staff – taking in electronic resources, sources of help and information, etc. I aimed to explore how new students can best start to make use of its services and facilities. I would also give a grounding in the basics of searching for ‘known-items’ i.e. from a reading list, be they books or journal articles. This involved demonstration of the catalogue and ELIN and effective keyword searching.
The use of ARS would underpin these goals with simple questions aimed at testing their knowledge on basic information available from the Library and also the talk itself. Some introductory TurningPoint slides were used to test with Yes/No answers whether they had visited the Library yet and also got a Library card – these also tested their use of the handsets provided.
What actually took place?
Nitin and a colleague assisted with distribution of the handsets whilst I spoke about how to use them (checking the light has gone green etc) and also reassuring them on the anonymity of the results. I gave a brief introduction to myself and the session which led into the test questions. The session consisted of a PowerPoint presentation with detailed slides interspersed with about 8 questions at intervals. Some of the information was contained in the slides and referred to in the questions, other questions referred to policies we hoped they would have found out about when they visited the Library. The aim was that if they had all visited (and I think 99% had done so) then I wouldn’t need to drop this information in prior to questioning. This would also keep them alert and avoid a purely “tell-test” format, the simplicity of which might become boring.
What was the role of the technology? What did the technology add?
The initial questions were to reveal their experience and expectations of the session on a basic level. As all had got their library card, for example, I could skim the next slides on this and also the Library location – as they had visited. Some questions tested their knowledge prior to the session and others served to check they had picked up on the key points delivered, particularly in terms of disambiguation e.g. highlighting the zoning of floors and study spaces which can be confused easily – e.g. the distinction between silent and quiet space.
Outcomes
Were the objectives met?
I felt that the technology had been successful and kept the students engaged in the session – involvement was consistently high. The responses to the questions suggested that they had made a good start in finding the library, getting a library card, picking up on the key points in the talk, etc. For those questions where I had not covered the information directly, the answers varied a bit more, which indicates that despite signage and web based information, these points need to be covered in a direct way early on.
How did the students find it?
Having tried the questions without TurningPoint in two other similar induction sessions (for different subjects), I felt the response rate was more consistent and gained from anonymity and lack of needing to raise an arm! Also, whilst one session was almost as good, another had far less participation. As a first attempt at TurningPoint, I think this supports a more ‘active learning’ approach if it can be used well, so I will be exploring ways to use it again.
Were there any unexpected outcomes?
Not really.
What tips do you have for others?
Get help from Nitin when you first try to use it! Keep it simple and start with a couple of questions which can serve as a test and don’t have a specific right or wrong answer.
Additional comments
1 – The anonymity aspect is particularly important for students at induction stage as they may be feeling a little too overwhelmed to volunteer an answer.
2 – We deliberately set some very simple Q&As which they’re unlikely to get wrong; this is less about seeking confirmation that they have understood than giving us the opportunity to repeat some information so they’re less likely to forget it afterwards. After all, there is a lot of information to absorb in the first weeks.
http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/ars/2009/10/08/session-report-library-induction-for-new-mathematical-sciences-students/
I recently read “Formative Teaching: A conversational framework for evaluating the Impact of Response Technology on Student Experience, Engagement and Achievement”, King, S & Robinson, C (2009) – http://fie-conference.org/fie2009/papers/1264.pdf
I’d recommend this article for people new to using Audience Response Systems as the section on student engagement and feedback is thought provoking. As you’d expect, it identifies the wider benefits of using ARS in your face to face teaching.
For those thinking of undertaking the Unit 6: e-learning module on the University’s PGCAPP, then the application of the conversational framework into the learning design for the ARS is also very interesting.
http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/ars/2009/09/25/formative-teaching-a-conversational-framework-for-evaluating/
http://academics.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/v3n2/articles/_Patry/index.htm
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/cft/resources/teaching_resources/technology/crs_biblio.htm
I am pleased to say that, following on from my post last week regarding the Audience Response System-related coffee break session that I presented last week, a video is now available online.
The video which was captured by my colleague Joe Buchanan, using Techsmith’s Camtasia 6, can be found at: http://go.bath.ac.uk/g8xc.
Colleagues will need to have Windows Media Player installed on their PCs be be able to watch it.
Update! Details on the recording process can be found over on the Desktop Conferencing blog at: http://go.bath.ac.uk/7upd
http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/ars/2009/05/26/coffee-break-video-now-online/
This blog post supports the poster presentation by Nitin Parmar and Andy Ramsden at 3rd Technology Supported Learning Conference, Technology Supported Learning in the 21st Century: Issues and Paradigms in Transformative Tertiary Education 2009 on 1 June 2009 at Staffordshire University. The poster can be downloaded via OPuS.
As will be mentioned during the session, we are very interested in capturing your institutional stories. In particular, the strategies you think are effective at encouraging an individual to adopt new (to them) teaching practices. What works for your institution? What doesn’t work?
Please leave your comments. Thanks
http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/ars/2009/05/21/developing-and-facilitating-a-creative-teaching-culture-using-an-electronic-voting-system/
Earlier today, I presented as part our the e-Learning Coffee Break series using our desktop conferencing software, Megameeting, at the University of Bath. The relevant slides appear below.
If you did not happen to attend the presentation, but would still like to find out more about the ARS, please do get in touch either on 01225 384 392 or via email at e-learning@bath.ac.uk
http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/ars/2009/05/20/coffee-break-gathering-student-feedback-using-an-ars/
Earlier today, I presented as part our the e-Learning Coffee Break series using our desktop conferencing software, Megameeting, at the University of Bath. The relevant slides appear below.
If you did not happen to attend the presentation, but would still like to find out more about the ARS, please do get in touch either on 01225 384 392 or via email at e-learning@bath.ac.uk
http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/ars/2009/05/20/coffee-break-session-gathering-student-feedback-using-an-ars/
There is evidence that suggests is the use of Audience Response Systems (ARS) will be growing in popularity in lectures as a formative learning technology. Given this trendm the question of designing good practice material for this technology in face to face teaching becomes more important.
A list of ideas and thoughts fom Emma Cliffe (Learning Support) and Nitin Parmar (e-Learning team, LTEO) is being put together in relation to ensuring any ARS-related activities are inclusive. Further information can be found on the full blog post over on the e-Learning HEAT3 project 08-09 website.
http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/ars/2009/05/18/ars-and-inclusivity-in-the-lecture-theatre/
Unit: MA30056 Complex Analysis [slides available]
Department/School: Department of Mathematical Sciences
Level: 3rd year undergraduate (BSc in Maths & MMath), ca. 30 (out of 80) students came to this Problems Class
Unit Tutor: Bernd Sing
Keywords [pedagogical]: large-group-teaching
Keywords [technical]: audience-response-systems, ars
Background
Aims and objectives of the Problems Class
The main goal was to point out some common mistakes I observed in the handed-in solutions to exercise sheets. I therefore collected some statements/calculations in actual students’ solutions to some exercise and let them decide whether/why these statements are correct/problematic/false. Therefore, students have to critically question someone else’s solution (and thus implicitly come up with the correct one themselves).
What actually took place?
I used the first (approx.) twenty minutes to go through the TurningPoint slides, afterwards the rest of the session was a usual problems class. I handed out the the clickers to each student as she/he entered the room, they handed them back after the class. Responses using the ARS were logged and displayed as bar charts, where the correct answer was indicated by a green bar (and false answers as red bars). The correct answers were explained orally and by subsequent slides.
What was the role of the technology? What did the technology add?
Since handing solutions to exercise sheets is non-compulsory, the hand-in rates in 3rd year math units is generally quite low. Many students thus “practice” and actively work with the material in the final exam only. So, using the clickers, every student has to question and think about her/his method to arrive at the solution (and cannot just passively lean back in the problem’s class and see what happens).
Figure 1: Question slide, showing the response data and correct answer (denoted by the smiley face)
Figure 2: Feedback slide
Outcomes
Were the objectives met?
A few days after this session I received an email from a student with a question related to some of the mistakes pointed out; although in this case the student wanted to be too cautious (the student wanted to avoid a mistake where there was no mistake to avoid), it shows that there is some new/additional awareness now there. We will see if this awareness lasts until the final exam…
How did the students find it?
Students are certainly more active and lively than during a usual problem’s class session. Overall, they like it, especially if they see that the technology is used for a purpose.
Were there any unexpected outcomes?
Unfortunately, the were some misprints on the last slide; however, it was interesting to see that some students pointed them out that usually keep quite.
What tips do you have for others?
I guess the main advice is to be at the lecture room well in time to set up the computer and hand out the clickers.
Also, this time I used Laeqed for Windows (a similar program for Mac is “LaTeXiT”) to produce LaTeX-like output of formulae that are then imported as `picture-object’ into the Powerpoint-slides. This works reasonable well, although it is a bit of clicking & dragging.
http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/ars/2009/04/28/session-report-complex-analysis/
Last week, Alan Hayes (Department of Computer Science) and I travelled to the Plymouth e-Learning Conference 2009 to present a paper that we had written with Prof. James Davenport, entitled The use of an Electronic Voting System to enhance student feedback. The slides from the presentation appear below.
The presentation began by giving a brief overview of the of the ARS pilot project at the University of Bath before moving onto exploring use of the technology to support the (formative) assessment and feedback process in the CM30072 Networking unit.
For a fuller description of the study, including the presentation of research data, conclusions and scope for future work, colleagues may like to download the paper from OPuS at: http://opus.bath.ac.uk/12505/
http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/ars/2009/04/28/plymouth-e-learning-conference-2009/
http://www.turningtechnologies.com/interactiveaudienceresponseproducts/responsecardsdk.cfm
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/quilt/projects/current/srsevaluation/index.html
Following a meeting with colleagues in the Learning Support team a couple of months ago, I am pleased to say that plans to release accessibility related advice for using the Audience Response System (ARS) are in the process of being finalised.
It is intended that the guidance will be provided in two formats: one short guide aimed at staff intending to use the ARS to support their face-to-face teaching, and another guide for students using the handsets (or clickers) to take part in formative assessment or voting activities. Both guides are scheduled to be released by the end of May 2009 via this website.
If this is something that is of interest, or if you would like to find out more about the ARS pilot at the University of Bath, please do get in touch either on 01225 384 392 or via email at e-learning@bath.ac.uk
http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/ars/2009/04/16/accessibility-related-advice-for-using-the-ars/
Earlier today, I presented at the New technologies for interactivity and collaboration event at Bath Spa University, which was organised by the Avon University Libraries in Cooperation (AULIC). The relevant slides appear below.
If you did not happen to attend the presentation, but would still like to find out more about the ARS, please do get in touch either on 01225 384 392 or via email at e-learning@bath.ac.uk
http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/ars/2009/04/06/avon-libraries-in-cooperation-event/
Following liaison with colleages in BUCS, I am pleased to inform users of TurningPoint 2008 for PC, that a new version [4.1] has been rolled out to all PCs on the university campus. For those users running this software on there personal laptops, the new version can be downloaded from: http://www.bath.ac.uk/lmf/download/32160
This version includes new default slide types and includes support for TurningPoint ResponseWare Web, a solution blogged about a couple of months ago at: http://go.bath.ac.uk/rclm.
[Update: The e-Learning team are currently thinking through case studies for implementation of ResponseWare Web and will be looking for colleagues to pilot this software in due course.]
http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/ars/2009/04/04/new-version-of-turningpoint-2008/
Richard Joiner, a Lecturer in the Department of Psychology, has recently been using the TurningPoint-based Audience Response System to support his teaching. The following details some experiences of usage.
“I have been using ARS in two units that I am running this semester. One is a 2nd year unit on Developmental Psychology (PS20107) with 80 students and the other is a final year unit with 30 students. I recently have been using the ‘demographic slide’ function in TurningPoint 2008 and I have found it very useful.
I used it to illustrate gender differences in playing videogames. The first step is to get the students to register their clickers as male or female, by asking them the following question.
Figure 1: Are you Male or Female?
Next, I asked them the question concerning videogames (see below)…
Figure 2: How often do you play videogames?
You then get the normal response and then you get a slide (shown) below, which breaks it down into males and females.
Figure 3: How often do you play videogames? (demographic breakdown)
The students were very impressed and it illustrated the point nicely. Obviously you can pick any grouping variable (i.e. course, age etc).”
If you would like to see how you might incorporate this type of slide into your own teaching and/or would like to find out more about the ARS, please do get in touch with Nitin Parmar in the e-Learning team, either on 01225 384 392 or via email at e-learning@bath.ac.uk
http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/ars/2009/03/30/experience-in-psychology-using-demographic-slides/
Earlier today I attended a meeting of the Students’ Union Academic Council. This fortnightly meeting is a gathering of all undergraduate academic representatives from a range of departments across the university.
Katie Mabery, VP Education, used the Audience Response System (ARS) for evaluation-type questions to introduce academic representatives to the technology. My hope is that these students will take this experience of the ARS back to their departmental SSLCs, therefore driving usage of it to support face-to-face teaching.
Certainly, many of those students who attended seemed impressed by the potential of the technology and I hope that these thoughts are fed back into departments.
http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/ars/2009/03/24/using-the-ars-for-academic-council-evaluation/
A couple of weeks ago, I travelled up to Edinburgh [photos on Flickr] for a meeting to discuss the JISC funded EVAF4All: Electronic Voting Analysis and Feedback for All project. The current EVAF system at Edinburgh allows students to obtain a record of their progress in formative assessment using an Electronic Voting System (referred to an Audience Response System, ARS, at the University of Bath).
When viewing their results, students will be directed back to relevant content and presented statistics regarding whole class performance. This feedback can thus aid their developing self-management of their own studying and provide valuable diagnostic feedback. The staff view of the system will enable aggregated data to be extracted and analyse aggregated student performance.
Some of my thoughts related to both this project and meeting are now available at: http://tr.im/hALv
http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/ars/2009/03/20/electronic-voting-for-analysis-and-feedback-evaf/
Update Sources
