The grand finale in my role as a member of ETEC676 is a documentation of my personal experience with Twitter.com.   Though Twitter was my chosen application to explore, I felt myself resisting even thinking it could have any real value as an interactive application.  I was still in the frame of mind that Twitter was for the young and just another way to chat about nothing.  Sensing I would need to approach Twitter with an open mind I became inspired to get on with this new experience while reading related peer-reviewed articles I located on Wilson Web. 

Attempting to keep my Twitter venture connected to education, I first read an article by List and Bryant (2009) who explored integrating interactive online content at an early college high school.  List and Bryant conclude Twitter is an effective tool for classroom use.  The authors further state that Twitter seems to have increased assignment completions and accountability.  They also found that Twitter became a form of peer-tutoring by enabling students to answer questions for one another regarding homework.   Additional positive support for Twitter comes from Stevens’ (2008) article in which he notes, “…the concept of microblogging through a constant interchange of SMS [short message service] messages has proven [to be] stimulating and popular.” (p. 10) Two sites Stevens provides in his article seem worth looking into in the near future.  The first one offers a free course on “Connectivism and Connective Knowledge” by George Siemens at gsiemens on Twitter and illustrates how Twitter is a virtual learning network.  The second site, http://www.edutopi.org/ikid-digital-learner-technology-2008 offers insights on “How tech-obsessed iKids would improve our schools…” (p. 10) This article seems relevant as I teach some of these “tech-obsessed iKids,” but walking through Siemens’ free course is first on my to-do list.

Armed with a more positive attitude toward Twitter, I began my hands-on experience.  I set up a Twitter account and started following and being followed.  Sounds like a detective mystery, and to some extent Twitter remains such in my mind.  Following and being followed simply refer to those with whom you wish to communicate online Twitter style, that being limited to a 140-character message.  The built-in brevity sparked some interest when I imagined using this communication application with sixth grade students.  Limiting length of comments could force a student to be precise when conveying needs or information, thus making Twitter use advantageous.  Perceiving a need for integrating interactive learning during instruction and even after school hours by way of homework, maybe Twitter.com could partially fulfill this need. 

I selected a few users to follow based on name recognition.  For example, Suze Orman struck a familiar chord.  Following her, I can access comments and suggestions, and even ask her a question on a real-time basis.  Then, I signed off.  Not much later I tried several times to sign back on.   After each attempt the message I received stated the user name and password combination was not valid.  It was suggested by Brian Newberry, course instructor, I just set up a new account.  So, I did, but I had to use my husband’s e-mail as mine was considered by Twitter to be in use already.  I was back on track.   

Not feeling comfortable with having two Twitter accounts, I attempted to access the first account by making one letter change in the password.  It worked and I was able to keep the first account.  I deleted the second one, but made sure the users I wanted to follow were added to the original account.  I signed out and back in a couple of times to prove to myself I was indeed “in.”  At one point, I experienced the page that said Twitter was overloaded with sessions and to check back later.  I left that window up while I added to this paper, and noticed within minutes the Twitter.com home page came back up and so, I signed back on.

Now I could quickly add more users to follow and get on with this business of twittering, or so I thought.  The sheer number of users I could elect to follow was overwhelming.  How do you intelligently select those you wish to follow?  My purpose in using Twitter was to share knowledge and information pertaining to education.  Idle chat does not interest me; I save that for my best friends, in person, over lunch.  How would Twitter be of any use to me and further, how could I make it work in my role as a sixth grade teacher?

Taking a break from Twitter.com, I resumed reading the articles from Wilson Web. Farrelly (2009) states that Twitter reaches young adults with technology, making them aware of everything possible at their libraries, adding that is what good outreach is all about.  Porter and King (2009) are librarians who also believe that online status updates have real value.  They report, “…Twitter has been a tool we have used to get feedback, leads and to learn about what is going on with libraries and library staff around a specific subject.” (p. 30) They have obviously found the value of having a common denominator – librarians and libraries – to tweet with, which is the compelling characteristic of Twitter.  Porter and King (2009) drive the point home further: “But the real power of status updates are in the community that forms around them, and how you interact with others using the service.”  (p. 30) I needed to find a community of teachers who were already using Twitter.com.

I signed back on to Twitter and found at the bottom of my Twitter page, “Search.”  I learned about it after reading information located in the “Help” section on the home page of Twitter.com.  Clicking “Search,” I then typed in “teachers who are using Twitter” and made a good find suggested by another Twitter user:  twitter4teachers.  This site has a list that allows me to access educators who teach in the same content area as I do.  I created a free PBworks account so that I could edit a wiki page at this site.  There is also a Twitter Mentor Page where I could enlist the help of another educator to help build my personal learning network.  Twitter4teachers and PBworks seem to hold promise of making Twitter a valuable tool for me as I delve in to the applications they have to offer.

Some of what I encountered prior to finding my perceived niche I found to be superfluous or distasteful.   An occasional photo by someone’s Twitter account name would show the person nude.  I blocked those few.  I didn’t quite know what to make of those who “chose” to follow me.  More often than not, their tweets were not at all relevant and so, I blocked them, too.  Knowing I can do that, or ultimately delete my Twitter account if I wish, makes me feel more at ease with Twitter’s highly public profile.  One other positive for me using Twitter is that I can follow periodicals, such as Education Week, and not just individuals.  I have been able to view the tweet and click on the most recent articles that capture my interest.  This is easier than investing the time to look up these articles via an online library, taking a stab at it with keywords, and then scrolling through the titles.

The real problem I see with Twitter is the sheer volume of followers and followees Twitter users can declare.   A similar problem exists with FaceBook and MySpace. My daughter has become more discriminating when allowing others to view her posts on these applications.  In fact, her friends there are her friends in real life.  The number of people asking her permission to be a “friend” became a signal to my daughter that the conversation value would become meaninglessness.  How meaningful can Twitter be when the number of friends are in the hundreds or even the thousands?  Huberman, Romero, and Wu (2009) seem to have answered that question.  They report Twitter users have a very small number of friends (friends being reciprocated active posts) compared to the number of followers and followees they declare.  The “…sparser and simpler network of actual friends…proves to be a more influential network in driving Twitter usage since users with many actual friends tend to post more updates than users with few actual friends.” (p. 6) The more followers and followees one has the greater the infrequency of posting becomes.  This makes perfect sense to me:  too many tweets confronting me and I would not even bother taking the time to sift through them much less respond to them.

Huberman’s, et al (2009) final comments state the real challenge of making Twitter a valuable interaction tool: 

“As we showed in the case of Twitter, most of the links declared within Twitter were meaningless from an interaction point of view.  Thus the need to find the hidden social network; the one that matters when trying to rely on word of mouth to spread an idea, a belief, or a trend.” (p. 7)

My brief experience with Twitter helped me uncover a hidden social network that just might be the one that matters to me.  My next course of action is to move forward with twitter4teachers and become a meaningful player in this network of fellow educators.

References

Farrelly, M. G., 2009.  Tweet, Tweet, Public Libraries, v 48 no1 Ja/F 2009.

Huberman, B. A., Romero, D. M., and Wu, F., 2009.  Social networks that matter:  Twitter under the microscope, First Monday, v 14 no1-5 Ja 2009.

List, J. S. and Bryant, B., 2009.  Integrating Interactive Online Content at an Early College High School:  An Exploration of Moodle, Ning, and Twitter, Meridian, v 12, no1, Winter 2009.

Porter, M. and King, D. L., 2009.  What Are You Doing Now? And Do Your Patrons Care?  Public Libraries, v 48 no1 Ja/F 2009.

Stevens, V., 2008.  Trial by Twitter:  The Rise and Slide of the Year’s Most Viral Microblogging Platform, TESL-EJ Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, v 12, no1, June 2008.

Clicking Benefits Into Learning or Teaching?

Teachers are hard-pressed these days to keep their students actively engaged in learning.  But, the ease of incorporating small group discussions and activities, in addition to knowing the level of understanding of each student become elusive goals rather than daily realities when delivering a lesson to twenty, thirty, or more students with varying degrees of ability. 

Researching techniques to deal with this challenge, researchers Nelson and Hauck (2008) point to four effective learning principles that should be the underlying goals of any technology implemented in a classroom:  active learning, providing feedback, sustaining attention, and student motivation.  They review how these principles promote higher-order thinking skills, re-engage interest, and motivate students with repeated and timely feedback, especially when employing a degree of anonymity of student response.  Educators assess at varying degrees and within varying time spans in order to know if students understand concepts.  A teacher can then use that feedback to decide what material to cover again or in a new way.  But, collecting feedback takes time to administer, grade, and evaluate.  Furthermore, pacing schedules and the time delay in acquiring feedback in traditional ways may preclude using feedback effectively, if at all.  If it could be acquired and used on a real-time basis, could a teacher use this feedback to sustain students’ attention and increase their motivation to learn?  And, is there a way to almost guarantee student participation with a degree of anonymity?

Personal response systems (PRS), also known as audience response systems, classroom performance systems, or clickers, present a new kind of feedback system that says “yes” to the above questions.  Since the feedback is immediate (real-time) with clicker use and can be viewed instantly, a teacher can produce real-time changes to instruction to fit the needs of students.  Students can also view feedback delivered by a PRS, drawing their attention to the learning process, and clickers can readily engage students to participate.  But, does a PRS’ feedback system ensure enhanced teaching, and, what advantages does clicker use have on learning?  This paper will limit its discussion to the contention that clicker use will be beneficial to teaching and to student learning, and to offer some challenges to that contention.

How do clickers work in a classroom?  Clickers are hand-held remotes students use to enter responses to multiple choice and yes/no questions with the click of a button.   The choices are displayed on a classroom screen, usually with a PowerPoint presentation.  A receiver connected to a computer (generally the instructor’s PC), collects, grades, stores, and even posts a histogram of the responses.  Responses remain anonymous except to the instructor.  Clickers are able to send signals either via infra-red, such as the TV remote, or via radio-frequency.  There are several advantages of a radio-frequency clicker over an infra-red: signals are transmitted faster, they cover longer distances, and they are not encumbered by most physical obstructions (Nelson and Hauck, 2008).  The cost of such a device ranges from $10 to $30 per clicker per student (Stowell and Nelson, 2007; Ribbens, 2007).  Personal response systems currently are most often found in higher education institutions.  Large numbers of students typically in a theater seating arrangement have posed challenges for college professors:  attendance, keeping students’ attention and interest, and actively engaging them in the learning process (Herreid, 2006; Nelson and Hauck, 2008; Stowell and Nelson, 2007; Ribbens, 2007).  There seems to be a growing interest in incorporating clickers into secondary education classes to address some of these same challenges (Hines, 2005). 

The essential characteristic of personal response systems, or clicker use, seems to be the immediate feedback it provides the instructor.  Eric Ribbens (2007) states, “…the big impact has not been on [the students], but on me.  Suddenly I had a large new window into their abilities” (p. 62).  Lasry (2008) concludes, “The contribution of clickers is more on the teaching side of the educational equation” (p. 243).  Stowell and Nelson (2007) report that clickers promoted a greater degree of honesty in answering questions interspersed throughout a lecture, providing the instructor with more accuracy in feedback.  Nelson and Hauck (2008) concur, stating this feedback allows the instructor to adjust teaching styles or content accordingly on a real-time basis.  They note that along with increased participation, a student-reported increase in level of interest occurred.  This led to break-out sessions where students were able to discuss response choices before answering a question.  Herreid (2006) reports, “The critical feature in these positive experiences [of interactive feedback methods] is that the instructors are using feedback systems that transform the classroom into an interactive experience” (p. 44).   Finally, Hines (2005) cites the benefit of clicker use during PowerPoint presentations of allowing the teacher to pause to ask questions along the way, enabling her to see immediately who understands and who does not, then spending a little more time on a specific concept.

Students can provide feedback in a number of ways and so, Herreid emphasizes that “It is the feedback pedagogy that is the driving force for success, not the particular technological method involved” (2006, p.44).  It seems then that clickers don’t offer any advantages to teaching over other student response systems that provide feedback (e.g. hand-raising, student response cards).  But, according to Herreid, in addition to being practical and economical, clickers allow instructors to effectively introduce material being taught, engage every student, and provide immediate feedback.  This allows a teacher to review concepts not understood immediately rather than waiting for results from a test.  Depending on the results the teacher can change the course of instruction, by re-teaching, moving on, or stopping to allow for discussion. 

But does this enhanced teaching give students a learning advantage?   Lasry’s (2008) data did not support the contention that clickers provide any additional learning benefit to students.  The results of his study show that the use of clickers “…does not add to the amount of conceptual learning or to exam performance [when paired with Peer Instruction]” (p. 243).  Lasry’s student-centered instructional approach where students engage in discussion and then are tested is a pedagogy that seems to benefit learning with or without clickers.  Stowell and Nelson (2007) also revealed no gains in number of correct answers by students using clickers.  Herreid, on the other hand, reports “Performance on critical-thinking questions also improves and class grades rise [with clicker use]” (2006, p. 46).  Even Ribbens (2007) reports an 8% increase in his students’ grades when clickers were used.  Lasry cautions those interested in personal response systems: “The pedagogy is not the technology by itself” (Lasry, 2007, p. 244).  The benefit of personal response systems is not the technology but how the technology can get information to the instructor, and even the class, quickly, the results being used to guide instruction and discussion. 

The effectiveness of any interactive tool whether it is a clicker, a student response card, or Peer Instruction, is dependent on the teacher.  Teachers are often given tools without training and doing so with clickers would probably defeat their greatest benefit documented thus far:  real-time feedback for the instructor.  Personal response systems may first give the teacher the real advantage of effectively using immediate and repeated feedback.  Anecdotal evidence supports the benefits of this to teaching.  It seems reasonable to suggest that what is good for the teacher is good for the student when reading how educators value the real-time feedback clicker use affords.  If a tool can benefit the teacher in this way, the benefit to the student at least at this juncture does seem to be interactive learning.  Clickers have shown they increase student participation which, according to Ribbens (2007), leads the teacher to increasingly abandon well-trodden lecture paths and encourage the students to think through problems.

The verdict may not be out regarding the benefits of clicker use to learning in terms of raising the grades of students, which implies an increase in learning.  But, the possibilities for learning enhancement do not go unnoticed.  Herreid (2006) reports that some users of clickers in classrooms argue “…clicker use improves motivation which may lead to cognitive persistence and increased mastery of goal setting [as a learning strategy]” (p. 44).

In conclusion, the most significant benefit of clicker use in the classroom seems to be enhancing pedagogy.  Lasry (2008) points out that the automatic and precise real-time student feedback is advantageous to timely intervention by the teacher.  Reflecting on the four effective learning principles, clicker use in the classroom is an opportunity for teachers to promote active learning, provide immediate feedback, and sustain students’ attention and interest, thus motivating students to learn.  Entrusting this technology to teachers is the real key to deciding if clickers benefit learning.  Preparedness by educators to integrate personal response systems is essential to making a positive difference in student learning.  Ribbens (2007) offers words of wisdom to educators.  He stresses the importance of not seeing clickers as simply a new way to give quizzes, but to use them throughout class.  “It will break up your lectures and students will become more engaged” (p. 62).  When technology actively engages students, active learning becomes a powerful technique.  This active engagement is essential because it “…involves higher-order thinking (such as analysis, synthesis, evaluation), which results in greater learning, understanding, and retention” (Nelson and Hauck, 2008, p. 56).  Provided a teacher effectively integrates a personal response system with instruction, the benefits to teaching and student learning can become a concurrent reality in the classroom.

References

Herreid, C. F., “Clicker” Cases:  Introducing Case Study Teaching Into Large Classrooms, Journal of College Science Teaching, v 36 no2 O 2006

Hines, L., Interactive Learning Environment Keeps Modesto Students Engage, T.H.E. Journal, v 33 no2 September 2005

Lasry, N., Clickers or Flashcards:  Is There Really a Differrence? The Physics Teacher, v 46 April 2008

Nelson, M. L. & Hauck, R. V., Clicking to Learn:  A Case Study of Embedding Radio-Frequency based clickers in an Introductory Management Information Systems Course, Journal of Information Systems Education, v 19 no1 Spr 2008

Ribbens, E., Why I Like Clicker Personal Response Systems, Journal of College Science Teaching, v37 no2 N/D 2007

Stowell, J. R. & Nelson, J. M., Benefits of Electronic Audience Response Systems on Student Participation, Learning, and Emotion, Teaching of Psychology, v 34 no4 2007

The small screen size of a hand-held mobile device makes the possibility of using it in the same way I use my laptop, remote.  The idea (or reality?) of a mobile keyboard might appeal strongly to someone like me who may never adjust to texting because of the small size of a hand-held device.  I would be willing to “roll out” a keyboard.

Brian presented interesting opinions and information regarding the future of technology.  I appreciated especially his commentary on technology in K-12 classrooms where clearly there is a large gap between what could enhance teaching and learning via new technology and what actually exists.  Administrators, while seeming to search for ways to improve the quality of education, are way behind in taking advantage of “what’s out there” in terms of technology.  Research stresses the importance of students being actively engaged, not just passively listening.  Further, there are affordable devices and applications that have already been shown to be effective in keeping students actively engaged in the learning process.

Reflecting on how I use a computer, older students in particular could do the same at school.  My research skills have improved, my writing skills have improved, and I have learned about things I am not so sure I would have were it not for the Internet. I imagine how my students’ learning could be enhanced if they had the same access I do to a laptop (or roll out a keyboard to use with a hand-held device); students could access the Internet, word process, and even input responses to questions during instruction, not to mention taking quizzes on their laptop.  I then imagine them sending their projects (whether they are quizzes, or written responses) to my PC wherein the multiple choice quizzes are graded and I get to read their writing.  Accessing a dictionary, a web search on a specific topic, and engaging in vocabulary practice could be done today but for the fact that I do not have laptops for students.  Having greater accessibility to information and services without providing students ways to access them seems a contradiction to the purpose of education.

Perhaps as costs go down, laptops for each student will become a reality and interactive technology can be thoroughly integrated into instruction.  I recall many years ago when handheld calculators became inexpensive and commonplace but still had amazing capabilities.  Maybe many people didn’t think this could/would ever happen – at least not for the public school K-12 student.  Hopefully, mobile devices and laptops will follow the path of the calculator in our educational system.

My mobile device content use is limited.  I generally don’t use anything until I see a need for it.  I use a cell phone just as I do a regular phone, even though it has other capabilities such a taking pictures/videos.  I have not subscribed to texting as I have never felt the need to text. 

I also use a GPS to locate specific addresses or to find a type of restaurant, museum, park, and so forth, without knowing a specific name.  The GPS allows me to see how far something is from where I am at the moment.  My husband, daughter and I have often experienced a museum or restaurant we didn’t know existed because of the listing the GPS provided.  First seeing how far we would have to travel and then selecting three or so places to consider, we were able to drive by and investigate before committing.  But, this is our style, particularly when we travel to a city on the spur of the moment.

I haven’t created any content for a mobile device.  Having completed my second project on personal response systems (aka, clickers), I would create a question bank for Social Studies and Math.  While this is not intended to be content students could pull up on clickers, questions would be projected onto the large screen, and the mobile clicker would transmit a response to the question.

Something else I would like to do is to create podcasts, such as Brian has done, for students to be able to access at home as well as school.  These podcasts could be used for review of concepts covered in math so that a student could access that information during homework.  Parents, too could access this information which could enable them to assist their child.  I don’t see much in the way of parental involvement with homework but if I gave them a glimpse into what their children hear during instruction, this might encourage them to be a little more involved with their child’s education at home.

At the end of Brian’s podcast he mentions using mobile devices on field trips.  Two field trips I embark with students each year are a trek on some trails and among rocks in the White Tank Mountain area of JTNP.  I love the idea of using GPS coordinates as an interface to content that was keyed to specific locations.  In fact, such a task exists when students visit the Keyes Ranch.  They are, with a paper guide and pencil and paper for responding, to go to the six locations on this ranch and locate things and record their findings.  It is a simple activity, but the wind generally blows the paper (and sometimes blows it away for good!).  Using a GPS would enhance this activity through the use of map skills.  And, quite frankly, it just sounds like a whole lot more fun.

Citation One:

Ribbens, E., Why I Like Clicker Personal Response Systems, Journal of College Science Teaching, v 37 no2 N/D 2007

Summary:     

Eric Ribbens, associate professor in the Department of Biological Sciences at Western Illinois University, joined an investigation into the use of clicker personal response systems to teach cases in large introductory biology courses.  After exploring different brands of clickers and outfitting his students with this device, Ribbens used them extensively during every class.  This handheld remote is used by students to enter responses to multiple choice questions which are displayed on the classroom screen, usually with a PowerPoint presentation.  A receiver connected to a computer collects, grades, stores, and posts a summary of the responses of a quiz.  

Clickers turned out to be more than a tool for quizzing and immediate feedback for Ribbens.  He states, “…the big impact has not been on [the students], but on me.  Suddenly I had a large new window into their abilities (p. 62).”  Initially Ribbens interspersed clicker questions into his lecture to recapture students’ attention when he sensed it was waning.  He quickly found that the instant feedback from clicker questions guided his lessons depending on the outcome of the quizzes.  His lectures became more interactive, often leading to class discussions.  Ultimately, Ribbens’ students averaged overall an 8% increase in their grades and a 20% increase in attendance.  He also remarks that the students enjoyed the course experience more with the use of clickers.

Review:         

“Why I Like Clicker Personal Response Systems” is more a narrative than a research study of personal response systems.  The anecdotal evidence provided is inspiring for any teacher who is interested in engaging students in active learning.  Ribbens’ article leads the reader to infer that it does take a teacher who is positive about clickers and desirous of making class-time a time of interaction to effectively employ this mobile device.  His “A Collection of things I’d Like to Share” (Figure 1, p. 62) provides the interested reader with practical tips, revealing that it is indeed more than the device itself that leads to improved quality in his class lectures.  Ribbens reports that by allowing his students to discuss clicker questions, he could then wander “…up and down the aisles eavesdropping, and I worked what I heard into the course conversation.” (p. 62)

This article presents a positive experience by one individual and the reader might wonder if Ribbens experienced any pitfalls using clicker personal response systems in his large classes.  In any case, he seemed prepared to integrate this technology, ready to move forward with the clicker’s potential when combined with innovative aspects of teaching employed by a conscientious and willing teacher.

Citation Two:

Nelson, M. L. & Hauck, R. V., Clicking to Learn:  A Case Study of Embedding Radio-Frequency based Clickers in an Introductory Management Information Systems Course, Journal of Information Systems Education, v 19 no1 Spr 2008

Summary:

Matthew L. Nelson and Roslin V. Hauck offer a case study presenting real life application of an in-class, radio-frequency (RF) based classroom response system (clickers) in a mid-sized public university in the mid-western United States, specifically in an introductory MIS (management information systems) course.  This study addressed the challenges associated with teaching core introductory MIS courses:  actively engaging students in large classes and sustaining their interest throughout the semester.

            Prior to their study, Nelson and Hauck reviewed effective learning principles in the classroom:  active learning, providing feedback, attention span, and student motivation.   Features of RF clickers, when compared to infrared clickers, made them the obvious choice when considering classrooms and lecture halls.  RF clickers cover longer distances, transmit signals faster, and are not encumbered by most physical obstructions.  The researchers explain how clickers function in a classroom.  “Because each clicker uniquely identifies its owner, instructors can use the data collected by the system to easily track student participation and performance” (p. 56).  The information is stored in the instructor’s PC system.  On-campus administration, RF based clickers, and using a classroom response system (CRS) application program highly integrated with Microsoft PowerPoint stabilized the initial pilot system.  The benefits gained by this stabilization were enhanced student privacy, high clicker-to-receiver hit ratio, easier integration into class lectures, and greater control by the instructor. 

            Recommendations from Nelson and Hauck are employ a clicker system that is RF-based, with on-site administration, and provide a CRS application that is compatible with the instructor’s presentation software.  This study also found that the effective use of CRS technology can essentially change the traditional format of large-lecture classrooms.  Instructors can better manage in-class group break-out sessions, and gauge comprehension levels.  The latter allows the instructor to adjust teaching styles or content accordingly on a real-time basis.  Students who are struggling can be identified prior to a test rather than after a test.  Students benefit by increased participation during class and hence, an increased level of interest.  In addition to increased attendance, higher clicker usage promoted more favorable student perceptions in terms of active learning, motivation, and providing feedback.

Review:

Nelson and Hauck note the most significant limitation of their study:  its scope is limited to a single university setting and a single course.  Still, this should not diminish the findings which encourage the development and effective integration of CRS and future adopters.  One restrictive component of this study is that it is limited to higher education.  Teachers of elementary and secondary education could benefit from CRS technology but relying on the results of a study such as this, they would have to apply a certain amount of faith that similar results could be attained in pre-college institutions. 

Resistance toward clickers is tempered by Nelson’s and Hauck’s review of effective learning principles in the classroom which are applicable in any learning environment.  Taking those principles into consideration as the underlying goals to be accomplished by implementing CRS in the classroom, an elementary or secondary education teacher could readily apply the lessons learned by this study.  Certainly the researchers’ findings of increased participation and the value of immediate feedback would be significant reasons for at least looking into incorporating clickers into the daily lessons of educators in K-12 classrooms.

Citation Three:

Stowell, J. R. & Nelson, J. M., Benefits of Electronic Audience Response Systems on Student Participation, Learning, and Emotion, Teaching of Psychology, v 34  no4 2007

Summary:

            Jeffrey Stowell and Jason Nelson of Eastern Illinois University recruited 140 students from introductory psychology classes at a college in the Midwest.  The methods of responding to informal and formal questions interspersed throughout the class lectures were as follows.  Group one responded to informal questions by raising their hands.  Group two responded to informal questions by raising their hands, and also raised their hands to answer formal review questions (multiple choice).  Group three held up response cards to indicate their answers to formal review questions.  Group four used clickers to indicate their answers to the formal review questions. 

The results of correct responses were similar among the four groups, but the defining factors of one method of responding over another were honesty in answering the question and increased participation when using clickers.  Hand-raising and response cards were viewed as creating a tendency to “go along” with those who raised their hands or cards first in response to whether a certain option was the correct answer.  Generally, the brightest members of the class were the initiators of the answers, and were often correct.  Videotapes suggested others in the class simply went along with their answers, or did not respond at all, thus not guaranteeing understanding.  The use of clickers to respond produced a slightly lower number of students getting the correct answer, but 100% of the students participated in responding and reported a greater degree of enjoyment of the class lecture.  Stowell and Nelson suggest that first of all, in-class review questions will likely increase student participation and reduce boredom.  They also suggest that an audience response system with clickers gives the instructor honest feedback and possibly increases the enjoyment of learning by the student.

Review:

One limitation of this study is that it presented one 30-minute lecture to each of the four groups, thereby obtaining data from 34 to 35 students per group.  The lack of data on how each response method would bear out over a semester leaves the reader wondering about the benefits of one response method over another in the normal time span of this psychology course.  Another limitation of this study is that it was somewhat contrived.  Stowell and Nelson rewarded participants with research credit and a chance at winning a $25 gift certificate to motivate the students to put forth effort.  This study might be more meaningful to educators if the different response methods were utilized under normal classroom conditions, without external rewards, and carried out over the typical time span of a semester course in college.

Citation Four:

Herreid, C. F., “Clicker” Cases:  Introducing Case Study Teaching Into Large Classrooms, Journal of College Science Teaching, v 36 no2 O 2006

Summary:

            Clyde Herreid, a distinguished teaching professor with the State University of New York, discusses the need for and use of student response systems, or clickers, in large classrooms.  Citing the disadvantages of large lecture classes in colleges (discipline, attention, attendance), the author focuses on the importance of interactive feedback as the key to success in learning.  While various methods are mentioned in order to achieve feedback, the spotlight is on clickers which allow teachers to effectively introduce case study teaching into large classrooms.  Herreid states that the disadvantages of clicker use are minor when compared to the advantages of increased attendance and student motivation for learning that clickers seem to bring about.  Herreid even reports the argument that improved motivation may lead to cognitive persistence and mastery goal setting, which in turn leads to learning success.

            The article’s last section reports on Herreid’s own findings in using clickers in his explanation of The Interrupted Case Method.  The instructor selects a topic, takes students through a series of scenarios, and at each stage, students are given information and asked to predict what might happen if such and such were done.  Students are shown a series of options and asked to vote, using their clickers.  The results are shown to the whole class on a histogram on a Powerpoint slide.  Before voting, students can consult with their neighbors.  Clarification of the answers ensues, then more lecture and data, and the process repeats itself.  Herreid reports that in addition to increased attendance, “Performance on critical-thinking questions also improves and class grades rise.”  (p. 46)

Review:

            Herreid points out the positive views toward the subject of science held by students after having engaged in classroom response systems.  Such an effect would be considered a beneficial component of any tool an educator decides to integrate into teaching.  This article is encouraging to educators who are interested in overcoming the challenges class size and theater seating bring with them.  Herreid makes a strong case for incorporating clickers into lecture halls in colleges, supporting his views with twenty-eight references, including his own.

            Initially, elementary and secondary teachers may not relate to Herreid’s discussion as it is limited to making a case for integrating active learning strategies in large science classrooms via personal response systems.  But, teachers of students in grades K through 12 also struggle with making learning more interactive and gaining real-time feedback.  Though most likely not faced with 100 students, 30 to 40 students in those K-12 classrooms is not uncommon.  Those students are perhaps in even greater need of being able to learn interactively.  It would not be difficult to imagine the advantageous outcome of using clickers Herreid has reported repeating itself in classrooms of youths and teens.

Citation Five:

Hines, L., Interactive Learning Environment Keeps Modesto Students Engaged, T.H.E. Journal, v 33 no2 September 2005

Summary:

            A $500,000 grant in technology afforded four junior high schools in Modesto, California the opportunity to incorporate Pearson NCS’ Classroom Performance System (CPS) into math and science classrooms.  This CPS is a wireless interactive response system where students use a handheld remote to respond to questions while providing teachers with immediate feedback.  CPS Challenge Software included in this grant introduces a new form of collaborative learning in an interactive game format which reinforces understanding through repetition and review.  Additionally, the CPS Chalkboards are wireless graphic palettes that let teachers draw on a projected image.

            The author states that along with the reported improved scores by the students in math and science, the evidence for success attributable to CPS use is  otherwise “…mostly anecdotal but compelling” (p. 40).  The privacy inherent in the interactivity of the CPS encourages all students to participate, creating a high level of involvement.  This, in turn, creates teachable moments according to Hines.  Being able to pause during a Powerpoint presentation to ask questions along the way enables a teacher to see immediately who understands and who does not, then spending a little more time on a specific concept.  Hines is the director of instructional technology for the Modesto City Schools and as such, is proactive in teaching teachers how to integrate technology into the classroom and a promoter of the CPS systems.

Review:

            The value of this article lies in reporting of the utilization of a personal response system at the secondary education level.  The previous citations discuss the use of such a system in higher education institutions.  The article is briefly informative and may leave the reader wanting more specific details regarding the everyday workings of this classroom performance system.  It is clear how the system is designed to work, but anecdotal evidence from the teachers in those schools would give the reader a broader understanding of how it works in the real classroom. 

A Review of Five Mobile Devices Applications and/or Web Services

 I accessed each one of these applications or web services directly from Brian Newberry’s list under Media and Links on the Schedule in Blackboard.  I noticed when I clicked each an actual website (i.e. http://www and so on) did not appear.  My intention in listing them exactly as Brian has listed them is to allow fellow bloggers to know from where I got my information on the selection below.

Educational applications for iPhones 

Reviewing this site, but realizing owning an iPhone would be necessary, I instantly liked these applications:  Spanish Tutor (for me, personally), Brain Tuner (for my students when solving math problems; they could readily partner up using this application; would I enter the problems or would there be a menu from which to select grade appropriate problems?), and myHomework.  I think the latter just might entice a student to take greater responsibility for keeping up with assignments.  Students seem to value their electronic devices more than a paper handout from me, so this application could definitely be beneficial.

Learning in Hand

 My interest in this site was peaked when I read about how hand-held computers could accommodate an add-on keyboard.  Students could then easily word process right at their desks, and the problem of a too-tiny screen would be alleviated.  Simple tasks that I have previously assigned on (math facts drills, vocabulary practice, spelling practice) the stationary classroom computers (five students at a time maximum), could be afforded to all students using hand-held computers at any time.  Students could also confer with peers during this type of practice.  I can envision my students logging on to eduplace.com for Social Studies and Science during the instruction for these subjects in my classroom.  As it is now, we wait for our designated one hour a week in computer lab to log on to this site.  Using the tasks provided at eduplace.com immediately or during a lesson would be more meaningful with a “learning in hand” device.

 Twitter

Watching the video presentation of Twitter, I instantly reached an opinion:  this is just a quick and easy way to make short, mundane comments to friends.  I reacted negatively to this because I envisioned a person using this as having nothing better to do than share bits of gossip with selected friends.  The video even says its purpose is to share the little things. 

On the more positive side, I like that Twitter is basically a very short blog (up to 140 characters), and a user could see several people’s comments at a time.  Twitter can be used on mobile devices.  But, is this valuable in a sixth grade classroom?  Perhaps, because twitters are brief, a collaborative group, for example, could enter their comments/responses to a story the entire class has read.  The group’s comments are all viewed together, even with each person’s photo next to their comment.  Once those are posted, I could, as the instructor, retrieve their twitters and post them on my PC and project them onto the large screen for the rest of the groups to view.  And so on with the remaining groups.  Possibly I could even print these twitters.  Already I am imagining a greater participation by each individual student.  I can see that compared to how I do this same thing, but end up using a consensus of a group who then posts their comment on poster paper to display, by using a hand-held device and Twitter, each participant could more readily take ownership of their own response, and would possibly put more effort into a quality response without worrying about whether others could read their handwriting or not.

Poll Anywhere

Poll Anywhere makes a case for using it over clickers in an educational setting, specifically classrooms.  They note the expense and storage of clickers as drawbacks, and yet, my students would have to bring something in the way of a handheld device into the classroom in order to use Poll Anywhere.  At first I could not see the cost advantage of Poll Anywhere texting, except when I read further that an instructor or presenter could acitviate “free texting.”  But, is anything really free? 

 My question regarding Twitter or Poll Anywhere, is that since the real beauty of these applications is that they can and seem to most often be used with handheld devices, which handheld device would be more economically feasible for sixth graders (in my specific case)?  Also, I would want to ensure that such devices could accommodate add-on keyboards.

 Official iPhone Application

Provided one has an iPhone, I am enthused about all of the abilities of this device.  One overriding concern I have had regarding mobile devices is their size:  small.  But, without adding on a keyboard, iPhone can display their QWERTY keyboard in landscape form giving the user at least a somewhat larger keyboard.  Personally, I would find this advantageous.  I am so accustomed to QWERTY that entering in the name of a street in my GPS is awkward as the letters are arranged alphabetically.  My twenty-year-old daughter is comfortable with either keyboard, but her generation has been raised on technology!  I would make use of the cut, copy, paste of my photos (which I could also take with an iPhone) as well as doing this from things I found on the internet (which I can also access with an iPhone).  I can upload photos, and even the photos I could choose to sync with music on iPhoto or Mac.  This all appears to be Mac oriented which is fine by me.  My husband has ordered a MacBook for me as a birthday gift.  Now if I could just get an iPhone…

One question: would an iPhone be an essential tool for a elementary or secondary education student?  Controlling access to sites and abilities could pose some challenging problems for teachers.

Regarding our second assignment, I have searched and found five peer-reviewed articles that appealed to me.  Most of them are focused on interactive writing mobile devices, but one mentions clickers which is something new to me.  A sixth article I pulled up discusses the advanatages of gradually introducing technology into the classroom as children proceed from Kindergarten through 12th grade.  The author does not seem to be in favor of technology in the primary grades (except for special needs), but feels it should take a prominent place in the life of a high school student.

I will most likely focus on interactive mobile devices such as the Smartpad and clickers as I find out more about them in my mobile devices paper.  A topic for the optional project is still forthcoming.  My interests seem to be leaning on the rather all-encompassing idea of effectively incorporating technology in a regular classroom setting.  My own goal as an educator is to afford students daily opportunities with technology, both in whole class instruction and individual use to accomplish learning tasks.

Onward to reading other posted blogs – it seems a number of the members of this class are well-versed in a variety of mobile devices.  Has anyone ever designed a new “take” on a mobile device that would be beneficial in a classroom setting?  The reason I ask this is that as I read about hand-held devices (such as palm pilots) one possible drawback is the small size.

Hope you all enjoyed the Fourth of July!

First Assignment:
Create a Blog URL
Introduce yourself and discuss your experiences with mobile devices.

July 2, 2009

Greetings! I’m Barb Brockman and have just been added to this course this week. I am currently working on a master’s degree in education, in the Holistic and Integrated Education Program. I entered into teaching in public schools thirteen years ago and am currently teaching sixth grade.

My mobile device experience is limited relatively speaking. Computer use is primarily confined to word processing and e-mail, as well as research on the internet and electronic libraries. My husband and I purchased our first computer in 1985; it was a Leading Edge and cost approximately $2000. The memories of this computer are but a blur in my mind as I never became comfortable with its idiosyncrasies. I currently am using a four-year-old laptop made by Hewlitt Packard.

Until recently I have not felt the need to venture further into other realms of mobile devices. However, last year I did purchase a GPS which I depend on when exploring new territory. Several years ago my husband and I purchased three cell phones, the third one for our daughter. The cell phone is invaluable considering the distances we three travel and being able to keep in touch. We are considering giving up our land line phone altogether but still wonder if we can trust ourselves to charge them as needed and to place them where we can find them!

The school site at which I work has equipped each classroom with an ELMO and a projector in my classroom which has replaced the overhead projector. While I find this equipment a boon to my teaching, I noticed I had begun to plant myself by ELMO. My style of teaching changed and I didn’t like it. I typically move around the room when delivering instruction but with this new setup, I stayed put more. I still use ELMO but make a conscious effort to move around when I teach. I have also allowed my students to use this equipment rather than just me. They become the modelers and I can observe and learn.

Our site has equipped each classroom with five computers as well as a lab that accommodates up to 35 students. On the surface we look like we know what we are doing and use technology on a regular basis. However, the computer lab has become for many teachers a planning period while their students play the same old educational games. The classroom computers have gathered layers of dust, and remain off most of the year; or are used solely for the purpose of students taking reading quizzes. The software is sorely lacking and teachers have not been trained on how to efficiently incorporate computers into a day of learning.

Technology is only as good as the user. It takes time to research the technology that would be most valuable to me as a teacher and I do rely on the technology personnel our district has hired. Unfortunately, those people are few and not adept at figuring out just what it is teacher’s need despite the willingness of teachers to inform them. Budget constraints are a big part of the picture and I think it is easier for school boards to approve only that with which they are familiar. If district personnel, administrators, and school boards aren’t comfortable with technology, they will most likely not spend taxpayer’s money on it. Their discomfiture most likely comes from where my own comes from: ignorance. In their (and my) defense, there is so much to know, how does one ever make a workable decision? Technology changes rapidly, and so is it any wonder schools seem to have “dinosaurs” when it comes to computers?

I have often stated I would like each of my students to have a laptop at their tables. I think how readily I sit down to one to brainstorm, write papers, and pull up information for research. I would never substitute this for a book, however. There is something to being able to use a book for reference in addition to websites. I would probably not like to see computers without a keyboard and purely voice activated/commanded. That sounds great, but the kinetic component of learning would be diminished. I also believe that there is value in pencil and paper. Keyboards, while kinetic, do not have the same effect as using a pencil and the different physical experiences of each are uniquely important.

Educators have the task of balancing technology use with social interaction; communication via technology balanced with person to person communication. Even now as I attempt to carry on conversations with the members of this class, I am thinking I would rather be in a classroom sharing our thoughts and ideas. There is no substitute for this kind of interaction, as appealing as blogging might be.

Perhaps the nonplussed attitude by people in general toward new technology is a statement about what people need: other people. But, I also think that there is so much “out there” that many of us do not know how to sift through this information overload in order to find the best fit for us. This is most likely true for educational institutions as well.