PROFESSIONAL CONTRIBUTION Elena Pellegrini April 2012.

PROFESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONElena Pellegrini

April 2012

STUDENT RESPONSE SYSTEMSA Study in Achievement and Engagement with Attention on Socioeconomic Status

Introduction to Student Response Systems

• Technological changes have led to the development of innovated devices to assess retention and comprehension with a push of a button.

• There are a variety of student response systems, but ultimately they all serve a question and answer function, ranging from simple to complex

Pros and Cons

Pros Cons

May highlight the gap in

technological exposure

Require some student and

educator training

Can be rather costly

Increase Productivity

Reduce Carbon Footprint

Provide Instant Feedback

History of Student Response Systems

• Early 1950s- Answer by Card• Four cards with color coded tabs

• 1958- Answer Light Systems• Device would light up indicating student response• Replaced by Student Instant Response System, which was even

more advanced and had an instructor panel.

• Early 1960s- EDEX Systems• Similar to past practices, but had a scoring component

• 1968- San Jacinto College• Officially defined instant Student Response System, stating that it

must in fact be a response device, have questions posed in yes-no or multiple choice, and allow for all students to answer.

Student Response Systems of Today• vClicker Mobile edition• eInstruction CPSPulse• Smart Technologies Response XE• MimioVote Dymo/Mimio ITT• Califone GOT IT• Promethean software company

Promethean Planet• ActiVote

• 6 buttons with A-F interface and exports data in .txt or Excel

• ActivExpression• A-F multiple choice, enhanced multiple choice, true/false, yes/no,

sortable Likert scales, numeric input, text entry.

• ActivEngage• Computer based program used for classrooms with 1:1 computers

or in a lab setting

ActivExpression Machine

Research Design• This study is designed to measure the level of student

achievement and engagement utilizing ActivExpression with regards to different socioeconomic statuses.

• “At-Risk” students were identified using the PVASS system.

• Prior to the survey, all students took a technology exposure survey.

Subjects• 9th Grade World History

• 30 students total• 18 Female• 12 Male

• 2 students (1 male, 1 female) were excluded from data analysis

Technology Exposure Survey

Clicker Strong

All have computers; Average time 8.55 years

Average grade of computers in class- 2nd

Daily use: 9; Weekly 3; Monthly 2

Clicker Weak

All have computers, Average time 9.90 years

Average grade of computers in class- 2nd

Daily use: 11; Weekly 3

Students deemed “clicker weak” use computer based technology moreregularly than their “clicker strong” counterparts.

Clicker Strong

Cell Phones: 11 had cell phones, 3 did not

10 Cell phones had internet access, 6 used daily, 1 monthly, 2 less than 6x/year, 1 never used

All students who owned cell phones had phones with texting capabilities, sending an average 366 texts/day

Clicker Weak

Cell Phones: 12 had cell phones, 2 did not

6 Cell phones had internet access, 2 used daily, 3 used weekly, 1 never used

Of students who had cell phone, 11 had texting capabilities, sending an average of 382 texts/day

Students deemed “clicker weak” use cell phone based technology moreregularly than their “clicker strong” counterparts.

Technology Tools Competence

Gam

esW

ord

Excel

Prese

ntat

ion

Mult

imed

ia

Inte

rnet

Gra

phics

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

StrongWeak

Ideal Conditions

Done on a unit basis

4 chapters, each with 4 quizzes and one exam

Repeated for ActivExpression

Actual Conditions

Done on a Chapter basis

2 quizzes, one exam

Repeated for ActivExpression

Achievement Results• Quiz Results:

• 12 students strong• 9 weaker• 9 showed no difference

• Exam Results• 14 strong• 14 weak• 2 showed no difference

• Average improvement for strength: 3.78 points• Average decline for weak: 16.93 points

Engagement Results• At the conclusion of the study, students were asked to tak

e a short survey to give their impression of using the educational tool.

• Areas address were growth, retention, level of user ease, interest level, attention holding, and usefulness.

I feel like I learned more using the clickers

Strength Weak0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1- Strongly Disagree2- Disagree3- Agree4- Strongly Agree

I feel like I remembered more using the clickers

Strength Weak0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1- Strongly Disagree2- Disagree3- Agree4- Strongly Agree

I found the clickers to be confusing

Strength Weak0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1- Strongly Disagree2-Disagree3- Agree4- Stongly Agree

I found class to be more interesting with the clickers

Strength Weak0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1- Strongly Disagree2- Disagree3- Agree4- Strongly Agree

I paid more attention when using the clickers in class

Strength Weak0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1- Strongly Disagree2- Disagree3- Agree4- Strongly Agree

I found there to be no difference between using and not using the clickers

Strength Weak0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1- Strongly Disagree2- Disagree3- Agree4- Strongly Agree

Student Perceptions• Students who showed achievement with the clickers used

the following terms with the most frequency to highlight their experience:

6- Easy

4- Fun

3- Interesting

3- Different

2- Cool

2- Not preferable

2- Confusing

• Students who did not show achievement with the clickers used the following terms with the most frequency to highlight their experience:

10- Fun

6- Interesting

6- Different

4- Easy

2- Helpful

2- Fast

2- Not preferable

2- Confusing

2- Frustrating

Educational Implications and Contributions of Research• Important to utilize best practices.

• When best practices are not clearly defined, research is imperative

• Need to acknowledge individual students strengths and weaknesses

• Clickers should be used to improve instruction, not as a busy tool.

• Early exposure and intervention with technology is key.

• Moderation and variety is ESSENTIAL.

Study Summary• Achievement results were even, with 14 students

succeeding, 14 faltering, and 2 remaining the same.

• However, while the improvement utilizing the clickers was minimal, students who did not improve showed remarkable decline.

• It is important to analyze the study holistically as well as individually to spot trends.• Highest point improvement: 29 points• Largest decline: 46 points

• Engagement was fairly consistent in both sets of students, indicating that new devices do hold attention.

• Students who had higher achievement were more likely to indicate a less favorable reaction to the clickers.

• Suggestion for improved implementation: Early exposure, proper training, and judicial use of devices.