Using a Classroom Response System to Increase Active Learning in a High School Science Class

8/9/2019 Using a Classroom Response System to Increase Active Learning in a High School Science Class

1/64

Using a Classroom Response System to Increase Active Learning in a High School

Science Class

A Field Project Presented to the Faculty of the College of Education

TOURO UNIVERSITY - CALIFORNIA

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of

MASTERS OF ARTS

in

EDUCATION

With Emphasis in

Education Technology

By

Andrea F. Jenest

May 2010

Using a Classroom Response System to Increase Active Learning in a High School

Science Class


2/64

In partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the

MASTER OF ARTS DEGREE

In

EDUCATION

BY

Andrea Jenest

TOURO UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIA

May 2010

Under the guidance and approval of the committee and approval by all the members, thisfield project has been accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree.

Approved:

___________________________ ___________________Susan Craig, Ed.D. Date

___________________________ ___________________Pamela A. Redmond, Ed.D. Date

__________________________ ___________________Jim OConnor, Ph.D, Dean Date


3/64

TOURO UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIACollege of Education

Author Release

Name:Andrea Jenest

The Touro University California College of Education has permission to use my MAthesis or field project as an example of acceptable work. This permission includes theright to duplicate the manuscript as well as permits the document to be checked out fromthe College Library or School website.

In addition, I give Dr. Pamela Redmond permission to share my handbook with others viathe Internet.

Signature: __________________________________

Date: ______________________________________


4/64

i

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................1

Introduction ............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .........1

Statement of Problem ............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .......... ..... .....1

Purpose of Project .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. ...........3

Objectives ............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. ......... ..... ..... ..... ..5

Definition of Terms ............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. ....... ...6

Summary ............ ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. ....... ...... ...... ...... ..7

CHAPTER II............................................................................................................ 9

Introduction ............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .........9

Purpose .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .......... ..... ..... ..... ...9

Landmark Studies .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. ..... ..... ..... ..... ...10

University Based Studies .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... ....... .....13

High School Studies ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. ........ ..... ..... ..17

Conclusion .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. ........ ..... ..... ....20

CHAPTER III......................................................................................................... 23

Background .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ....... ..... ..... ...23

Classroom Information and Student Demographics .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... ....... ...25

Procedure .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .........26

Results .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ......... ..... .28

Quantitative data...................................................................................................................................28Qualitative Data: .............................................................................................................................. .....32

Summary of Results: .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... ............. ..... ..... ..... .....33

CHAPTER IV ........................................................................................................34

Project Purpose ............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ......... ..... .34

Project Outcomes .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... ....... ...34


5/64

ii

Project Evaluation ............ ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... ......... ...... ...... ...37

Experimental Design: ............................................................................................................................37Limitations: ...........................................................................................................................................37

Next Steps ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. ........ ..... ..... ....38

Conclusion .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. ........ ..... ..... ....39

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 42

APPENDICES ......................................................................................................45

Appendix A: Science Class Pre-Survey .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. ............ ..... ..... ..... ....46

Appendix B: Student Response Histograms ............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ............... ...........47

Appendix C: Science Class Post-Survey .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. .............. ....... ...... ...49

Appendix D: Internal Review Board Project Proposal ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..... .51

Appendix E: Project Handbook .............. .............. .............. ............... .............. .............. ............ ...... ...... .....58


6/64

iii

List of Tables

Table 1: Oceanography Pre and Post Survey Data about Science Experiences

Table 2: Biology Pre and Post Survey Data about Science Experiences

Table 3: Oceanography Pre and Post Survey Data Pertaining to Confidence in

Classroom Skills

Table 4:Biology Pre and Post Survey Data Pertaining to Confidence in Classroom Skills

Table 5: Clicker Survey Responses


7/64

Chapter 1

Introduction

It is common knowledge among teaching professionals that students learn and retain

more when they are engaged in class as active learners. For the purposes of this project,

an active learner will be defined as a student who questions their own understanding of a

concept and who actively seeks to apply that concept to related problems, or real world

issues. While many teachers want students to engage with the lessons, they frequently do

not provide a classroom setting that is conducive to active learning. Fortunately,

technology is providing tools, such as the classroom response system (CRS), which can

help teachers increase the level of student engagement in their classrooms.

Statement of Problem

The issue many teachers face is that they have a large amount of material to teach in a

short amount of time. Many strategies, such as problem based learning, have proven

themselves effective in teaching critical thinking skills by empowering students to use

active learning. However, these strategies are so time consuming that many teachers

dont feel they are practical. Instead, many teachers rely on the time efficient, yet very

passive, lecture format.

While the teachers may say a lot during a lecture, the students often lose focus,

missing much, and mastering little, of what was said during the class period. Even if the

students try and pay attention, studies have shown that students learning via lecture tend

to hang on to previously held misconceptions, and/or find it difficult to apply the material

to similar situations (Duncan, 2005). In a science class, which is based heavily on


8/64

vocabulary and which builds quickly from one idea to the next, fading out during one

moment can make comprehending the rest of the topic very difficult. In addition, many

students come into science classes with strongly rooted misconceptions from their

childhood, which can be incredibly difficult to break. A famous example of this can be

seen in A Private Universe (Sahiner & Tricia, 1987), a documentary film produced to

examine why so many people dont understand basic science concepts. It documents how

Harvard graduates incorrectly attribute seasons to the distance from the sun, rather than to

the tilt of the Earth on its axis as they had been taught in their science classes. These

students were taught the correct information in college, but most likely in a lecture format

that did not require them to actively challenge their previously held misconceptions.

There are many strategies used to make lectures more active, but most produce

only limited success. For instance discussion questions are frequently included, but are

frequently met by blank stares, rather than a sea of hands. To encourage participation

many teachers try calling at random, voting as a class, and small group discussion.

However, with each of these methods teachers frequently find themselves struggling to

get students to talk and share their thoughts. Even in small groups, one voice frequently

dominates while the others happily follow along without thinking through the problem

themselves. Some of this may be due to a lack of motivation, but many students express

the fact that they are scared to get the questions wrong, so they simply do not try (Draper

& Brown, 2004).

Background and Need

Recognizing that lecture lacks interaction with students, some universities have been

employing the use of some form of a CRS for several decades (Bruff, 2009). The modern

2


9/64

response system works by having students respond to multiple choice questions using

remotes, frequently called clickers. The signals are received by a computer, the student

responses are tallied, and the class results can be immediately shown on a graph, usually

projected by an LCD on to a screen.

Extensive research has been conducted in college physics courses and it has shown

that a CRS coupled with peer instruction significantly raises test scores (Duncan, 2005).

However, that is not the only use. Researchers at the University of Glasgow found that

each if its departments were able to successfully employ the CRS in a variety of settings;

from a freshmen philosophy course, to a senior level statistics course (Draper & Brown,

2004). In addition other researchers (Duncan, 2008) have collected data showing that the

CRS can be successfully used to:

Encourage participation in classroom discussion.

Generate small group discussions.

Identify student misconceptions.

Assess student learning through formative and summative assessments. (In order

to use the clickers to grade, each student must be registered to a specific clicker.)

On the other hand, while there is extensive research, and even books, on using clickers

at the university level, there has not been much research carried out at the high school

level. Additionally, no instructional manuals on techniques for incorporating a CRS into

a high school classroom were found following an exhaustive review of existing research.

Purpose of Project

3


10/64


11/64

Objectives

The researchers goals at the start of the project were to increase the time the students

actively engaged in class. Specifically:

1. Students would not take notes for more than 10 minutes without participating in a

clicker based peer discussion/teaching session.

2. On most days students would use clickers to answer warm-up questions.

3. Students would be seated in peer groups to allow for increased discussions. (This

would also be used as an opportunity to teach the importance of working as part

of a group.)

4. If 70% of the students did not answer a question correctly, the topic would be re-

taught using a different technique, and then the question would be re-asked before

the correct answer was revealed.

5. Students would learn the meaning of active learning and the researcher would

openly discuss the reasoning behind the teaching practices.

6. Students would use the clickers to give direct feedback on the speed of the class

in order to improve the researchers delivery and to help determine the direction

of the class.

7. Students would use the clickers to make predictions prior to labs and

demonstrations and would discuss their hypothesis with their peers.

8. Students would use the clickers to report the results of their labs and would

discuss reasons for the different outcomes.

5


12/64

9. Students would have greater success on quizzes and tests.

10.Due to increased class discussions, students would have more thoughtful lab

write-ups and short answer responses.

11. Students would have a more positive view of science, and would begin to see that

while there are right answers, much in science is still open for discussion and

interpretation.

Definition of Terms

Active Learning: Students question their own understanding of a concept and actively

seek to apply concepts to related problems, or real world issues.

Classroom Response System: Students answer multiple choice questions using a remote

called a clicker. The classroom response system receives the signals and creates a bar

graph on the computer showing how the class voted.

Clicker: A remote used by students to enter answers to multiple choice questions.

Formative Assessment:Part of the instructional process. When incorporated intoclassroom practice, it provides the information needed to adjust teaching and learning

while they are happening. (retrieved 5/26/09 from: http://www.nmsa.org/Publications/

WebExclusive/Assessment/tabid/1120/Default.aspx ).

Peer Instruction: Instructional method in which students spend time discussing the

reasoning for their answers with a group of fellow students. (retrieved 4/12/10 from:

http://mazur-www.harvard.edu/research/detailspage.php?rowid=8).

6


13/64

Summative Assessment:Given periodically to determine at a particular point in timewhat students know and do not know. (retrieved 5/26/09 from: http://www.nmsa.org/

Publications/WebExclusive/Assessment/tabid/1120/Default.aspx ).

Summary

When discussing student work, science teachers often use the term cook-booking.

Cook-booking occurs when a student follows the formula, directions, or notes, without

thinking about what he or she is doing. While the student may produce a product at the

end of the day, he or she may not be able to explain how it was produced, and cannot

apply the information to a new situation in the future. In order to avoid cook-booking,

students need to think about what they are doing. Research shows that a CRS can help

students remain focused and gives them the chance to immediately practice applying the

concepts theyre learning in class (Draper & Brown, 2004). Because the CRS is

anonymous, students should be empowered to participate, thereby increasing engagement

and learning. Potentially, this will also allow them to take ownership of their own ideas.

If students learn how to process information, then they will be one step closer to

becoming life-long active learners.

Eric Hoffer stated that in times of change, the learners will inherit the earth, while

the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer

exists" (Hoffer, 1973, p. 32). To the researcher, this epitomizes why incorporating a CRS

can improve the delivery of curriculum. Passively listening to a lecture is unlikely to

help students learn how to think. On the other hand, working with a group, and

discussing their reasoning will not only help improve their understanding of the topic

7


14/64

being studied in class, it will improve their ability to work through problems as part of a

group.

8


15/64

Chapter II

Introduction

Science education has traditionally been conducted through lecture format; the theory

being that the information can be directly transferred from the teacher to the student.

Lecture is frequently accompanied by laboratory exercises emphasizing science as a

process (National Research Council, 1996, p. 2). These labs typically require students to

develop scientific skills such as observation, inference, and/or experimentation.

However, educational theory is changing, and many educators are recognizing the

strengths of Constructivism. Dufrense , Gerace, Leonard, Mestre, and Wink (1996)

summarize the literature on constructivism, stating that it emphasizes the role of

learners in constructing their own knowledge (Anderson, 1987; Jonassen, 1995; Resnick,

1983, 1987; Schauble, 1990; von Glasersfeld, 1989, 1992). The construction of

knowledge is viewed to be the result of the learners attempts to use his/her existing

knowledge to make sense of new experiences ( Dufrense et al., 1996, p.5). In an attempt

to incorporate these new educational theories into science education reform, the National

Science Standards were updated in 1996. The standards now specifically describe science

education as an active process which should include minds on opportunities to

actively develop their understanding of science by combining scientific knowledge with

reasoning and thinking skills (National Science Standards, 1996, p.3).

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of decreasing lecture time

and increasing the amount of time a student spends engaged in active learning;

specifically by incorporating a classroom response system (CRS) into a high school

9


16/64

science classroom. However, science education reform has been most rigorousat the

university level, and most research has been conducted at that level (Penuel, Boscardin,

Masyn, & Crawford, 2007). Therefore, this review will begin by looking at early efforts

in science education reform at the university level. It will then specifically discuss

research pertaining to the use of CRSs in undergraduate level classes. Finally, it will

examine the three high-school specific research papers found during the database

searches.

Landmark Studies

One of the landmark studies frequently cited in literature relating to active learning

versus the use of traditional lecture methods is Robert Hakes 1996 article,Interactive-

Engagement Versus Traditional Methods: A Six-Thousand-Student Survey of Mechanics

Test Data for Introductory Physics Courses. In order to determine if the method of

instruction affected student outcomes, Hake collected information from 62 introductory

physics courses being taught either by traditional lecture or a variety of other methods he

called interactive-engagement. He then analyzed the students pre-test performance

versus their post-test performance using normalized gain. The sample included students

at the high school, community, and college level. However, regardless of their grade,

each student took the same standardized conceptual physics tests. This was made

possible by the fact that the tests were designed to be understandable to someone who has

never had physics, and yet still challenging enough for someone who has been introduced

to the physics concepts (Hake, 1996).

Hakes analysis of the data indicated that students in classes using interactive

engagement techniques did significantly better than students from traditional courses.

10


17/64

The average normalized gain for students in classes using interactive-engagement

methods was 0.48, while students in lecture-based classes only averaged a gain of about

0.23, with the highest normalized gain for any traditional class reaching only 0.28. While

this study was not an experiment, and there is the possibility that only teachers who

successfully implemented interactive-engagement strategies volunteered their students

information, the results are typically viewed favorably. This is probably because it is just

as likely that a traditional teacher would not volunteer information, Hake used a very

large sample size, and some of the teachers who submitted data about their classes using

interactive-engagement did have fairly low gains.

One of the teachers who volunteered data for Hakes study was Eric Mazur. While

Hakes paper is typically discussed as the landmark study, Eric Mazur is frequently

credited with developing one of the most successful interactive-engagement teaching

methods, Peer Instruction (PI). In the early 1990s Mazur noticed that while his students

were able to recite Newtons Laws, they frequently had difficulty solving conceptual

problems which required application of those laws (Mazur, 2009). In order to improve

his students ability to solve conceptual problems Mazur completely changed the structure

of his class. Rather than telling the students the information, he required them to read

material before coming to class, so that class time can be devoted to discussions, peer

interactions, and time to assimilate and think (Mazur, 2009). Mazurs methods have

evolved over time, but he eventually established a teaching method involving brief

presentations alternated with short conceptual multiple choice questions. Students were

given one to two minutes to think about their answer, and then they responded using the

CRS. If more than 70% of the students did not get the answer correct, they were asked to

11


18/64

discuss the answers and their reasoning with their peers while Mazur and his TAs

circulated and promoted discussion. After several minutes of discussion the students were

asked to revote, and Mazur then discussed the correct answer with them.

After ten years of using PI,Mazur and his colleague Catherine Crouch published an

analysis of its effectiveness. In order to evaluate its effectiveness they gathered

normalized gains from fivedifferent teachers who had used PI at some point over a

sevenyear study period. Additionally, they analyzed responses to short answers

questions, conventional math-based physics problems, and responses to clicker questions.

Crouch and Mazur (2001) found that when Mazur used traditional lecture methods in

1990 he had a normalized gain of 0.23 on the Force Concept Inventory test. However,

when he switched to PI his students gains jumped to 0.49. In addition, the teachers

using PI averaged over 0.6 for the next seven years, and scored higher on the short

answer responses (Crouch & Mazur, 2001). During this study another teacher on his

faculty tried traditional methods again in 1999, but only averaged a normalized gain of

0.4.

In order to test the effectiveness of the clicker questions, Crouch and Mazur (2001)

compared the percentage of students answering clicker questions correctly before

discussion to the percentage correct after discussion. Their analysis showed the correct

response came after peer instruction 50% of the time, indicating it was an important part

of the learning process. To test if the questions correlated with retention, they gave short

answer versions of several of the concept questions at the end of the semester. Based on

the fact that the percentage of students who correctly answered the clicker question after

discussion was similar to the percentage of students who answered the questions correctly

12


19/64

at the end of the semester, Crouch and Mazur (2001) inferred that the clicker questions

were helping the students retain the information.

As Mazur developed PI, and this study was not designed as a true experiment, there is

certainly the possibility of bias in this research. However, the fact that he is using a

recognized standardized test and statistical analysis of pre and post test data helps

strengthen his findings. Additionally, he did carry out the research with a colleague, and

their findings have been supported by other teachers using PI (Dufrense et al., 1996;

Ebert-May, Brewer, & Alfred, 1997).

University Based Studies

Based on the early success of Mazur and his colleagues, many universities began

implementing the use of PI combined with a CRS. Quite a few universities have carried

out research to test the effectiveness of the CRS, using a variety of methods. The

researcher will discuss four of these studies, which specifically analyzed whether or not

the CRS improved student learning and participation.

Two different qualitative studies documented the effects of a CRS on students and the

classroom environment by surveying students, observing the classes, and conducting in-

depth interviews with students in the classes (Dufrense et al., 1996; Hoekstra, 2008). In

each case the researchers worked with introductory science courses at the university level

over the course of three years. In both surveys over 90 % of the students felt the CRS

was useful and approved of its use. Both studies also suggested that having the CRS

changed the classroom environment. Dufrense et al. (1996) suggestedthat using the CRS

better engaged the students, and allowed the teachers to adapt their instruction to the

13


20/64

students level of understanding. In addition, they found that students felt they learned

from seeing how other students reasoned through the problems. Hoekstra (2008) had

similar findings, but as she was carrying out an ethnographic study, she was able to infer

more about student feelings. Students she surveyed stated the lectures felt more active,

classes felt less passive and impersonal, and students felt less anxiety about participating

with clickers than they did with other methods. In conclusion, both studies determined

all of the teachers involved, and most of the students, felt the students had learned more

by incorporating PI and the CRS than they would have learned by the traditional lecture

method.

Surveys appear to have played an important part in determining the effectiveness of a

CRS, as theyve been discussed in almost every paper so far. Draper and Brown (2004)

used a combination of quantitative and qualitative surveys to determine if classroom

response systems might be effective throughout the University of Glasgow. The

following departments participated in the surveys and incorporated the CRS: Computer

Science, Psychology, Philosophy, Medicine, Biology, and Statistics. The classes ranged

from introductory to advanced, and class sizes ranged from 20 to 300. The surveys

showed that the CRS was used in a variety of ways including:

Student self assessment questions: the students could instantly tell if they

understood the material.

As feedback to the teachers: made it possible to know what percentage of students

currently understood the material.

Exam practice

14


21/64

Experiments: students either acted as participants, or used it to give their

prediction for the experiment.

Community awareness building: allowed students in the classes to see how other

students felt about topics or teachers to assess student views at the beginning of

the course.

To start discussions within peer groups: if questions were controversial, or

difficult enough, there was enough disagreement in the class to discuss why

individuals chose certain answers.

Determining which methods teachers might try was just the first step in the project.

The most important step was analyzing the results of the surveys to determine how the

technology was being received. After analyzing the surveys,

the three most commonly important features that emerged, as reported by students,

were: getting feedback to learners about whether they understood the material

presented, that it does get most of the students to think about the question and decide

on an answer while the alternatives do not, and that the anonymity is often important

in achieving these results. (Draper & Brown, 2004, p.90)

The surveys also reported some disadvantages related to incorporating the CRS, but as

time went on, and teachers became more proficient, the only disadvantage that remained

was that students often dont have enough time to think before having to vote (Draper

& Brown, 2004, p.87). In summary, the study at the University of Glasgow shows how a

15


22/64

CRS can successfully be generalized across curriculums, and any problems associated

with CRS were typically due to the way the teacher tried to implement its use, rather than

to the technology itself.

The final university-based research to be discussed was carried out by Knight and

Wood (2005) in an upper division biology course. While it is upper division, and

therefore most removed from the high school classroom, it is relevant as it is the only

course, other than the physics courses, that attempted to use normalized gains to compare

student achievement between a traditional lecture class and a class using a CRS. In

addition to comparing pre and post-test data, Knight and Wood (2005) compared their

observations of their classes with student responses to short answer questions. The

standard traditional lecture format was used in fall of 2003, while a CRS, PI, and

additional in-class learning activities were used in spring of 2004 and spring of 2005.

Knight and Wood (2005) found that the pre-test data was not statistically different for any

of the classes. However, the students in 2003 had a normalized gain of 0.46, while the

students in 2004 had a gain of 0.62, and the students in 2005 had a gain of 0.62. In

addition, the students in 2004 and 2005 had higher homework scores and higher end of

term grades. Finally, from a qualitative standpoint, the professors felt that the clicker

questions actively engaged the students, allowing them to talk and think about the topic

of the class rather than simply record it (Knight & Wood, 2005, p. 303).

The researchers discussed so far inferred that PI and other interactive engagement

methods, especially when coupled with a CRS, produced positive results in many

university classrooms.While none have been true experiments, relying instead on

16


23/64

convenience sampling, their combined information suggests that the results of each

individual study were probably accurate.

High School Studies

In order to find studies the researcher searched ProQuest Complete, ERIC, JSTOR,

Academic Search Complete, and Google using the terms active learning, peer instruction,

student response system, electronic voting system, audience response system, classroom

response system, and clickers. From this thorough research, only four peer-reviewed

articles were found pertaining to the high school level. Only three of the papers will be

discussed below, as Hakes (1996) paper, which did include high school Physics classes

in the sample, was discussed earlier. However, it is important to note that Hake (1996)

obtained the same results for the high school classes as he did for the college courses.

As very little research had been carried out at the K-12 level to determine if CRSs are

effective (Penuel et al., 2007), Penuel et al. (2007) determined that an important first step

would be to survey teachers to discover why K-12 teachers were implementing CRSs,

and how effective they perceived them to be. The researchers surveyed 584 teachers,

34.4% of which were high school teachers, using eInstructions Classroom Performance

System. They chose this particular model because the company was able to provide them

with easy access to their database. This indicates that there may be bias; especially as the

company paid each teacher $10 to participate in the survey, and each teacher who

participated was entered to win a new CRS. However, as the researcher was primarily

concerned with discovering teacher goals, and not whether or not the teachers liked this

particular system, the likelihood of bias may be reduced.

17


24/64

Analysis of the teacherssurveys showed three important trends. First, teachers were

using the CRSs for the same reasons as university instructors to improve learning

outcomes and to improve assessments of student learning. Second, almost all teachers

felt that the CRS improved learning outcomes and assessment. Third, there was a direct

correlation between the amount of professional development a teacher received, how

broadly the teacher used the CRS, and how effective the teacher perceived the CRS to be.

In order to determine this last trend, Penuel et al. (2007) classified teachers in to user

groups. The group with the most professional development, pertaining to the CRS, was

more likely to be constructivist in their use of the CRS. In addition, they were more

likely to strongly agree that the CRS improved the overall classroom environment and

student learning. This particular fact has important implications for districts seeking to

incorporate a CRS into the classroom they will need to consider setting aside time and

money for professional development for their teachers.

Some high school teachers are choosing to implement the use of a CRS, even without

the benefits of school supported professional development. Larry J. Barnes (2008), a

high school biology teacher, analyzed whether or not the CRS might be effective in

eliminating lecture all together. In order to accomplish this, Barnes taught one section of

biology using PowerPoint presentations while the other class worked in peer groups to

answer questions together. The peer groups registered their answers with their clickers,

and Barnes monitored their progress. If concepts were obviously troubling the students,

he lectured. When scores for all students had reached 70 100% he recorded the scores

and revealed the answers to questions that at least one student had missed.

18


25/64

In order to determine which method was most successful he gave an ungraded 30- to

42- questions multiple choice pre-test from [his] textbooks software. Students re-took the

same test on about Day 10 of each unit, making it possible to compare the average

percent gains for both (Barnes, 2008, p. 532). To help eliminate some of the error

caused by the differences in the twoclasses, he alternated which section received the

lecture free method, and which received traditional lectures, throughout the year. Upon

analysis of the test results Barnes found that while the lecture free method always scored

higher, it was not statistically significant. However, the results of an additional survey

given to the students showed that a majority of students said they preferred lecture-free

method, that they learned more, and had to use their brains more, when compared to

lecture-based methods (Barnes, 2008, p. 534).

While this research does provide more positive anecdotal evidence, it does not

contribute quantitatively to research on the use of a CRS in a high school science

classroom. Besides the typical errors caused by convenience sampling, Barnes had

several other errors which may have affected his results. Barnes did try to eliminate some

of the error caused by convenience sampling by alternating the instruction of the two

classes. However, he might have been able to eliminate more by conducting a more

sophisticated statistical analysis of his results, such as by using normalized gain. In

addition, Barnes eliminated lecture by having students work through multiple choice

questions from the book. The researcher uses the same book as Barnes, and has found

the assessment questions in this particular book are frequently content based. Research at

the university level suggests highest gains are found when students use the CRS to

engage them in discussions of conceptual questions. It is possible Barnes would have

19


26/64


27/64

When looked at as a group, the research on CRS seems to show a pattern. Whether it

is at the university level, or in the high school classroom, the research discussed in this

literature review suggests that a Classroom Response System increases student learning.

At the university level students have shown improved test scores (Mazur & Crouch,

2001; Knight & Wood, 2005), and preliminary research conducted at the secondary level

shows similar results (Conoley et al., 2008). Furthermore, reports from both levels

detailing the classroom atmosphere and anecdotal evidence from teachers all suggest that

students engage much more actively when the teacher incorporates a CRS (Crouch &

Mazur, 2001; Dufrense et al., 1996; Hoekstra, 2008; Knight & Wood, 2005; Barnes,

2008; Hines, 2005).

While some districts have already started incorporating CRSs (Hines, 2005), it is clear

that significant research still needs to be conducted at the secondary level. High school

students are less mature and may have different motivations than college students.

Therefore future research needs to be conducted to determine the best way to integrate PI

and a CRS into the high school classroom. In addition, research shows that the teaching

method used is more important than the technology itself (Hake, 1996; Mazur, 2001;

Draper & Brown, 2004; Penuel et al., 2007), therefore professional development courses

for teachers will need to be implemented once best practices have been developed for

secondary classrooms. Finally, research indicates that teachers need challenging

conceptual questions to center their discussions upon (Crouch & Mazur, 2001; Dufrense

et al., 1996; Ebert-Mat et al., 1997). While several banks of questions exist for physics

classes, the researcher did not find any for the life science courses during extensive

internet searches. Therefore, it is important that research be carried out by teachers

21


28/64

working at the secondary level, in all subjects, so that best practices can be determined

for implementing a CRS into a high school classroom.

In order to address the gap in the research at the high school level, the researcher

collected data on the use of a CRS in two high school biology classes and three high

school oceanography classes. Data was collected primarily through the use of surveys. As

the researcher did not have a control group, and the researcher was unable to control

many of the variables involved, the research would be described best as quasi-

experimental. However, it should add to the quantitative data in the field as was a forced

choice survey. The survey asked questions similar to those asked in previous studies to

see if it further supports the idea that a CRS increases active learning. In addition, asked

questions specific to the techniques used in the class to help determine best practices for

incorporating a CRS into a high school classroom. As there is very little quantitative

evidence at the high school level, collecting additional evidence on its impacts in the high

school classroom is important. Furthermore, providing high school teachers with data

specifically related to how to manage a high school class using a CRS, rather than a

university class, is an important next step in this area of research.

22


29/64

Chapter III

Background

Educators typically recognize the importance of active learning, but frequently

structure their classes in such a way that most learning is actually passive. Universities

frequently rely on the lecture format, arguably one of the most passive formats there is.

Therefore, universities have been researching techniques to increase the amount of active

learning occurring in their lecture halls. One technique being incorporated into

universities, as a result of this research, is the use of a classroom response system.

Extensive testing has been carried out at the university level to determine if

incorporating a CRS will improve student learning. In several different studies

researchers compared pre and post-test data for groups using a CRS and for groups that

did not. In each case, data showed that students in the group using the CRS had higher

post test scores than those in the control group (Hake, 1996; Knight & Wood, 2005;

Mazur & Crouch, 2001). Results of qualitative studies and surveys also indicated

marked improvement in the classroom environment and the amount of active learning

occurring in the classrooms (Draper & Brown, 2004; Dufrense et al., 1996; Hoekstra,

2008).

Preliminary research has been carried out at the secondary levels, but it has not been

as thorough or as quantitative as at the university level. However, the studies that have

been conducted showed an increase in active learning in classes incorporating a CRS

(Barnes, 2008; Conoley et al., 2007; Hake, 1996; Penuel et al., 2007). The goal of this

project was to begin bridging the gap in the data by changing a high school science

curriculum to incorporate a CRS. The researcher collected qualitative and quantitative

23


30/64

data throughout the project in order to determine if the CRS increased the amount of

active learning occurring in the classroom.

The researcher became interested in active learning while reflecting on her own

teaching practices. The researcher realized that one of the biggest problems in the

classroom was passive learning. The researcher had tried a variety of instructional

methods, but many students continued to have difficulties engaging in the class. While

that was understandable given the amount of vocabulary involved in teaching science, the

researcher even had difficulties engaging students in discussions on how the science

related to real world issues.

In an attempt to better understand why the students tended to be such passive learners,

the researcher searched science and active learning in one of the libraries online

databases. The search produced several entries that referenced a CRS. As the researcher

began to investigate them further, it became apparent that this was a technique that might

be incredibly effective at increasing active learning. Based on the findings of the

research, the researcher made integration of a CRS in to the classroom the subject of an

action research project.

The researcher completed a literature review comparing two articles, one from the

university level (Draper & Brown, 2004) and one from the high school level (Barnes,

2008) in May 2008. From that early research, it was determined that a CRS could be

implemented in a variety of ways, and determined that each would have its own

challenges and rewards. The researcher recognized that this would be a time consuming

project, so the summer of 2009 was used for research and planning of the project.

24


31/64

In May of 2009 the researcher purchased a classroom set of clickers from H-ITT, as

well as two books, Clickers in the Classroom by Douglas Duncan (2005), and Teaching

with Classroom Response Systems, Creating Active Learning Environments by Derek

Bruff (2009) on Amazon. During the summer the researcher worked on becoming

familiar with the clickers and their software, and read the books to become familiar with

the different techniques that would be needed to incorporate a CRS into a classroom. By

fall, the researcher had set up the classroom, and had begun changing the biology and

oceanography curriculum to incorporate clicker questions.

To begin gathering data for the project, a survey was administered to the students on

the first day of class in August of 2009. As the goal was to incorporate clickers as soon as

possible, the researcher wanted to make sure that the survey would be representative of

how students felt about their science classes prior to being introduced to a CRS. While

the clickers were introduced before completing the exhaustive literature search, the

researcher found that the literature only added additional strategies; no situations arose

where the researcher felt something had been done incorrectly.

In January 2010 the researcher administered a post survey and a clicker survey to the

students. By administering it at the end of the semester, the researcher reserved time in

the spring semester to analyze data and draw conclusions.

Classroom Information and Student Demographics

The research was conducted in three oceanography classes and two biology classes.

The oceanography class was a junior and senior level elective science course ranging in

size from 25 to 29 students. The biology class was a sophomore level required course

ranging in size from 23 to 30 students.

25


32/64

Due to the limitations of the registration program used at the school, the researcher

was not able to query the demographics separately for each of the subjects. However, the

schools registrar was able to obtain the demographics for most of the students. Of the

125 students who chose to state their ethnicity, 62.4% were white, 13.6% were Hispanic,

9.6% were Filipino, 8% were African American, 4.8% were Chinese, .8% were Asian

Indian, and .8% were Guamanian. At the time the post survey was administered 54

students were 16 years of age, 38 students were 15 years of age, 29 students were 17

years of age, and six students were 18 years of age. 56% of the students were female, and

44 % of the students were male. However, it is important to remember, the survey was

anonymous, and some students did not take it for a variety of reasons; including being

absent and transferring in at a later date. Therefore, the researcher was not able to

determine the exact demographics for the students who took the surveys, but rather

obtained demographics for all students who may have taken the surveys.

In both classes students were arranged in groups of three to five. The desks were

angled so students did not have their backs to the lecture material, but some students did

need to turn their heads to view the screen. The researcher roamed the room during

lecture and discussions to maintain a high level of student behavior, answer questions,

and encourage discussion.

Procedure

The bulk of the research is based on a survey given to the students at the beginning of

the semester (See Appendix A). After administering the survey, the students were taught

how to use the clickers, and began using them on a regular basis. In order to do this, the

researcher turned her notes in to PowerPoint presentations, broken up by multiple choice

26


33/64

questions. Students took notes using a guided format,so there would be enough time to

discuss each of the questions during class.

Class discussions followed a cycle found by researchers at the university level to be

effective at increasing learning (Dufrense et al., 1996; Hoekstra, 2008; Knight & Wood,

2005; Mazur & Crouch, 2001). First, students were asked to answer the question on their

own. Next, the teacher, and or the students, observed the histogram generated by the

computer (See Appendix B). If more than 70% of the students had not responded

correctly, the students were told to discuss their reasoning with their group, and the

groups around them. Students then re-voted and the class viewed the histogram created

by the software together. If more than 70% of the students now had the correct answer

the researcher asked for volunteers to describe their reasoning. If the number was lower

than 70%, the researcher re-taught the material in a new way, or used additional

examples.

In addition to incorporating the CRS into lectures the researcher used the clickers to:

1. Ask students about the flow of the class.

2. Gather opinions on real world issues being discussed in class.

3. Give practice quizzes.

4. Play jeopardy review games.

The above situations did not necessarily follow the cycle described previously, but all

were designed to increase active learning, or improve the researchers ability to address

the needs of the students.

In January of 2010 the researcher administered a post survey, and a survey specifically

addressing the CRS, to the students.

27


34/64

Results

The researcher was able to collect quantitative and qualitative data during her action

research. The quantitative data was collected by comparing pre and post survey data,

administering surveys about the clickers, comparing percentages on oceanography finals,

and comparing student grades in 2008 to those in 2009. Qualitative data was collected by

the researcher as she observed her students in class behavior and compared it her

experiences from previous years.

Quantitative data.

Pre and post survey data.

One method the researcher used to collect quantitative data was to administer a pre

and post forced choice survey (See Appendix A and C). In order to avoid redundancy

the researcher chose not to analyze four of the questions. The student responses for the

rest of the questions were averaged, and then a one-tailed t test was performed to

determine if the mean was statistically significant. The survey was spilt into two

question sets each set used different types of categories. Therefore, the data for each

course is shown in two different tables. Table one and table two contains data pertaining

to how students felt about their experiences in science classrooms. It was based on a four

point scale, with one indicating strongly disagree and a four indicating strongly agree. In

this section of the survey the students were given the option to choose dont know. If a

student responded that they didnt know, no number was assigned to their answer, and it

was not included in any of the following averages.

28


35/64

Table One

Oceanography Pre and Post Survey Data about Science Experiences

Statement Pre M Post M

I enjoy class. 2.81 2.90I have enough time to work. 2.98 3.07

Most of the time I am engaged in class. 2.3 2.93

I feel confident when I take unit tests. 2.58 2.95**

I understand why concepts are important. 3.14 3.16

The teacher knows if we understand topics. 3.04 3.23

My science class is interactive. 3.13 3.37*

Note: * p < .05. ** p


36/64

Statement Pre M Post M

Participating in class discussions. 2.92 3.03

Working with classmates to solve problems. 2.92 3.26**

Forming opinions based on research. 3.00 3.08

Relating science concepts to everyday life. 2.72 2.92

Determining concept mastery before tests. 2.78 3.05*Asking teacher for clarification. 3.24 3.14

Note: * p < .05. ** p


37/64

indicated strong disagree, three was neutral, and five indicated strongly agree. The

responses for each of the two classes were averaged, and are shown in table five.

Table Five

Clicker Survey Responses

Statement Oceanography Biology

I have more fun when we use clickers during lecture. 4.35 4.32

Clickers helped me to learn more. 4.00 3.90

The clickers helped me engage more in class. 4.12 3.98Clickers helped me to determine what material I understood. 4.07 4.10

The clickers improved my ability to take the test. 3.55 3.20

The clickers helped the teacher do a better job teaching. 4.03 4.24

With clickers I was more likely to participate in discussions. 3.74 3.76

I felt more comfortable sharing ideas with clickers. 3.90 3.73

Analysis of oceanography finals.

The researcher did not have a control group for her research. However, the researcher

was able to compare data between students in 2008 and 2009. The first semester

oceanography final was almost identical for both years; the researcher dropped two

questions in 2009 that she had not taught. As the finals were so close, the research

compared the average percentage in 2008 to the average percentage in 2009. Students in

31


38/64

2009 had an average score of 74% and students in 2009 had an average score of 75%.

The sample sizes were 76 and 77 respectively, but the data was not statistically different.

Analysis of grades.

One last quantitative measure frequently used by districts to determine the success of a

class is the number of Fs and Ds. In 2008 the research had a combined total of 15 Fs and

Ds, out of 129 students, at the end of first semester in the oceanography and biology

classes. However, in 2009, the researcher had combined total of 10 Fs and Ds, out of 127

students, in the oceanography and biology classes. There were 2 more students in 2008

than in 2009, but there were still nearly 50% fewer Fs and Ds in 2009.

Qualitative Data:

The researcher made careful observations of her students throughout the first

semester, paying special attention to the amount of time students spent discussing

classroom material with the students around them. Those observations were then

compared past teaching experiences.

The researcher determined that the amount of active learning increased dramatically in

the classes. The observation was based on the fact that student participation in class

increased in a variety of ways. First, each student was required to give his or her opinion

with the clickers. This was a large increase from just a few students answering each

question in previous years. More significantly, however, almost 100% of students

participated in discussing each of the clicker questions with their peers. The researcher

could not recall any other instructional method that had engaged so many students. In

addition, the discussions were often quite spirited as students explained why they thought

their answer was correct. In previous years the researcher had had difficulty finding

32


39/64


40/64

Chapter IV

Project Purpose

Due to the large amount of material and vocabulary involved in teaching science,

many science teachers rely heavily on the lecture format. Unfortunately, this frequently

means students spend large amounts of time passively listening to their instructor.

However, the National Science Standards now specifically describe science education as

an active process which should include minds on opportunities to actively develop

their understanding of science by combining scientific knowledge with reasoning and

thinking skills (National Science Standards, 1996, p.3).

In an effort to include these more constructivist teaching methods into the curriculum,

the researcher began searching online databases for articles pertaining to active learning.

Through research the CRS was discovered, and the researcher decided to incorporate it in

to the curriculum. The purpose of this project was to collect quantitative and qualitative

data to determine if incorporating a CRS would increase the amount of active learning

occurring in a high school science classroom.

Project Outcomes

Based on qualitative observations, the researcher determined that the CRS completely

changed the classroom environment. In eight years of teaching, the researcher had never

had the amount of student participation that as in Fall of 2009. For the first time, students

discussed questions and the reasoning behind their answer. In fact, students frequently

became so involved in the discussion that they would loudly debate their answer with

34


41/64

other groups. Even if a situation involved less discussion, because each student had to

choose an answer with their clicker, there was always 100% participation.

The students obviously felt the same way, as the clicker survey showed how positively

the students felt about the use of the clickers. A few important conclusions that can be

drawn from the clicker survey, are that students felt:

1. The clickers made class more fun.

2. The clickers helped the students learn more.

3. The clickers helped the teacher do a better job teaching.

These are three very powerful statements, all of which indicate that the CRS improved

the classroom environment and the students learning experience. Moreover, the

researcher has inferred that the students must have spent more time engaged in active

learning in order to agree so strongly with the above statements.

Interestingly, the pre and post surveys do not show the same pattern as the

researchers qualitative observations and the clicker survey results. Even the results that

were statistically significant were not particularly meaningful, as the differences between

the pre and post means were so small. The researcher feels that this was probably due to

the experimental design. At the beginning of the year students were asked to reflect

back on their experiences in other science classes. However, the students were just

coming off summer break, and were unlikely to have spent much time thinking about the

instructional methods used by their previous teachers. At the end of the semester,

students were asked to compare this years class to their previous classes. However, the

class and the teacher were different, so that would have been a very difficult comparison

to make.

35


42/64

It is possible that the results of the survey would have been different if the students

had been making comparisons to the researchers class, with and without the CRS. One

possible experimental set-up that might have allowed for this would have been alternating

traditional units with units incorporating the CRS. This way, the students would have

had a direct comparison, allowing for more thoughtful answers on a pre and post survey.

This experimental design would have encouraged students to think about the different

instructional methods used in the researchers classroom.

Like the pre and post survey analysis, the comparison of the finals did not provide any

statistically significant data. The researcher would have thought that increased learning

would have led to increased finals scores. However, it is possible that how much time the

students spent studying before the final had a greater influence on final scores than how

much they worked in class. As the CRS only impacts in class behavior, and not study

skills practiced at home, it may have had a limited impact on such a large exam given at

the end of the semester.

While class behavior may not impact final scores, it does make sense that it would

impact grades in the class. In 2009 the researcher saw a 50% drop in Ds and Fs, which is

quite significant. It is possible that the use of the CRS kept students more engaged in

class, encouraging them to complete more thoughtful work in class. This may have then

led to a reduction in Ds and Fs.

The results obtained by the researcher were similar to the results found by other

secondary teachers using a CRS (Barnes, 2008; Conoley et al., 2008; Penuel et al., 2007).

In fact, one of the only other quantitative studies conducted at the high school level also

found that the CRS encouraged more active learning, but did not seem to have a

36


43/64

significant impact on test scores (Barnes, 2008). As so little research has been carried out

at the secondary level (Penuel et al., 2007), the researcher feels that, while some of the

data was inconclusive, there was enough variety in the data to add meaningful

information to the research being done on the use of a CRS at the secondary level.

Project Evaluation

Experimental Design:

In order to incorporate the CRS, the researcher made significant changes to the class

and curriculum. Some of these changes included:

1.Arranging students into groups.

2. Encouraging students to work as a group on assignments.

3. Giving more PowerPoint presentations.

4. Using guided notes instead of traditional note taking.

5. Requiring students to turn their guided notes into Cornell notes.

As so many variables were changed between 2008 and 2009, it is entirely possible that

the increase in active learning was due to one or more of the above changes, and not the

CRS. However, research at the university level indicated that these changes were

necessary to increase student learning with a CRS (Bruff, 2009; Crouch & Mazar, 2001;

Duncan, 2005). Additionally, the clickers facilitated most of the above changes, so it

may be possible to indirectly attribute at least some of the positive outcomes from these

additional changes to the use of the CRS.

Limitations:

While the researcher gained some valuable information, it was limited in a variety of

ways. The most significant limitation was most likely the lack of a control group.

37


44/64

Without a control group, the researcher had no way to know if some other variable

impacted student learning. However, as the researcher only had access to her own

students, and had no control over the placement of students in each class, it would have

been impossible to have a true control group. The researcher is unsure how anyone at a

public secondary school will be able to overcome this issue in the future.

The researchers inability to control the placement students in her classes may have

affected the results in other ways as well. Students enrolled in and moved out of her

classroom throughout the first semester. This means the sample size at the beginning of

the year was larger than the sample size at the end of the year, as only student who took

the pre survey were allowed to take the post survey.

An additional limitation might be the short duration over which data was collected.

The researcher only had data from one semester; there was no access to information from

past teachers. Additionally, the researcher had no data on how students might feel about

future science classes that do not incorporate a CRS.

Next Steps

Due to the lack of research, there are many avenues a researcher might follow in the

future. There are three that seem particularly promising. The first would be to look back

at the historical data for this years students. By comparing the students performance in

the 09-10 school year to several previous years, a researcher may be able determine if the

CRS helped some students improve their performance in science.

The second would be to compare the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR)

scores for students in 2010 to the STAR scores from the researchers previous seven years

of teaching in California. Standardized tests frequently require students to critically think

38


45/64

to answer a question. It is possible that the increased amount of time spent working with

the questions for the CRS may improve student performance on the STAR test.

The third, and most promising, would be to use a different experimental design. As the

researcher stated previously, it may have been difficult for students to think back to the

teaching methods used in previous science classes. If a researcher were to alternate

traditional units with units incorporating the CRS, it may give the students a better basis

for comparison. This might then allow the students to give more informed answers on

the pre and post surveys.

This researchers next steps include continuing to improve the curriculum and helping

other teachers incorporate a CRS into their curriculum. Several of the researchers units

still require updating and it will probably take several years to create a comprehensive

database of critical thinking multiple choice questions. Fortunately, four other teachers in

the schools science department have purchased a CRS for their room. While this means

the researcher will spend time working with them to change their curriculum, it also

means there will be a group of people to provide ideas on how to improve the

researchers curriculum as well. Besides creating more questions, the researcher will be

able to work with them to find ways to incorporate the CRS into other learning situations,

including making predictions for labs, and sharing results at the end of an experiment.

Conclusion

The researchers goal at the start of this project was to increase the amount of active

learning occurring in the classroom. Through research the CRS was discovered, a tool

designed to do just that. The researcher changed the curriculum and the arrangement of

the classroom in order to incorporate the CRS and Peer Instruction, a technique proven

39


46/64

effective at the university level (Dufrense et al., 1996; Hoekstra, 2008; Knight & Wood,

2005; Mazur & Crouch, 2001).The researcher found that the technique proved to be

effective at increasing active learning in a high school science classroom as well.

The researcher found that the CRS transformed the classroom environment. In

previous years, attempts at discussions had frequently been met with awkward silences.

However, with the CRS those same discussion topics became active learning sessions

where students discussed their reasoning with each other. In addition to providing almost

100% participation, the CRS also provided the researcher with valuable information that

was used to tailor the instruction to the students specific needs.

Interestingly, much of the data the researcher collected did not prove statistically

significant. The researcher feels the similar averages on the pre and post survey data may

have been attributed to poor experimental design. The students had no idea how their

teacher taught without the CRS, and so it is reasonable to infer that they would have had

a difficult time drawing comparisons. The differences between the scores on the

Oceanography finals in 2008 and 2009 were also insignificant.

However, students expressed their appreciation for the CRS on the clicker survey.

While on the post survey the students did not show any improved feelings towards their

science class, they expressed how enjoyable and helpful they thought the clickers were on

the clicker survey. Additionally, there were 50% fewer Ds and Fs in 2009, than 2008,

which may have been due to the CRS.

Each teacher and district uses its own criteria to determine the successfulness of the

class. If the primary goal is to raise test scores, then this study does not necessarily

indicate that a CRS is the best investment. However, if a district or teacher would like to

40


47/64


48/64


49/64

Hake, R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-

student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses.American

Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74.

Hines, L. (2005). Interactive learning environment keeps Modesto students engaged.

T.H.E. Journal, 33(2), 40-41.

Hoekstra, A. (2008). Vibrant student voices: exploring effects of the use of clickers in

large college courses.Learning, Media, and Technology, 33(4), 329-341.

Hoffer, Eric (1973). Reflections on the Human Condition. Titusville, NJ: Hopewell

Publications LLC.

Knight, J, & Wood, W. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology Education,

4, 298-310.

Mazur, E. (2009, January 2). Farewell, lecture?. Science, 323, 50-51.

Mazur Group research. (n.d.) Retrieved May 26, 2009, from http://mazur-

www.harvard.edu/research/detailspage.php?rowid=8

National Research Council. 1996.National science education standards. Washington,

DC: National Academy Press.

Penuel, W, Boscardin, C, Masyn, K, & Crawford, V. (2007). Teaching with student

response systems in elementary and secondary education settings: a survey study.

Educational Technology Research and Development, 55. doi: 10.1007/s11423-

006-9023-4

43


50/64

Sahiner, Ara (Producer), & Osborne, Tricia (Editor). (1987).A Private

Universe [Documentary picture]. United States: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for

Astrophysics.

44


51/64

Appendices

45


52/64

Appendix A: Science Class Pre-Survey

46


53/64


54/64

Screenshot showing student responses before Peer Instruction.

Screenshot showing student responses after Peer Instruction. (The correct answer

was A.)

48


55/64

Appendix C: Science Class Post-Survey

49


56/64

Science Class Post-Survey

I am currently working on my masters in Education Technology. As part of my masters I am evaluating a particular teaching tool, butI will need your help to evaluate it effectively. This survey is completely anonymous and voluntary. However, it will help me to be a

better teacher, so I would greatly appreciate your thoughtful participation.First I would like to know how you view your experience in this science classPlease circle one of the following numbers for each

statement: (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) agree, (4) strongly agree, or (*) dont know.

Statement StronglyDisagree

Disagree Agree StronglyAgree

Dont know

I typically enjoy thid science class. 1 2 3 4 *

I have enough time to work in class with other students tounderstand the concepts being taught.

1 2 3 4 *

Most of the time I am engaged in the class. This meansthat I am thinking about the subject being taught and/oractively participating in the activity.

1 2 3 4 *

By the time I take a test on a unit I feel confident with themain ideas being taught.

1 2 3 4 *

By the time I take a test on a unit I feel confident with almosteverything on the test. 1 2 3 4 *

I typically understand why it is important for me tounderstand the concepts being taught.

1 2 3 4 *

My science teacher typically knows if the class understands atopic, or needs more time.

1 2 3 4 *

I view my science classes as very interactive. (Interactivemeans actively participating in some form of discussion,activity, or lab etc. )

1 2 3 4 *

Second I would like to get a feel for how confident you are with using some of the skills that can help you learn new material. Pleasecircle one of the following numbers for each statement: (1) Not at All Confident, (2) Not Very Confident, (3) Somewhat Confident, or(4) Very Confident.

Statement Not at AllConfident

Not VeryConfident

SomewhatConfident

VeryConfident

Choosing the correct study technique to master information. 1 2 3 4

Using a textbook to look up a specific word or concept. 1 2 3 4

Participating in class discussions. 1 2 3 4

Working with classmates, who may or may not be friends, to solve aproblem or understand a concept.

1 2 3 4

Forming my own opinion based off of research I conducted ormaterial Ive learned in class.

1 2 3 4

Relating science concepts to my everyday life and/or why I mightneed it in my future career. 1 2 3 4

Determining if I understand the material well BEFORE I take a quizor test.

1 2 3 4

Asking the teacher for clarification on a concept or word. 1 2 3 4

50


57/64

Appendix D: Internal Review Board Project Proposal

51


58/64

Touro University California Internal Review Board Project Proposal

Using a Classroom Response System to Engage Students in a High School Science

Classroom

Principal Investigator: Andrea Jenest, Candidate, MA in Educational Technology, Touro

University-Ca

Advisors: Dr. Susan Craig and Mr. Steve Gibbs, Adjunct Faculty, Touro University, California

Abstract:Educators typically recognize the importance of active learning, but frequently

structure their classes in such a way that most learning is actually passive. Universities

frequently rely on the lecture format, arguably one of the most passive formats there is.

Therefore, universities have been researching techniques to increase the amount of active

learning occurring in their lecture halls. One technique being incorporated in

universities, as a result of this research, is the use of a classroom response system. The

goal of this project is to change a high school science curriculum by incorporating a

classroom response system, in order to increase active learning.

Introduction:

It is common knowledge among teaching professionals that students learn and retain

more when they are engaged in class as an active learner. For the purposes of this

project, an active learner will be defined as a student who questions their own

understanding of a concept and who actively seeks to apply that concept to related

problems, or real world issues. While many teachers want students to engage, they dont

provide a classroom setting that is conducive to it. Fortunately, however, technology is

52


59/64

providing tools, such as the classroom response system (CRS), which can help teachers

increase the level of student engagement in their classrooms.

The issue many teachers face is that they have a large amount of material to teach in a

short amount of time. Many strategies, such as problem based learning, have proven

themselves effective in teaching critical thinking skills by empowering students to use

active learning. However, these strategies are so time consuming that many teachers

dont feel they are practical. Instead, many teachers rely on the time efficient, yet

completely passive, lecture format.

Unfortunately, while the teacher may say a lot during a lecture, the students often fade

in and out, missing much, and mastering little, of what was said during the class period

(Duncan, 2005). Even if the students dont completely zone out, studies have shown that

students learning via lecture tend to hang on to previously held misconceptions, and/or

find it difficult to apply the material to similar situations (Duncan, 2005). In a science

class, which is based heavily on vocabulary and which builds quickly from one idea to

the next, fading out during one moment can spell disaster for comprehending the rest of

the topic. In addition, many students come in to science classes with misconceptions

strongly rooted in their childhood, which can be incredible difficult to break. A famous

example of this can be seen in A Private Universe, a documentary film produced to

examine why so many people dont understand basic science concepts, when Harvard

graduates still incorrectly attribute seasons to the distance from the sun, rather than to the

tilt of the Earth on its axis (Ara, 1987).

There are many strategies used to make lectures more active, but most produce only

limited success. For instance discussion questions are frequently included, but are

53


60/64


61/64

Assess student learning through formative and summative assessments. (In order

to use the clickers to grade, each student must be registered to a specific clicker.)

Unfortunately, while there are books on using clickers at the college level, there has

not been as much research carried out at the high school level, and based on the review of

the available literature by the principal investigator, no books discussing implementation

of a CRS in a high school classroom.

Study Design:

For this project the principal investigator will continue researching best practices for

implementing a classroom response system. More importantly, however, the principal

investigator will actually change her teaching style and the format of her curriculum to

incorporate a classroom response system and increase active learning. In order to change

the curriculum, the principal investigator will need to:

7. Shorten her notes, and/or put them in a guided format, in order to free up more

time.

8. Develop multiple choice, and other questions, that can be used with the

clickers to encourage discussion and help students recognize misconceptions.

These questions should also allow her to determine how much reinforcement

is required.

9. Incorporate more demos, case studies, or simulations, which will allow

students to make predictions based on what they have learned.

10.Develop questions to accompany labs so she can check understanding as we

go.

55


62/64

11. Find a way to incorporate clicker based review games. (This might be a good

way to make correcting assignments more efficient and enjoyable.)

12. Determine how to teach students to be open to this new class format, and to

each

Using a Classroom Response System to Increase Active Learning in a High School Science Class

Documents