PROFESSIONAL CONTRIBUTION Elena Pellegrini April 2012

STUDENT RESPONSE SYSTEMS A 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 ProsCons May highlight the gap in technological exposure Require some student and educator training Can be rather costlyIncrease Productivity Reduce Carbon Footprint Provide Instant Feedback

History of Student Response Systems Early 1950s- Answer by Card Four cards with color coded tabs 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 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. Prior to the survey, all students took a technology exposure survey.

Subjects 9 th 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- 2 nd 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 more regularly 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 more regularly than their “clicker strong” counterparts.

Technology Tools Competence

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: 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: points

Engagement Results At the conclusion of the study, students were asked to take a short survey to give their impression of using the educational tool. At the conclusion of the study, students were asked to take 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

I feel like I remembered more using the clickers

I found the clickers to be confusing

I found class to be more interesting with the clickers

I paid more attention when using the clickers in class

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

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.