Interactivity in Library Presentations: With or Without Clicker Evelyne Corcos and Vivienne Monty York University May 17, 2007

Outline 1. Study using Clicker vs. traditional teaching: Results 2. Survey of students: Results 3. Analysis of the pros and cons of using Clickers Questions?????

Characteristics of the Study Participants attended either a traditional presentation, or one that was modified to incorporate the use of the PRS Both types of sessions were offered by the same librarian A questionnaire created for the purpose of evaluating various aspects of the library presentation was completed by all students

Expectations Improved attention Increased interaction Greater enjoyment

Procedure Faculty requested library sessions for their classes Classes were arbitrarily assigned to traditional or PRS presentations. (English only) Both received similar content PRS groups were asked to respond to various questions using the clicker that was provided for each student All students were required to fill out an evaluation form at the end of the session

Uses of Group data Provides instructor with group demographics Identifies group’s advance knowledge of concepts Evaluates group’s understanding of concept just presented Determines the pace of the presentation

Participants Two groups: a traditional presentation (N=127) or one that utilized the Personal Response System technology (N=127) Gender Of the 254 students, 179 were female, 38 were male, 37 students did not indicate their gender Year of study 65 students were in first year, 102 in second year, 47 in third year, 18 in fourth year, and 4 in their fifth year. Eighteen students did not indicate their year of study.

Design Independent variable Traditional vs. PRS presentation Dependent Variable Frequency Analysis- Chi Square

Three types of Questions Demographic Background Knowledge Comprehension

Questions: Demographics (1)

Questions Demographics (2)

Questions: Background Knowledge

Questions: Comprehension

Survey of Groups

Results: Statistical Difference Two significant findings Enjoyment of the session Organization and clarity of presentation

Results: No Statistical Difference No differences Student self-competence Relevance of content Knowledge of instructor Preparation for doing research

Student Feedback Learning curve to using clickers – first thought it might be a waste of time Increase in attention, focus, and energy levels as soon as PRS is in use Enjoy the participation and feedback

Student Comments Traditional Class Mentioned learning about specific databases, Boolean, Refworks, searching methods

Student Comments Clicker Class Mentioned almost the same but noted more online bells and whistles such as Racer and they loved using the clicker

Faculty Feedback Investment of time to create questions Different ways of thinking how best to use it Time management Creating a standardized routine Name of student on their own clicker Use own laptop Student return clickers More data about student performance – perceived anonymity

Some Further Student Comments PRS heightened enjoyment of session and organization of presentation

Follow-up Research Subsequent research needs to add dependent measure such as: Ability of students to carry out a search Etc.

Using Clicker in Library Classes The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Impatience

Classroom set-up (Permanence)

Technology can interfere with listening This was a two edged sword

When technology fails! Teaching flow Student frustration Teacher burnout/frustration

Flexibility… or not… Must progress according to questions

Teaching one session or on a continuum Can you build knowledge basis?

The “Einsteinian Paradigm” Teaching with Clicker takes time

Tempus Fugit Going over the same material numerous times Preparation time for the session

Some Really Good Things

Value of Using Clickers Every student responds to all questions Students participate anonymously Group data provides feedback that can be used in a variety of ways

Student’ Reactions “Hey, Mikey likes it!!!” Attention span

Librarians’ Reactions Ability to discuss what students understood or did not Useful repetition Useful data for teacher Crammed in a whole lost less

Data from Sessions Helps Build Knowledge in Many Ways Use resulting data with faculty In information literacy Back to basics Supporting data obtained More that can and should be done

THE END