Early systems were hard-wired into classrooms and allowed for limited response formats. Current models are wireless. Recent CRS models also allow text, numeric, and Likert scale responses, as well as sorting and follow on questions.
CRS has found great popularity in large university lecture courses because of their ability to get everyone participating in a discussion or responding to questions (Judson & Sawada, 2002). This popularity has been most marked in science courses. These courses often employ CRS to engage students in peer instruction (Mazur, 1997).
While this technology has been fully emerged in large university classes for a number of years both research on CRS efficacy and CRS emergence in K-12 education has lagged behind (Penuel, et al, 2007). This is changing as most companies who manufacture interactive whiteboards also manufacture clickers. In recent years, they have been marketing the items in tandem.
Technology-enhanced formative assessment may bring an increase in CRS use in lower grades and across more academic disciplines. Formative assessment is one of the most powerful methodologies available to the classroom teacher (Black & Wiliam, 1998, Bangert-Drowns et al, 1991, Marzano, 2007). Utilizing clickers to administer and track such assessments has gained attention through the work of Beatty and Gerace (2009).
Links:
Derek Bruff's Podcasts:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/teaching-classroom-response/id380541432
Ian Beatty's Blog on Technology-Enhanced Formative Assessment.
http://ianbeatty.com/blog/archives/23
References
Bangert-Drowns, R.L., Kulik, J.A., & Kulik, C.C. (1991). Effects of classroom testing. Journal of Educational Research, 61(2), 213-238.
Beatty, I.D., & Gerace, W.J. (2009). Technology-enhanced formative assessment: A research-based pedagogy for teaching science with classroom response technology. Journal of Science Education and Technology,18, 146-162. doi: 10.1007/s10956-008-9140-4
Black, P, & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 5-13.
Marzano, R.J. (2007). The art and science of teaching. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Penuel, W.R., Boscardin, C.H., Masyn, V.M., Crawford, V.M. (2006). Teaching with student response systems in elementary and secondary education settings: A survey study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 315-346. doi: 10.1007/s11423-006-9023
I use response systems in my classroom. When I first began using them it was a great way to take a pulse of how the lesson was being received. I use the clickers in a variety of ways beyond just as a testing mechanism. For example, I poll my students about current trends. This upcoming school year I plan to use it for my version of jeopardy.
ReplyDeleteGlad to hear you are using clickers in creative ways. What model do you use? I have been using Promethean's ActivExpression for the last few years. They are a very flexible model as far as question format and are easy for impromptu polling.
ReplyDeleteWhat software are you using to create your jeopardy game?
A good resources is Derek Bruff's blog:
http://derekbruff.com/teachingwithcrs/
Scott,
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting innovation. I actually Googled it to see what else was being said and landed on the Vanderbilt site (http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/teaching-guides/technology/clickers/). I teach online exclusively, so I can moderate responses in seminar on my end. If I were in a face to face classroom, though, I see value in this technology.
What was one way you think the technology can improve?
Thanks,
Erica
Classroom Response Systems are excellent resources to facilitate differentiation of instruction and individualized educational plans. Within a traditional classroom, this tool is often used to increase student participation. I wonder how this technology could be applied to an on-line learning environment.
ReplyDelete