Audience Response System [ARS]

• Unit: Thesis-writing, copyright and plagiarism
• Department/School: Department of Chemistry
• Level: Research postgraduate

• Session devised and led by: Trevor Day, Royal Literary Fund Fellow, at the request of Bridgette Duncombe, Chemistry Teaching Fellow
• Keywords [pedagogical]: group teaching, workshop
• Keywords [technical]: audience response systems, ars

Background

Aims and objectives of the workshop
The learning outcomes for the 2-hour workshop were that by the end of the session participants should:

• have become aware of positive views of academic practice in relation to plagiarism, which uphold the best traditions of rigour, honesty and protection of intellectual property
• be able to distinguish between plagiarised and non-plagiarised paraphrasing of source material
• be aware of at least five working methods for successfully avoiding plagiarism and to have practised at least two
• know how and when to obtain necessary permissions to avoid copyright infringement

What actually took place?
Most of the 18 students, having worked with Bridgette Duncombe, were familiar with using clickers. The clickers were distributed at the beginning of the workshop and were tested by students responding to a question about their favourite season(s) of the year. The clickers were then used at three points in the session:

1. For students, working in pairs, to respond to whether paraphrased versions of an original were: appropriately paraphrased, plagiarised, or borderline.
2. Working independently, to respond to whether a paraphrased version of an original was: appropriately paraphrased, plagiarised, or borderline.
3. Working independently, to choose which one of four options was an incorrect description of copyright.

The use of clickers complemented other interactive question-and-answer elements in the session such as ‘Why do you think students plagiarise?’

What was the role of the technology? What did the technology add?
Having previously used ‘straw polls’ in workshops, where participants raised their hand to give their chosen response to a question, I was aware that peer pressure can influence response. Using clickers should remove or lessen such peer influence while gathering summary data that could be saved and reviewed later. It was also anticipated that the devices might add a technological ‘fun’ element to the workshop

In two of three instances the clickers were used to gather responses after students’ had critiqued written material. In the third instance they were used to test students’ understanding of a concept before they explored it further.

Outcomes

Were the learning outcomes met?
Judging by positive responses in a feedback questionnaire, by and large they were. The meeting of learning outcomes was not tested formally. The use of clickers did meet our expectations.

How did the students find it?
The students had little or no problems using the technology. In feedback questionnaires, many students specifically mentioned the value of the interactive exercises, including those that employed the clickers.

Were there any unexpected outcomes?
The students increased their ease and facility in using the clickers over the time of the workshop. Participants’ answers revealed that they had a higher accuracy when working in pairs rather than singly and that a substantial proportion had relatively poor understanding of copyright before this concept was covered in detail during the session.

What tips do you have for others?
It is advisable to use multiple-choice questions sparingly so that they complement other activities you are using. When using the Turning Point clicker system for the first time, keep the questions simple and test in advance to make sure that the computer and room are properly set up. In a ‘dry run’ we discovered that Turning Point did not work properly with my Apple Mac laptop’s operating system version. We also found out that Turning Point was not installed in the seminar room’s computer. Chemistry’s IT support officer Mark Russell carried out the software installation in the room’s computer and helpfully answered our questions.

• Unit: MN20034 Marketing Communications
• Department/School: School of Management
• Level: Undergraduate

• Unit Tutor: Peter Nuttall
• Keywords [pedagogical]: large-group-teaching
• Keywords [technical]: audience-response-systems, ars

Background

Aims and objectives of the lecture
The overall aim of the session was to increase the students understanding of how brand appeal to consumers through the catalytic effect of traditional advertising methods. To do this, ARS was used to first find out more about the students’ perceptions of some of the best known brands that use advertising as a key communication tool. Ultimately the session led to a discussion surrounding brand resonance and the attachment that students felt towards brands by virtue of the congruence between the values attached (promoted) to the brand and their own value set.

What actually took place?
The clickers were distributed at the start of the lecture and asked not to use them or play with them until instructed to do so. 15 minutes into the lecture session, the students were shown a series of brand logos and then asked to respond to several questions about brand values. The results for the class were discussed after each ‘value’ was voted on and revealed. The last slide asked for something that required more thought and it was noticeable how much extra time the class took to answer.  I collected the clickers at the end of the lecture from ach student as they left the theatre (this did delay their departure slightly).

What was the role of the technology? What did the technology add?
Coming relatively early in the lecture, the original motivation for using the technology was not as pertinent, i.e. giving the students a ‘break’ from the more formal lecture mode. However, coming early in the lecture had the effect of creating a more interactive atmosphere and expectation from the start – which prompted more in-depth discussion as the lecture continued after the exercise.

Outcomes

Were the objectives met?
It certainly got the students thinking about the role of brands and more specifically the notion of brand resonance.

How did the students find it?
I did sense some surprise at the use of such ‘populist’ / voxpox type technology in a lecture and felt that some adapted to this new ambience more quickly than others. I overheard one comment that seemed to question the legitimacy of such an application – ‘I thought this was a lecture’. However, comments I received as people left at the end of the lecture suggested a generally positive and in some cases, excited and very appreciative, attitude.

Were there any unexpected outcomes?
The lack of admission to answering in a certain way when asked – which underpins one of the essential benefits of such a system – its anonymity.

What tips do you have for others?
Book/plan well ahead. Plan the lecture slides and give thought to how you are going to make sense of the ‘findings’ – i.e. make sure the live results can be tied explicitly to the lecture’s overall aim and learning outcomes and avoid using just for fun. Think carefully about the in-class logistics of distribution and collection.

Session devised & run by: David Stacey, Subject Librarian

Department/School: Mathematical Sciences
Level: First Year Undergraduate (Induction)
[Martin Reed is Director of Teaching for Mathematical Sciences]

Background

Aims and objectives of the lecture
The target audience were new Undergraduates in the department of Mathematical Sciences. This would be their introduction to what the Library is – more than just the physical building, stock and staff – taking in electronic resources, sources of help and information, etc. I aimed to explore how new students can best start to make use of its services and facilities. I would also give a grounding in the basics of searching for ‘known-items’ i.e. from a reading list, be they books or journal articles. This involved demonstration of the catalogue and ELIN and effective keyword searching.

The use of ARS would underpin these goals with simple questions aimed at testing their knowledge on basic information available from the Library and also the talk itself. Some introductory TurningPoint slides were used to test with Yes/No answers whether they had visited the Library yet and also got a Library card – these also tested their use of the handsets provided.

What actually took place?
Nitin and a colleague assisted with distribution of the handsets whilst I spoke about how to use them (checking the light has gone green etc) and also reassuring them on the anonymity of the results. I gave a brief introduction to myself and the session which led into the test questions. The session consisted of a PowerPoint presentation with detailed slides interspersed with about 8 questions at intervals. Some of the information was contained in the slides and referred to in the questions, other questions referred to policies we hoped they would have found out about when they visited the Library. The aim was that if they had all visited (and I think 99% had done so) then I wouldn’t need to drop this information in prior to questioning. This would also keep them alert and avoid a purely “tell-test” format, the simplicity of which might become boring.

What was the role of the technology? What did the technology add?
The initial questions were to reveal their experience and expectations of the session on a basic level. As all had got their library card, for example, I could skim the next slides on this and also the Library location – as they had visited. Some questions tested their knowledge prior to the session and others served to check they had picked up on the key points delivered, particularly in terms of disambiguation e.g. highlighting the zoning of floors and study spaces which can be confused easily – e.g. the distinction between silent and quiet space.

Outcomes

Were the objectives met?
I felt that the technology had been successful and kept the students engaged in the session – involvement was consistently high. The responses to the questions suggested that they had made a good start in finding the library, getting a library card, picking up on the key points in the talk, etc. For those questions where I had not covered the information directly, the answers varied a bit more, which indicates that despite signage and web based information, these points need to be covered in a direct way early on.

How did the students find it?
Having tried the questions without TurningPoint in two other similar induction sessions (for different subjects), I felt the response rate was more consistent and gained from anonymity and lack of needing to raise an arm! Also, whilst one session was almost as good, another had far less participation. As a first attempt at TurningPoint, I think this supports a more ‘active learning’ approach if it can be used well, so I will be exploring ways to use it again.

Were there any unexpected outcomes?
Not really.

What tips do you have for others?
Get help from Nitin when you first try to use it! Keep it simple and start with a couple of questions which can serve as a test and don’t have a specific right or wrong answer.

Additional comments

1 – The anonymity aspect is particularly important for students at induction stage as they may be feeling a little too overwhelmed to volunteer an answer.

2 – We deliberately set some very simple Q&As which they’re unlikely to get wrong; this is less about seeking confirmation that they have understood than giving us the opportunity to repeat some information so they’re less likely to forget it afterwards. After all, there is a lot of information to absorb in the first weeks.

• Unit: MA30056 Complex Analysis [slides available]
• Department/School: Department of Mathematical Sciences
• Level: 3rd year undergraduate (BSc in Maths & MMath), ca. 30 (out of 80) students came to this Problems Class

• Unit Tutor: Bernd Sing
• Keywords [pedagogical]: large-group-teaching
• Keywords [technical]: audience-response-systems, ars

Background

Aims and objectives of the Problems Class
The main goal was to point out some common mistakes I observed in the handed-in solutions to exercise sheets. I therefore collected some statements/calculations in actual students’ solutions to some exercise and let them decide whether/why these statements are correct/problematic/false. Therefore, students have to critically question someone else’s solution (and thus implicitly come up with the correct one themselves).

What actually took place?
I used the first (approx.) twenty minutes to go through the TurningPoint slides, afterwards the rest of the session was a usual problems class. I handed out the the clickers to each student as she/he entered the room, they handed them back after the class. Responses using the ARS were logged and displayed as bar charts, where the correct answer was indicated by a green bar (and false answers as red bars). The correct answers were explained orally and by subsequent slides.

What was the role of the technology? What did the technology add?
Since handing solutions to exercise sheets is non-compulsory, the hand-in rates in 3rd year math units is generally quite low. Many students thus “practice” and actively work with the material in the final exam only. So, using the clickers, every student has to question and think about her/his method to arrive at the solution (and cannot just passively lean back in the problem’s class and see what happens).

Figure 1: Question slide, showing the response data and correct answer (denoted by the smiley face)

Figure 2: Feedback slide

Outcomes

Were the objectives met?
A few days after this session I received an email from a student with a question related to some of the mistakes pointed out; although in this case the student wanted to be too cautious (the student wanted to avoid a mistake where there was no mistake to avoid), it shows that there is some new/additional awareness now there. We will see if this awareness lasts until the final exam…

How did the students find it?
Students are certainly more active and lively than during a usual problem’s class session. Overall, they like it, especially if they see that the technology is used for a purpose.

Were there any unexpected outcomes?
Unfortunately, the were some misprints on the last slide; however, it was interesting to see that some students pointed them out that usually keep quite.

What tips do you have for others?
I guess the main advice is to be at the lecture room well in time to set up the computer and hand out the clickers.

Also, this time I used Laeqed for Windows (a similar program for Mac is “LaTeXiT”) to produce LaTeX-like output of formulae that are then imported as `picture-object’ into the Powerpoint-slides. This works reasonable well, although it is a bit of clicking & dragging.

Richard Joiner, a Lecturer in the Department of Psychology, has recently been using the TurningPoint-based Audience Response System to support his teaching. The following details some experiences of usage.

“I have been using ARS in two units that I am running this semester. One is a 2nd year unit on Developmental Psychology (PS20107) with 80 students and the other is a final year unit with 30 students. I recently have been using the ‘demographic slide’ function in TurningPoint 2008 and I have found it very useful.

I used it to illustrate gender differences in playing videogames. The first step is to get the students to register their clickers as male or female, by asking them the following question.

Figure 1: Are you Male or Female?

Next, I asked them the question concerning videogames (see below)…

Figure 2: How often do you play videogames?

You then get the normal response and then you get a slide (shown) below, which breaks it down into males and females.

Figure 3: How often do you play videogames? (demographic breakdown)

The students were very impressed and it illustrated the point nicely. Obviously you can pick any grouping variable (i.e. course, age etc).”

If you would like to see how you might incorporate this type of slide into your own teaching and/or would like to find out more about the ARS, please do get in touch with Nitin Parmar in the e-Learning team, either on 01225 384 392 or via email at e-learning@bath.ac.uk