Audience Response System [ARS]

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.

• Unit: MA30041 Metric Spaces [slides available]
• Department/School: Mathematical Sciences
• Level: 3rd year undergraduate (BSc in Maths & MMath), ca. 55 students showed up

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

Background

Aims and objectives of the lecture
This session took place before(!) the Christmas break and served as a revision/overview lecture at the end of the unit. Obviously, most student will use their Christmas break to properly revise the material, therefore I didn’t want to test if they have memorized definitions or proofs from the lecture but rather make them aware
where their possible weaknesses are. Also, I regard going over some of the previous year’s exams as rather boring (exams & solutions for mathematics units are available via the library), especially since again the students would have to know definitions, proofs etc. for that.

What actually took place?
I had two successive hours available (the usual time & place of the lecture in this unit) but only used approx. 80 min. In the first part I gave a classical lecture giving an overview of what was done in this unit. In the second (a bit longer) half, I then used the ARS with a turningpoint-powerpoint presentation to let the students vote on correct answers of multiple choice questions. Responses were logged and displayed as bar charts, and I then revealed (with brief oral explanations) the correct answers.

What was the role of the technology? What did the technology add?
The students had to make decisions instead of just listening to someone presenting a solution. The students were certainly actively involved, and at some of the hard questions I could even hear some “YES”-shouts after revealing the correct answer.

Outcomes

Were the objectives met?
Of course, one cannot cover everything of a 3rd year maths unit by multiple choice questions. However, to make students aware where their  weaknesses are and to show them that they are not the only person in
this course who does not know all the answers, the ARS is certainly a   gadget worth using in such a revision setting and worked very well here.

How did the students find it?
Overall, the students the liked it (see end questionnaire, 64%+21%  thought it was a very good or good idea to use the ARS, 11% didn’t like it). The same evening after the lecture a student even sent me an email saying “i would like to thank you for todays overview lecture, I found the questions at the end especially helpful”.

Were there any unexpected outcomes?
I am not aware of anything negative so far. To the contrary, there were many smiles on student’s faces at the end of the session…

What tips do you have for others?
I didn’t have any trouble distributing or collecting the clickers (as other have commented here). I was at the lecture hall well in time and handed the clickers out as the students entered the room. After the session, I simply stood at the exit and the students handed them back into the box.

Another point, however, is that for someone used to LaTeX, powerpoint slides (with maths on it) are simply ugly and “Microsoft Equation” is awful. Only after the session I became aware that “LaTeXiT” (for Mac) or “Laeqed” (for Windows) produce LaTeX-like output of formulae that can be used as an `object’ in Powerpoint.