Audience Response System [ARS]

• 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.

Following discussions with colleagues in the School of Management, the TurningPoint software has now been installed in the follow (non-GTA) teaching rooms:

• 8W 1.25
• 8W 1.28
• 8W 3.13
• 8W 3.14
• 8W 4.2

I am very grateful to the School of Management PC Support Team for their help with this.

As a reminder, the TurningPoint 2008 software is available on all PCs in GTA rooms and in the Library. This excludes the Sun Ray machines dotted around the campus. It can be installed on staff desktop PCs by contacting the departmental IT Supporter. Additionally, the software be downloaded from this website from the menu on the right hand side, under the title ARS software download.

• Unit: Advanced Management Practices (Business and Society)
• Department/School: School of management
• Level: MSc

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

Background

Course element
- Students are divided into groups representing companies such as Glaxo, Tesco and Ford
- The students develop an understanding of the Corporate social responsibility practices of their company

- Given certain scenarios and events the students must develop strategies to deploy which meet social and financial criteria

Aims and objectives of the lecture
- For students to make group presentations on aspects of the course which will be assessed as a group activity towards their final mark

What actually took place?
- There were nine groups giving 15-minute presentations each conducted in 3 blocks during a one day seminar
- Audience recorded notes in a feedback form on aspects of the presentation and if it met criteria
- After each presentation a score was given
- At the end of the day some fun ‘Oscars’ were given for best overall presentation

What was the role of the technology? What did the technology add?
- ARS was used to anonymously capture the scores for each presentation and to provide a total (This had been done in previous sessions with a score sheet and manually totalled).

Outcomes

Were the objectives met?
- Yes, although some redesign of the course material would have made the day flow better

How did the students find it?
- It created an X-Factor-type buzz in the room however, the novelty wore off fast
- It did increase nervousness of some students being judged in such a way

Were there any unexpected outcomes?
- First couple of marks were hard for the students to benchmark – this was an issue of the session design not the technology

What tips do you have for others?
- Test every unit that is to be used as the set up of my room and low batteries in some handset meant that 5-8 units were not working
- Using the scoring at the end was better and the Oscars sessions went better
- I would use this again in a shorter session and not for this full day type event

• Unit: MN10103 Business Economics 1
• Department/School: Management
• Level: First year undergraduate

• Unit Tutor: Dr Rob Branston
• Keywords [pedagogical]: large-group-teaching
  
• Keywords [technical]: audience-response-systems, ars

Background

Aims and objectives of the lecture
This was my last lecture with the students (approx 170 of which 143 turned up) and so I wanted to give them some practice of multiple choice questions since they would face some of these in the exam, and also as feedback mechanism on their own level of understanding of the material.

What actually took place?
After a few simple test questions to make sure everyone understood the system, we went through around 15 questions of the type they will face in the exam, with the students voting for the answers they thought were correct.

What was the role of the technology? What did the technology add?
The technology made the session more exciting for the students (I told them about it the week before and they were all ‘excited’ about it), and stopped them acting like sheep which generally occured when I’ve tried to do similar things with a show of hands.  Furthermore it clearly showed which topics or questions were proving to be problematic and allowed discussion of this.

Outcomes

Were the objectives met?
Yes, the session went well.  Everyone seemed to enjoy themselves, and I think the students realised they need to do a bit of work prior to  the exam.

How did the students find it?
They enjoyed it.  I asked a question at the end about their experiences, with 79% saying they thought it was really useful, a further 17% thought it was fun with a bit of use, and only 9% thought it was a waste of time.

Were there any unexpected outcomes?
Not really, other than the students enjoyed it more than I thought they might, and it showed more clearly that the students need to increase their understand of the material prior to the exam.

What tips do you have for others?
The help from e-learning was very useful in terms of helping me with the software prior to the session and a test to check my presentation worked, and then helping distribute and collect the clickers which was quite some task given the size of the group.

• Unit: MN30353 Creating and Starting an Entrepreneurial Venture
• Department/School: School of Management
• Level: Honours [Final Year]

• Unit Tutor: Ajit Nayak, Lecturer in Strategy
• Keywords [pedagogical]: large-group-teaching
• Keywords [technical]: audience-response-systems, ars

• Case Study Author: Nitin Parmar, ARS Project Lead

Background

Aims and objectives
The theme for the lecture was Feasibility Analysis. Students were asked to present their business idea in the form of an “Elevator pitch”. [The term is typically used in the context of an entrepreneur pitching an idea to a venture capitalist to receive funding - Wikipedia]. Following the lecture, students – taking on board the feedback from the Audience Response System (ARS) – will be given two weeks to work on their feasibility analysis. This work will contribute to their summative assessment for the unit: an individual business plan of 4000-5000 words (excluding appendices).

What actually took place?
During this lecture, (all) students were given one minute to pitch their business idea to the rest of the cohort, before one hundred students were asked to vote on the feasibility of the pitch using the ARS. Slides were presented in the form of a likert scale, where students were asked to agree or disagree with the feasibility, and indeed sustainability, of a particular business idea.

What was the role of the technology? What did the technology add?
The ARS enabled the activity to work effectively. It was clear that the vast majority of the students not only engaged with the activity but enjoyed taking part. The technology added a lighter touch to the lecture, and the students were certainly engaged by both the task and through the use of the ARS.

Outcomes

Were the objectives met?
The unit tutor stressed that students who pitched should take note of the data generated. Indeed, it gave them instant feedback as to the feasibility of their business idea and how they might take it forward. Aside from the ARS, some audience members opted to give informal feedback, both during the pitch(!) and afterwards.

How did the students find it?
Initial feedback suggested that those students who pitched business ideas certainly enjoyed the experience, and found the immediate availability of data useful.

Were there any unexpected outcomes?
Towards the end of the lecture, I sensed that the ARS might have have lost some of its effectiveness. I could not be certain that all students were considering their responses in any depth, before voting. Perhaps, the ARS is best used in a short, sharp bursts?

What tips do you have for others?
With one hundred students in the room, I was keen to see how the practicalities of the ARS could be managed – in particular, handing the equipment out and getting it back. Following guidance from another colleague, I suggested to the unit tutor that he nominate one student at the end of each row of desk to be responsible for the collection of the units from their row at the end of the session.