COLLEGE TEACHING, 58: 127–135, 2010

Copyright

C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 8756-7555 print / 1930-8299 online
DOI: 10.1080/87567551003774894

“Clickers” as Catalysts for Transformation of

Teachers
Yifat Ben-David Kolikant
Hebrew University

Denise Drane and Susanna Calkins

Northwestern University

Personal response systems (PRS)—also called student response systems (SRS), or more com-
monly, “clickers”—can be a catalyst for transformation of a learning environment from one of
silence to one rich in dialogue and interaction. But how is this transformation achieved? In this
paper, we present three case studies of instructors who use PRS in undergraduate science and
math classes at a research-intensive institution in the Midwest, USA. All three instructors re-
ported having to make significant adjustments to their teaching over time in order to transform
their respective learning environments and fully realize the benefits of PRS. These adjustments
included (1) modifying activities to overcome the tension between the students’ desire for
anonymity and the need for interactivity to enhance learning, and (2) revising PRS questions in
response to student behavior. We contend that transformation of the environment with PRS is
neither instantaneous nor straightforward. As such, faculty who introduce PRS to their class-
rooms may benefit from substantial pedagogical and technological support. Finally, we note
that the ongoing feedback about student learning in the classroom that PRS provides may act
as a powerful catalyst to transform faculty, moving them from teacher-centered conceptions
and approaches to teaching to student-centered conceptions and approaches.

Keywords: case study, faculty conceptions of teaching, personal response systems, student
engagement

Over the last ten years, instructors have increasingly poses, such as gauging student knowledge, comprehension,
sought to incorporate personal response systems (PRS), (also opinions, and attitudes.
called student response systems (SRS) or more colloqui- PRS has great potential to transform lecture-based classes
ally, “clickers” or “zappers”) into a variety of learning con- by engaging students, offering opportunities for collabora-
texts in higher education. Such contexts include economics tive learning and consensus-building, and facilitating learn-
(Elliot 2003), math (Bode, et al. 2009), physics (Bransford, ing (Barrett, et al. 2005). Using PRS effectively may also
et al. 2000; Mazur 1997), psychology (Draper, Cargill, and help instructors move from teacher-focused approaches to
Cutts 2002; Mayer et al. 2009), philosophy (Immerwahr more learner-focused approaches in teaching (Calkins and
2009), biomedical engineering (Roselli and Brophy 2002), Light 2008; Prosser and Trigwell 1999), as well as to pro-
and statistics (Wit 2003). Research suggests that instructors mote active learning (Light, et al. 2009). Specifically, the
have incorporated PRS technology in a variety of ways, with in-class interaction stimulated by PRS may transform stu-
varying degrees of effectiveness, ranging from more admin- dents’ participation from passive note-taking, with post-
istrative purposes (i.e. taking attendance), to engaging and ponement of understanding until after class, to active en-
motivating students, to more sophisticated assessment pur- gagement with and comprehension of material during class
(Kolikant, et al. 2005). As studies have shown, increased
Correspondence should be sent to Denise Drane, Searle Center for
engagement of students may in turn transform the class-
Teaching Excellence, Northwestern University, 627 Dartmouth Place, room from a place of silence to one rich in verbal interaction
Evanston, IN 60201, USA. E-mail: [email protected] as students become aware of their difficulties and strive to
128 KOLIKANT ET AL.

understand (Draper et al. 2002; Nicol and Boyle 2003). Ini-

tial studies have also shown that, when used effectively, PRS
can increase student learning (Mayer, et al. 2009; Yourstone,
et al. 2008).
In this paper, we investigated three faculty who used PRS
in their large lecture classes. We examined how these instruc-
tors adjusted their teaching during the course in response to
their own teaching goals, their students’ behavior, and the
perceived limitations of PRS. We were not interested in how
they learned to use the PRS, but rather in how they changed
their approach to teaching as a result of using the PRS.
We contend that PRS does not transform environments
instantaneously, nor is the transformation process straight-
forward. Rather, our instructors needed to develop teaching
FIGURE 1 A clicker with the feature of level of confidence (left) and a
strategies to support class transformation, taking into account clicker without this feature (right).
their students’ attitudes toward the learning environment that
each was seeking to create. At the same time, the PRS pro-
vided an important opportunity for the instructors to reflect
critically on their own teaching. medium [default], or low). Responses are transmitted to the
system, automatically tallied, and presented in a histogram
Barriers to Learning in Lecture-Based Classes that shows the distribution of responses for the whole class
for each multiple choice option. In addition, responses to
Several barriers to learning have been identified in lecture-
each question are stored automatically and can be reviewed
based classes. These barriers stem largely from the uni-
in subsequent classes or analyzed later by the instructor.
directional nature of the interaction between instructor and
PRS has the potential to assist in overcoming the three bar-
students. In large lecture-based classes, the instructor typi-
riers noted above. First, when a PRS question is asked during
cally transmits information while the students take notes in
class, students can assess their own learning, or at least their
a relatively passive manner (Bligh 2000). Attention levels
own comprehension. They may realize immediately that they
are often not sustained throughout the lecture (Penner 1984).
do not understand something about the material. Second, the
There is little accountability for engagement during the class
histogram that immediately displays the class responses may
(Wulff, et al. 1987), and students are not required to process
help students realize that they are not alone if they did not
information at a high level (Cooper and Robinson 2000).
get the right answer. Third, the anonymity of the responses
As there is no immediate requirement to process informa-
may alleviate embarrassment or anxiety about incorrect an-
tion, many students postpone making sense of the material
swers. Although the same questions may be posed to students
until after the class. In many cases, students may not pro-
holding flashcards (the low tech alternative to PRS), with po-
cess the information until weeks after the lecture when they
tentially equal gains in learning (Lasry 2008), students may
are preparing for exams, and indeed, many never engage the
still feel inhibited in sharing their responses. Indeed, stud-
material deeply at all.
ies have shown that the anonymity provided by clickers helps
While students, allegedly, can always ask questions in
students feel more comfortable answering questions, less dis-
the classroom and participate in instructor-led discussions,
tant from their instructor and their peers, and more open to
the large lecture format often inhibits student involvement
learning (Barrett, et al. 2005; Martyn 2007).
(Light, et al. 2009). Bransford et al. (2000) list three
PRS questions can serve as a concrete means for stu-
characteristics of lecture-based classes that discourage
dents and instructor to explore and overcome difficulties.
students from conversing during class: (1) lack of awareness
These verbal interactions have the potential to enhance learn-
of their own difficulties; (2) inability to pinpoint what it is
ing. When instructors are exposed to the ideas underly-
that they do not understand; and (3) embarrassment to admit
ing students’ anonymous responses, they can adjust their
difficulties due to lack of awareness that other students have
teaching accordingly. Second, students enhance their con-
difficulties too.
ceptual understanding by explaining their ideas and listen-
ing to other students’ ideas and reasoning (Chi 1996; Hake
How PRS Can Overcome Barriers to Learning in
1998), and furthermore, they practice professional commu-
Lecture-Based Classes
nication skills. Several discussion techniques for use with
With the PRS, students respond anonymously by using a PRS have been suggested. Mazur (1997) suggests using peer
remote control (clicker) device such as the two shown in discussion after the histogram is displayed, so that students
Figure 1. Their responses include the answer they believe will explain their thinking to each other. Dufresne et al.
to be correct and, optionally, their level of confidence (high, (1996) conduct peer discussion before the students respond
 “CLICKERS” AS CATALYSTS 129

individually with class-wide discussion following the display significantly, reexamine their own skills and approaches that
of the histogram. they use to teach.
Nicol and Boyle investigated the usefulness of the dis-
cussion techniques above (Nicol and Boyle 2003; Boyle and
METHODS
Nicol 2003). They integrated peer discussion into a session
held in the seventh week of the course and a class-wide dis-
Subjects
cussion in a session held in the tenth week. They found that
students preferred peer discussion over class-wide discus- We describe three case studies involving three instructors
sion, probably preferring not to be the center of attention. who use PRS in their teaching at a Midwestern research-
Yet, students believed that both forms of discussion helped intensive university. The three instructors, Mary, Sarah, and
them and generally approved of the use of the PRS. Arnold (pseudonyms), teach in the Mathematics, Physics,
and Engineering departments, respectively. All teach re-
quired courses. Mary teaches basic calculus, Arnold teaches
Barriers to Integration of PRS
introductory physics, and Sarah teaches thermodynamics.
As noted above, PRS has the potential to serve as a means Classes differ in size and composition across the three
of overcoming several of the barriers to learning in lecture- courses. Mary generally has about 80 first-year students.
based classes. However, PRS may not be received positively Sarah limits the size of her class to 50 and has second-, third-
by all students. Boyle and Nicol’s (2003) and Nicol and and fourth-year students. Arnold teaches about 140 first-year
Boyle’s (2003) findings suggests a tension within students students, but attendance averages approximately 80 students
between a desire to remain anonymous and recognition that because the course is basic and many students who know
interacting might promote their understanding. As Duncan the topic already merely take it for credit. At the time this
(2005) explains, students often expect and hope to be anony- study was undertaken, Mary was using PRS for the third
mous; thus, “the use of a clicker system shatters these student time, Arnold for the fourth time, and Sarah for the second
expectations” (Duncan 2005, 21). time. Students at this university tend to be high-achieving
Furthermore, Jackson and Trees (2003) surveyed 1543 un- and motivated to perform well in their courses.
dergraduates and found that third- and fourth-year students These instructors perceive teaching as central to their
approved less of changes associated with introducing PRS job. Prior to using PRS, Mary received a university teach-
to the classroom than first and second year students. They ing award in recognition of her strong commitment to her
also found that students do not disapprove of lecture-based teaching. Arnold is a member of a group of physics instruc-
sessions and are only mildly interested in classroom interac- tors who meet every other week and discuss options for im-
tion. Thus, students do not automatically approve the change proving teaching, and Sarah is a member of a five-university
in the “unwritten rules of the game,” that occurs when PRS engineering research center whose mission is to improve
is introduced. However, Fagen et al. (2002) surveyed PRS teaching and enhance learning in Bioengineering, and she is
users and found that although they encountered students’ re- personally involved in many educational projects.
sistance, once students realize that the technology helps, they Mary and Sarah used the EduCue system (www.gtco.com
welcome it. 2005), and Arnold used the H-ITT system (www.h-itt.com
Faculty must also understand which types of questions 2005). In Table 1 we show how the instructors each use PRS
will actually promote student engagement and peer interac- in their courses. Instructors vary significantly in how they
tion and increase learning. If the questions are merely used implement PRS in their classes. Most notably, the three in-
to determine attendance or basic recall of information, then structors differ in the centrality of PRS to their classrooms.
this may have a detrimental influence on student engagement Arnold uses PRS about every other session and has one or two
and perceived efficacy of clickers (Morling, et al. 2008). questions. Sarah uses PRS in a similar manner, for similar
Learning what questions to pose and when is essential for reasons, but uses approximately four questions per session.
fostering student engagement, peer interaction, communica- In contrast, Mary uses PRS every session and has six to
tion and learning (Bode, et al. 2009; Mayer et al. 2009). ten questions per session. Specifically, Mary describes her
Moreover, Penuel et al. (2005) predict that when PRS is classes as being constructed around PRS questions. In con-
first introduced, both students and instructors will feel awry trast, Arnold and Sarah explained that they do not want to
because their roles in the class have changed. Thus, in ad- force PRS questions into their lectures. Each of them has a
dition to preparation for using PRS, teachers will require a class context for PRS, which promotes different types of in-
second phase of preparation in which they adjust their teach- teraction in class (described below). Arnold’s students need
ing strategies to support students’ transformation. With time, to buy the clickers ($5 after rebate). Mary and Sarah lend the
both should adjust to their new roles. Indeed, as Linsenmeier clickers to their students for the entire course. Mary assigns
et al. (2006) have found, using PRS effectively can help in- one clicker to a group while students of Arnold and Sarah
structors become more responsive to student needs, discover respond individually. Mary also grades the responses (the
new ways to unpack difficult problems, and perhaps most PRS responses are about 5% of the final grade). In Sarah and
130 KOLIKANT ET AL.

TABLE 1
The Different Ways of Using the PRS Demonstrated by the Instructors

Lecturer Arnold Sarah Mary

Frequency About every other session About every other session Every lecture
Questions per session 1–2 About 4 Normally 6–10, sometimes up to 18
Typical interaction -Pose questions -Pose questions -Pose questions
-Peer discussion -Students respond individually -The group responds
-Students respond individually -Obtain feedback-If wide diversity -If low response rate or wide
then diversity then
-Obtain feedback -Students consult with neighbors -A class-wide discussion to initiate
-If wide diversity class-wide -Individual response the solution process OR class-wide
discussion before giving the right -If wide diversity then class-wide discussions when a PRS question
answer discussion stimulates it
Who has a clicker? Individual response Individual response Group response
What appears on the screen when Clicker ID number Students’ first name Group names
responding

Mary’s classes, the group or student name appears on the Observations

screen when the response is received, whereas in Arnold’s
We observed Mary and Sarah’s classes four times each
class the Clicker ID appears. Finally, different types of verbal
and Arnold’s class twice. These observations enabled us to
interaction are stimulated by each teacher.
understand the dynamics generated in the classroom as well
Differences in implementation across instructors can be
as to verify the interviewees’ descriptions of their work.
ascribed to many variables, such as the nature of the subject
matter, the teaching style, and the size of the class. For ex-
ample, Arnold explained that since he has a huge number of Data Analysis
students, he simply waits until he gets about 65 responses In our analysis, we utilized constant comparative method
and then moves on, but Mary and Sarah wait for all students (Glaser and Strauss 1967). We used both predetermined and
to weigh in. the emerging codes. The predetermined codes were derived
from the foci of the interviews described above—for exam-
ple the theme of initial attraction to use PRS. The emerging
Study Procedure codes were derived from the contents of the interviewees’
responses, such as the “no no question” theme and the “quiet
Our primary research tool is a semi-structured interview that interaction” theme. The analysis was iterative. In each round,
we conducted with each instructor. In the qualitative research two researchers (the first author and an external researcher)
tradition, the credibility of the data can often be established first worked separately and then met to discuss and refine
through triangulation of the analysis (Stake, 1995). Triangu- the coding scheme. The process was repeated until the re-
lation involves corroborating evidence from different sources searchers felt that they could not generate any additional
to shed light on a particular theme or perspective. Accord- categories or propositions.
ingly, in addition to the interview, we made observations and
collected questions used by the instructors.
RESULTS

Interviews with instructors Initial Attraction to PRS

During the interviews we asked the instructors to (1) ret- The instructors were all attracted to PRS because they were
rospectively describe the process by which they had designed intrigued with the possibilities for promoting two-way inter-
their method of using PRS, (2) describe their pedagogy (both action with students, particularly since these classes were all
activities with and without the use of PRS) and their prepa- required. As Mary explains, “Most of these students are not
ration for lessons, (3) describe their teaching goals as well in the class because they love calculus but because they have
as expected learning outcomes, (4) explain the way they use to take it.”
PRS (5) explain why they decided to add non-PRS activi- Each instructor wanted to transform students’ behavior
ties, and (6) describe lessons learned from using PRS. The in the course from passive to active, make the course more
interviews were recorded and transcribed. enjoyable, motivate students, engage students in the course,
 “CLICKERS” AS CATALYSTS 131

and thereby, enhance learning. Reflecting on her own expe- Adjustments to Teaching Approaches
rience with the traditional lecture, Mary commented, “If I go
The instructors demonstrated a continual tension between
on a lecture, I am usually lost after five minutes. How long
the desire to interact with their students and the students’
can they really pay attention to somebody presenting some
hesitation to step out of their anonymity. We noticed that
solution to some problem? So, that’s why I think it’s very
they developed two major strategies for dealing with this is-
important to participate in class;”
sue: (1) they learned to use information obtained “quietly” to
Furthermore, all three instructors claimed that while they
promote learning, and (2) they developed strategies to induce
incorporated interactive teaching activities prior to the use of
students to express their thoughts verbally, whilst simultane-
PRS, they felt that PRS would facilitate interaction that was
ously taking into account their hesitation about being the
hard to achieve otherwise. Specifically, they were attracted to
center of attention.
the opportunity for anonymous participation with the entire
classroom. As Arnold explains:
Using the quiet information
For the last ten years or so, I’ve had an interactive class where The use of information obtained “quietly” is demonstrated
I would periodically put up an example and ask the students by the instructors’ practice of making a real-time decision
to predict what the outcome will be one way or the other; about their next move in class in response to the histogram of
they would vote . . . But I also realize the imperfections in the students’ responses, as presented in Table 1. Thus, students
system because of the fact that by having people publicly influence the course of the lesson while staying out of the
raise their hands; it’s a possibility that people will be embar-
public eye. For example, Mary explained how she utilized
rassed and maybe even protest this invasion of their privacy
the responses form the PRS to adjust the pace of the lesson:
or something like that. So, I often wanted to have a system
that would be anonymous. “[if] I can see only 30% got it right I know I have to spend
more time explaining this problem and then sometimes I get
100% correct and I know that basically I don’t have to spend
Sarah was attracted to the immediate display of the knowl- a lot of time on it.”
edge state of the class, which helped her tackle difficulties In addition, in Sarah and Mary’s classes, the group or
on the spot and helped students see that they are not alone, student name appears on the screen when the response is
which in turn encourages them to speak their mind or confess received. Namely, information regarding who has responded
difficulties. As she explains, “It [PRS] helps them too in the is revealed to both instructors and students, but the content of
class discussions, they’re not afraid to ask questions because the response is hidden. Sarah uses this information to encour-
they see that so many of their peers don’t understand some age students who have not responded to participate. Mary’s
things either” students compete with each other in terms of whose group
For Sarah, too, it is crucial that she can assess how well responds first. She also encourages her students to come up
her students understand the material and let them self-assess with creative names for their teams, to increase their engage-
their own understanding as well: ment in the course, and to overcome their initial feeling of
discomfort. As she explains, “It’s always a competition who
I think people will think that they understand something is going to respond first because the way the system works
sometimes and they won’t. So they won’t ask a question it tells you which group responded first[;] it doesn’t tell you
because they think they’ve got it. And then when I ask a PRS the answer.”
question I find, wow, no, they haven’t asked a question about Finally, the responses are saved in a file, which enables
that, but they really don’t understand a certain concept. And the instructors to know who responded and what the response
I’ll ask more conceptual level questions oftentimes with the
was. For example, Arnold goes through the log every other
PRS system. So I use it for me to kind of just gauge where
the students are in their thinking.
week. He explains, “I just keep track of that for purposes of
helping students out if they come in to my office. I have an
idea whether they are doing well or not doing well with the
Sarah experienced hand-raising in response to questions clicker responses.”
as insufficient. She believes many students will not partici- Indeed, all three instructors analyzed these data in order to
pate, or they will be unduly influenced by their peers: “When identify students with difficulties as well as difficult topics,
the PRS system wasn’t working . . . I would just have them valuable information for preparing the next iteration of the
raise their hands . . . I certainly don’t get full participation at course.
all. And I also think that they’re influenced by the hands that
they see going up around them. “
Developing strategies to encourage verbal
Mary was primarily attracted to PRS’s potential to stim-
discussion
ulate intense verbal discussions, believing that students are
attuned to the lesson when having to think of solutions to The three instructors indicated that they valued verbal
given problems. interaction. For example, in the following excerpt, Arnold
132 KOLIKANT ET AL.

describes the interaction he expects in his class after a PRS

question is posed and explains how it promotes learning:

Once that question is posted they can talk. And so, a student
can tell another student “this is what I think” and the other
student would say “well, what do you think?” There could be
disagreement in communication; students who know what’s
going on, will have to explain why they think what it is to
another student. So, they will reaffirm their ideas and maybe
even find out if they get the wrong idea and because they
have to explain it to somebody else.

Indeed, they all utilize peer discussion either before FIGURE 2 An example for a “no no problem.”
(Arnold, Mary) or after (Sarah) students click their response
(Table 1). Sarah reported that similarly to Mazur’s (1997) ex- fort among students. Sarah instructs her students to use the
perience, usually after peer discussion, responses converge “level-of-confidence” buttons when responding. Then she
to the right answer: encourages discussion by asking the students with high lev-
els of confidence to speak their mind. During the observa-
Especially in those cases where I get a wide variation, like tions, this strategy was applied constantly in her class and
maybe it’s only 60/40 the correct response or something like indeed resulted in the voluntary participation of students.
that, I’ll say, okay, talk about this with the person next to you
The following excerpt taken from Sarah’s class indicates her
and then let’s vote again on it. And so I say try to convince
the person next to you about your position and then we vote
technique:
again. And I see a lot of convergence that way.
So, we don’t have a clear picture here [referring to big di-
versity in the histogram].We have some high confidence in
In this way, students interact but are exempted from the
[choice 1] but the most in [choice 2], so why won’t one of
need to go public. Yet, apparently, establishing a thorough the [students who chose 2] [with] high confident raise hand
peer discussion is not simple. It took Mary three iterations ? Come on, you’re confident, or at least you were [smiling]
until she established the vivid peer discussion in her class that [class laughs, four students raise hand]. Sam?
she desired. At first, her students had individual clickers and
were asked to consult their neighbors (similar to Arnold’s In other words, Sarah’s use of the level of confidence
students). When this configuration did not bring the dynam- served as an agreed signal of sufficient level of comfort to
ics she desired, she assigned students to fixed groups (the go public. According to Mary, peer discussion generates a
same groups that were assigned to work on homework as- sufficient comfort level. She reports that over time students
signments), only to realize that this did not work either. Then, feel comfortable participating in class-wide discussions and
after consulting with the institution’s Center for Teaching to ask questions, usually on behalf of their group.
Excellence, she decided to give one clicker per group and to
grade the students’ responses (5% of their final grade), this
Adjustments to PRS Questions
time stimulating intense peer discussion. A reasonable ex-
planation as to why the last iteration generates the most vivid All instructors reported making adjustments over time to their
peer discussions is that in this setting, students have joint re- PRS questions. Questions that required computations were
sponsibility for the answer and thus they must communicate found to be less useful because students made calculation
seriously until they reach an agreement, despite the mini- mistakes and were confused when no choice matched their
mum damage a wrong answer can do to one’s grade. Mary answer. Limited time for responding added to the pressure.
explains, “When I used it before the other two quarters . . . I Additionally, the fact that the correct answer would be given
divide them into groups, too [like now] but they each have to them shortly diminished the students’ willingness to invest
their own clicker and I have to encourage them to work in cognitive effort to solve complicated questions. As Mary
groups. Now, they automatically have to [talk], so it’s a very explains, “When they [students] are overwhelmed with a
lively class room.” question, they say ‘that’s it, I am not going to do this; I’ll
Finally, verbal interaction, especially class-wide discus- wait until she shows it.”
sion means that students have to completely step out of the The example Mary gave for such a “no no question” is
anonymity, a big change in the “rules of the game.” How- presented in figure 2. Consequently, these questions and ex-
ever, the three interviewees explained that these discussions ercises are given in other forms of interaction, such as quizzes
are very useful to them because they help them better un- and homework assignments.
derstand the students’ difficulties. To this end, the instructors Students’ reaction to PRS was not the only factor that
reported that it is critical to create a sufficient level of com- contributed to the transformation in the teachers’ pedagogy,
 “CLICKERS” AS CATALYSTS 133

but also teachers gradually learned how to make more out of DISCUSSION
PRS. Mary and Arnold reported that they had each gradu-
ally developed various types of questions to support different Our interviews with instructors revealed that their use of the
teaching goals, such as (1) sequence of questions that builds PRS was not straightforward. Each of the instructors faced
on each other to support the instruction of a complicated (similar) challenges, and each had made gradual adjustment
concept and its relation to other concepts, (2) questions that in their pedagogy, namely a gradual change of the “unwritten
follow the development of equations or proofs of theorems to rules of the game” through gradual learning of the limitations
help students avoid getting lost, and (3) controversial ques- and possibilities that the PRS offerd them. First, the instruc-
tions to provoke discussion. Sarah reported that in the first tors learned that “quiet interaction” generates useful infor-
round of using PRS, many topics seemed not be “PRS mate- mation and facilitates tacit communication. For example, the
rial” whereas in the second round she was able to find good histogram and data on level of confidence conveyed the stu-
PRS questions to better teach these topics. dents’ messages regarding their understanding, helping both
teachers and students to monitor student learning.
Transformation in Conceptions of Teaching and Yet, their main challenge was always to overcome stu-
Learning dents’ hesitation to step out of their anonymity and talk dur-
ing class to make sense of the topics taught. PRS technology
While the initial goal of the instructors was to transform supported the development of two major strategies. One strat-
their students, they all realized how using PRS facilitated egy was to create an intermediate state in which students were
a transformation in their own teaching. Each admitted that not completely anonymous, yet were not standing alone at
preparing for PRS sessions is time consuming and yet, they the center of public attention—e.g., peer discussion (Webb
kept using PRS because they believed that it enabled them to and Mastergeorge 2003; Yazedjian and Kolkhorst 2007).
improve their teaching. Naturally, the PRS questions served Another strategy was to create a sufficient level of comfort.
as formative assessment of their teaching, taught them a lot Mary’s solution was to put students in groups, assigning only
about their students, and contributed to their understanding one clicker to a group, which forced students to discuss the
of their role as teachers. question within the group. Being sheltered by their groups,
Mary asserted that her work with PRS brings about “con- students communicated their difficulties and their ideas in
tinuous learning”. For example, her beliefs about what con- class-wide discussions, usually speaking in the name of the
stitutes good teaching have dramatically changed: entire group. Sarah (and her students) utilized the “level-
of-confidence” feature to signal their level of comfort with
I have learned quite a lot about how they learn and how
participation in a class-wide discussion.
much material they actually understand in the classroom.
In addition, the instructors developed different types of
Obviously, we break it down to them nicely and we think
that they are leaving the class room with 90% of the students questions to match typical situations in their lessons, such as
performing every single thing one said because you know the sequences of questions when developing long proofs or
you are a great teacher you know how to explain, you know equations. They also learned the limitations of a real-time and
how to break it down. You think they all listen and they short-time interaction, which is reflected in their definitions
understood every thing. That’s actually really fragile; they of the “no no question,” that is, questions that students fail
understand very little. or hesitate to solve within a short time or questions which
reveal little information about students’ difficulties.
Similarly, Sarah has changed her conception of the in- Moreover, the continuous exposure to students’ thoughts
structor’s role from covering materials to tackling miscon- (ideas and difficulties) served as a continuous opportunity
ceptions: “I think the way I can be a real value add is to for the instructors to learn about students’ specific mis-
try to uncover their misconceptions and really help work conceptions. The information gained was utilized to design
them through that . . . I kind of gave everything almost equal new PRS questions to tackle those misconceptions in subse-
weight, which is a travesty, looking back at it.” quent classes. Furthermore, awareness of students’ difficul-
Thus, the continuous exposure to students’ misconcep- ties caused the instructors to refine and extend their meta-
tions enabled by PRS led her to decide to devote different cognitive knowledge, namely knowledge about knowledge
amounts of time and attention to different topics. She also that brought about a transformation in their conceptions of
mentioned that she has the role of a facilitator of a class teaching, and in their approaches to teaching—e.g., Sarah’s
climate that encourages students to ask questions. decision to change her practice of devoting equal time to each
Finally, the use of PRS initiated a process of an ongoing topic and transformation of her perceived role, from covering
interaction with other PRS users. The three instructors in- material to helping students address their misconceptions. All
teract with each other as well as with other instructors who three instructors describe teaching as an ongoing process of
use PRS, exploring issues, and exchanging ideas. We thus development and view improvement in teaching as learning
conclude that PRS facilitation continues creating learning how to facilitate conceptual change in their students. (Prosser
opportunities for instructors about teaching. & Trigwell, 1999; Calkins & Light, 2008).
134 KOLIKANT ET AL.

This study is obviously based on a very small sample REFERENCES

of instructors and furthermore, the three teachers we stud-
ied teach STEM domains. Therefore we must be cautious Barrett, M. S., S. E. Bornsen, S. L. Erickson, V. Markey, & K. Spiering.
in drawing conclusions and making generalizations. As we 2005. The personal response system as a teaching aid. Communication
showed, the three teachers differed in the way they used the Teacher 19(3):89–92.
Bligh, D. 2000. What’s the use of lectures? Exeter: Intellect Press.
PRS, and hence it is reasonable to assume that a study of Bode, M., D. Drane, Y. Ben-David Kolikant, and M. Schuller. 2009. A clicker
other teachers, let alone in other domains, would result with approach to teaching calculus. Notices of the American Mathematical
an extended repertoire of teaching methods that utilize the Society 56(2): 253–56.
PRS. (See, for example the pedagogical ideas for the use Boyle, J. T., & D. J. Nicol. 2003. Using classroom communication systems
of PRS in the Humanities in the website of Monash uni- to support interaction and discussion in large class settings. Association
for Learning Technology Journal (ALT-J) 11(3): 43–57.
versity entitled “Peer Instruction in Philosophy and the Hu- Bransford, J., S. Brophy, & S. Williams. 2000. When computer technologies
manities”: http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/philosophy/peer- meet the learning sciences: Issues and opportunities. Journal of Applied
instruction/about/humanities.php). Developmental Psychology 21(1): 59–84.
We believe that the results of this paper are relevant to Calkins, S., & G. Light, 2008. Promoting student-centered teaching through
the broad community of post-secondary educators because a project-based faculty development program. To Improve the Academy
26:217–29.
the challenges that the three teachers faced as they strove Chi, M. T. H. 1996. Constructing self-explanations and scaffolded explana-
to improve their education are similar. In fact, they were tions in tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology 10:33–49.
coherent with previous literature about the characteristics of Cooper, J., & P.Robinson, 2000. The argument for making large classes
the teacher-student encounter in higher education (recall the seem small. New Directions in Teaching and Learning 81:5–16.
excerpt by Duncan (2005) mentioned above, as well as the Draper, S. W., J. Cargill, & Q. Cutts, 2002. Electronically enhanced
classroom interaction. Australian Journal of Educational Technology
work by Mazur (1997) and by Jackson and Trees (2003)). 18(1):3–23.
This study suggests that the decision to incorporate the Dufresne, R. J., W. J. Gerace, W. J. Leonard, J. P. Mestre, &
PRS into their teaching was the beginning of a journey for L. Wenk. 1996. Classtalk: A classroom communication system for
each of them. The transformation they each underwent as active learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 7:3–
they used the clickers is of interest to the broader commu- 47.
Duncan, D. 2005. Clickers in the classroom: How to enhance science
nity. More work is required, however, to study the methods teaching using classroom response systems. San Francisco, CA: Pear-
that teachers in humanities use when using the PRS and per- son Education/Addison-Wesley/Benjamin Cummings.
haps compare it to those in STEM to better understand what Elliot, C. 2003. Using a personal response system in economics teach-
aspects of teaching are amplified by PRS. ing. International Review of Economic Education [on-line], 1(1).
Finally, the findings suggest that in addition to receiv- http://www.economics.ltsn.ac.uk/iree.htm
Fagen, A. P., C. H. Crouch, & Mazur, E. 2002. Peer instruction: results from
ing technical support when introducing PRS in their classes, a range of classrooms. The Physics Teacher 40:206–209.
faculty may well benefit from pedagogical support. Such Glaser, B. G., & A. M. Strauss.1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory:
pedagogical support would focus on designing activities to Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.
facilitate interaction, question design, design approaches to Hake, R. R. 1998. Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A six-
ease student resistance to changes in learning environment thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics
courses. American Journal of Physics 66:64–74.
and “rules of the game”, and, most importantly, support the Immerwahr, J. 2009. Engaging the “Thumb” generation with clickers. Teach-
teachers as they undergo a transformation in their concep- ing Philosophy 32(3):233–245.
tions of good teaching. Jackson, M., & A. Trees, 2003. Clicker implementation and assessment.
Boulder, CO: Information and Technology Services and Faculty Teaching
Excellence Program, University of Colorado. Retrieved January 20, 2007,
from http://comm.colorado.edu/mjackson/clickerreport.htm.
CONCLUSION
Kolikant, Y., A. McKenna, & B. Yalvac. 2005. Using the personal response
system as a cultural bridge from silent absorption to active participation.
The three case studies presented here suggest that transfor- In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hyper-
mation in classes that use PRS does not occur instantaneously media and Telecommunications 2005, ed. P. Kommers & G. Richards,
and is not a simple process. Transformation of the learning 2660–2667. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Lasry N. 2008. Clickers or flashcards: Is there really a difference? The
environment was gradual and was achieved when teachers
Physics Teacher 46:242–244.
learned to utilize PRS to achieve the desired interaction and Light, G., R. Cox, & S. Calkins. 2009. Learning and teaching in higher
designed activities that balanced the tension between the education: The reflective professional. London: Sage.
students’ desire to stay out of public attention in class and Linsenmeier, R. A., S. A. Olds, & Y. Ben-David Kolikant. 2006. Instruc-
the straightforward advantages of interacting. This study also tor and course changes resulting from an HPL-inspired use of personal
response systems. 36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference,
suggests that the continuous, “on-line” feedback that instruc-
October 28–31, 2006, San Diego CA M4C-21.
tors receive when they use PRS may act as a powerful cata- Martyn, M. 2007. Clickers in the classroom: An active learning approach.
lyst to transform them, moving them from teacher-centered Educause Quarterly 2:71–74.
conceptions and approaches to teaching to student-centered Mayer, R. E., A. Stull, K. DeLeeuw, K. Almeroth, B. Bimber, D. Chun,, et al.
conceptions and approaches. 2009. Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning
 “CLICKERS” AS CATALYSTS 135

methods in large lecture classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology courses. Proceeding of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Edu-
34:51–57. cation Annual Conference and Exposition (CD-ROM DEStech Publica-
Mazur, E. 1997. Peer Instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: tions) Session 2609.
Prentice Hall. Stake, R. 1995. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Morling, B., M. McAuliffe, L. Cohen, & T. M. DiLorenzo. 2008. Efficacy of Publications.
personal response systems (“Clickers”) in large, introductory psychology Webb, N. M., & A. M. Mastergeorge. 2003. Promoting effective helping
classes. Teaching of Psychology 35(1):45–50. behavior in peer-directed groups. International Journal of Educational
Nicol, D. J., & J. T. Boyle. 2003. Peer Instruction versus class-wide dis- Research 39:73–97.
cussion in large classes: a comparison of two interaction methods in the Wit, E. 2003. Who wants to be. . . the use of a personal response system in
wired classroom. Studies in Higher Education 28(4):457–473. statistics teaching. MSOR Connections 3(2):14–20.
Penner, J. 1984. Why many college teachers cannot lecture. Springfield, IL: Wulff, D. H., J. D. Nyquist, & R. D. Abbott. 1987. Students’ perceptions of
Charles C. Thomas. large classes. In M. Weimer (Ed.), Teaching Large Classes Well (17–30).
Penuel, W. R., V. Crawford, C. K. Boscardin, K. Masyn, A. H. Debarger, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
& T. C. Urdan. 2005. Teaching with student response system technology: Yazedjian, A., & B.B. Kolkhorst. 2007. Implementing small group activities
A survey of K-12 teachers. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. in large lecture classes. College Teaching 55:164–9.
Prosser, M., & K. Trigwell. 1999.Understanding learning and teaching: The Yourstone, S. A., H. S. Kraye, & G. Albaum. 2008. Classroom ques-
experience in higher education. Buckingham: Open University Press. tioning with immediate electronic response: Do clickers improve learn-
Roselli, R. J., & S. I. Brophy. 2002. Exploring an electronic polling system ing? Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education 6(1): 75–
for the assessment of student progress in two biomedical engineering 88.
Copyright of College Teaching is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.