As a four-part series I am openly publishing my case studies previously submitted for my Senior Fellowship of the Higher Education Academy. I submitted my application in February 2014. If you’re interested in this professional recognition programme, please visit their webpages and look through the Professional Standards Framework (PSF). UCL runs an institutional model for fellowships called ARENA, your institution may run one too – speak to people!

Case Study 4 – Researching learner interaction and engagement with in-class response systems

In 2012 I conducted research, in parallel with my job at UCL, focusing on increasing student interaction and staff engagement of an in-class question and response system colloquially known as ‘clickers’. Evidence suggests clickers provide interaction opportunities to stimulate and engage learners[1] and have a benign or positive effect in student performance[2]. Clickers are popular across many disciplines, in particular the physical sciences, but there is a particularly low interest in medical sciences.

I wanted to directly address this shortcoming so I enlisted two academics in the UCL Medical School. I assimilated the current method of teaching, and the materials used (K1). From here we adapted a learning activity to align with the new tool being applied (A1). I underpinned the use of the technology with existing literature and the evidence of realigning the ‘sage on the stage’ to the ‘guide on the side’ [3](K2), which evidence suggests is an effective method for learning and teaching (K3, V3). I provided pre-lecture technical support to reduce technical barriers and was on-hand in the lecture to support as/when needed (A2). Questions were designed into the lectures and the clickers provide immediate feedback (A3). Staff react to clicker data with an approach called ‘contingent teaching’[4] where they dynamically respond to the answers/feedback provided (A3).

I designed evaluation questions for each lecture based on Bloom’s Taxonomy[5] for learners-based evaluation of the teaching approach and learning outcomes (A4). Questions were derived from categorising Bloom into three sub-categories; remember or understand, apply or analyse the topic and evaluate or create new knowledge (K5). When questioned, 74% of students agreed or strongly agreed that the clickers and the related teaching approach encouraged interaction and helped to achieve metacognitive learning (K5). I integrated these data with post-lecture interviews for the lecturers. Using this analysis, we designed next steps for future use and identified gaps and areas for improvement (A5).

I conducted evidence-based research and followed best practice around clickers to ensure inclusion was academically merited (V3). Measuring (and increasing) engagement within the traditional lecture was aiming to promote participation for learners (V2). It was understood that clickers do not directly enhance learning but can lead to higher-order learning. I used my understanding of the wider field of evidence to define their most appropriate use within the lectures (V1, V3).

By implementing a technology which was new to staff and guiding them with appropriate techniques known to increase interaction and engagement, I provided an evidence-informed approach which could be used to transform didactic content delivery into something more engaging. My research adds to a disproportionately small body of knowledge for clickers in medical education and the study overall was positive. Staff involved still use the clickers, the impact I measured plus the evidence collected, can be further used to promote clickers within UCL, the Medical School and beyond. It earned me a Distinction in my MSc Learning Technologies and furthered my ambition to make a lasting, positive difference to higher education.

(493 words)

Over the summer an new desktop service ‘Desktop@UCL ‘was rolled out to all Cluster room, Lecture Theatre and Kiosk PCs. As part of this project the version of the software used with electronic voting was upgraded from version 4.3.2 (also known as TurningPoint 2008) to version 5.2.1

If you have a personal installation of TurningPoint 2008, we recommend that you upgrade it to version 5.2.1 The download for TurningPoint 5.2.1 can be found on the Software Database.

Unfortunately presentations created in one version cannot be run in the other version. If you attempt to open a presentation created in TurningPoint 2008, in TurningPoint 5.2.1, it will prompt you to convert the file, which is a one way process. There is no backwards conversion process for presentations created in 5.2.1, back to version 4.3.2 (TurningPoint 2008). If you have presentations created in TurningPoint 2008 that you want to be able to use on either version, then the best advice is to make two copies of the file. Label one ‘2008’ and use it with TurningPoint 2008, the other label ‘521’ and use with TurningPoint 5.2.1

There are updated user guides for creating and delivering presentations with the new software here

Creating a presentation with TurningPoint

Delivering a presentation with TurningPoint

Support pages for Electronic voting as a whole are here

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/isd/staff/e-learning/core-tools/e-voting

E-Learning Environments is happy to provide 1:1 and small group support. In particular we can usually offer to support staff the first time they use E voting in action, which can provide much reassurance and confidence. We are also happy to advise on ways in which EVS can be used within teaching and on the design of effective voting questions.

If you have any questions about the use of Electronic Voting then please contact E-Learning Environments.

This summer E-Learning Environments have installed clickers into three teaching spaces at UCL, the Harrie Massey in the Physics Building, the Cruciform LT1 and Christopher Ingold Auditorium. Each room has every seat kitted out with a voting handset and the front teaching PC has a USB receiver and the software installed. Read on for some images and educational musings to chew on…

(more…)