INTRODUCTION
Audience response systems (ARS) are increasingly being introduced into educational settings, having previously proved their value in business. These systems make use of handheld numeric input devices to allow students to enter data in response to questions or statements displayed on a public screen. The captured data is displayed on a public screen and enables both academics and students to immediately see how the whole group has responded. The anonymity afforded by an ARS encourages individuals to fully participate without fear of ridicule or loss of face.
The low cost ARS technology is simple to use by both students and academics, can be used with large (up to several thousands) or small groups and has applications in all topics of study and at all levels of study. ARS are highly portable, require little set-up time and are easy to use by anyone who has had some experience with software such as PowerPoint.
AUDIENCE RESPONSE SYSTEMS
ARS comprise hand-held input devices that transmit data to a receiving device connected to a personal computer. Software processes the datum and presents it in a variety of formats to the participants for discussion. Key components of the system are:
• Hand-held input devices: A variety of sizes and designs exist, from the credit-card size keypad with basic numeric input (Figure 1) through to systems that include a display screen to provide feedback to the user.
• Receiver: Utilizes infrared or other wireless communication media to collect data from the keypads.
• Software: Manages collection and processing of data and supports display of the data in a variety of presentational formats. The software may be embedded in other container software such as PowerPoint. The output from the system is usually displayed on a public screen via a data projector (Figure 2).
ARS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Draper and Brown (2004, p. 20) suggest that “The dream of personal teaching is really about adaptive teaching; where what is done depends on the learner’s current state of understanding.” ARS can provide timely feedback to support this adaptive teaching goal, but Draper and Brown make the point that this can only be achieved through appropriate pedagogic design and action and not through the technology alone. In one-to-one or small group settings the learning facilitator may have a sense of the current state of the learner if the learner feels sufficiently comfortable in revealing it. With large groups in more formal settings the availability of cues to the learning facilitator can be more limited. The immediate feedback that an ARS offers can publicly identify differences or similarities of opinion within groups and provide a trigger for further discussion or analysis of data and re-adjustment of pacing or content. Audience Response Systems can be used with both large (hundreds of participants) and small groups (Banks, 2006) to support lectures, workshops, seminars, and to explore a wide range of subjects. They can be used at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, and within traditional and post-modern paradigms. Subject areas that value discussion, debate, multiple interpretations and direct challenges to accepted wisdom can benefit from this technology, but equally an ARS can be used in subject areas where demonstration of understanding of a fixed body of knowledge is vital. ARS can be used for formative and summative assessment, in the gauging of preliminary level and subsequent stages of understanding of a subject and in the exploration of the concepts that underpin critical issues.
Figure 1. Credit-card size kepdad
Figure 2. ARS components
Mitchell (2001) suggests that ARS can be used for mechanistic purposes such as monitoring class attendance via individual handsets, providing instant marking and feedback and for gathering data that can be used to support research activities related to classroom processes. McCabe, Heal and White (2001) used an ARS to support computer-assisted assessment (CAA) approaches with mathematics students and consider that it not only reinforced existing CAA activities but also served as a valuable tool for motivating higher levels of student learning. Hunt, Irving, Read and Knight (2003) used an ARS in a first-year information systems unit, in a decision-making subject in a third-year psychology course and also with second-year BS Pharmacy students. In the pharmacy course questions were posed via the ARS and the resulting answers were displayed and discussed by the whole group. A key issue here is that what is being sought is not necessarily a ‘correct’ answer but instead an examination and exploration of all possible answers and the reasons that individuals give for selecting a specific answer. The students expressed enthusiasm for the system, particularly in its ease of use, the ability to discuss answers immediately after making their choice and in the way it helped students identify where further reading was required. Importantly they also found it to be both easy and fun to use.
Post graduate HRM and MBA students using case-based approaches supported by an ARS indicated that the level of participation and number of ideas generated and explored was greater than usual and that the influence of individual personalities was greatly reduced. (Jones, Gear, Connolly, & Read, 2001). The students also observed that the technology was simple to use and to some extent became ‘ invisible’ to the users. Williams (2003) notes that students on an MBA course using an ARS were strongly in favor of the technology and had negative views about passive learning approaches that simply involved reading or listening. Uhari, Renko and Soini (2003) reported that 80% of students studying a pediatrics course felt that an electronic voting system helped improve their learning and enhanced questioning during lectures. Witt (2003) found that 87% of students studying statistics for a psychology course saw more benefits than disadvantages in the use of keypads. Judson and Sawada (2002) reported that students consistently indicated that they are more likely to attend class, are challenged to think more deeply and feel that staff using such technologies learn more about them as individuals.
The anonymity afforded by ARS provides an opportunity for engaging students in sensitive subject areas where they may normally be reluctant to raise their hands. For example, Wired News (2005) reported that Cheit used an ARS in an Ethics and Public Policy class at Brown University (USA) to explore the question ‘Are you morally obliged to report cheating if you know about it?’ The ARS quickly captured around 150 student responses indicating 64% in agreement with the statement and 35% in disagreement. The actual data captured here is of less significance, in this context, than the opportunity that is raised for discussion and for students to appreciate their own position in the light of others. The data captured during sessions such as this may prove useful for longitudinal studies of changing student attitudes or the responses of a variety of groups to such questions.
Although ARS are typically associated with large groups they can also offer useful support for small groups (Birdsall, 2002; Ward, Reeves, & Heath, 2003). Banks (2003) discusses the use of an ARS to support a diagnostic peer-review process with groups of around five students. This process offers an opportunity for students to become aware of the perceptions of their peers of their performance against a number of agreed group performance indicators. The use of this diagnostic session early in the course allows problems to be surfaced and identified, solutions discussed and action plans developed before any major tensions negatively affect the groups. One interesting effect that needs further investigation is the observation that overseas students who would normally be unwilling to engage in open discussion about the way they were perceived by others, or how they perceived others, would be willing to ‘ talk through the screen’. The ARS-based process seems to have produced a de-contextualization that allowed them to talk about themselves without embarrassment. ARS can also be used to support scenario-based activities (Banks & Bateman, 2004) that encourage groups to reflect on the ways in which individuals and groups perform and to act as a trigger for discussion of issues of communication, trust, negotiation, and teamwork in general.
ISSUES IN THE USE OF ARS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Benefits of Anonymity
In groups where a number of different cultures are represented there is a danger that in traditional face-to-face settings some students will not offer an answer for fear of ‘loss of face’. Some shy students may also feel inhibited in large groups and thus not feel able to contribute to the discussion. The anonymity afforded by these systems provides an opportunity for these potentially disadvantaged students to fully participate in the learning process. Chaitman (2005), however, cites the view of Bill Lewis, a computer science lecturer at Columbia University, that “Students will become more involved in their class and their own lives if they’re not anonymous,” More research is needed in this area.
More than Just the Numbers
Using ARS to collect numeric data from the individual keypads for testing or feedback purposes is an obvious asset. However, in more discursive learning environments the ‘shape’ of the collected data patterns is more useful in triggering critical discussion. Differences in displayed score patterns may indicate differing worldviews or interpretations of the data and this can provide an opportunity for reflection, sharing of views, critical thinking and deep learning. ‘Flat’ data may suggest that an ambiguous question has been asked whereas responses that locate at extreme ends of the scale, or are bipolar, suggest strong or opposing views that are worthy of further exploration.
Process vs. Content
The greater emphasis on process and engagement may lead to a feeling that some content has to be abandoned (Slain, Abate, Hodges, Stomatakis, & Wolak, 2004). This may be a useful outcome as it leads academics to consider what material needs to be included in any given part or mode of a course, and about what needs to be explored face-to-face and what can be supported by other mechanisms outside contact time. Slain et al. comment that their ARS based approach did suggest that there was a greater need for students to attend sessions having read appropriate material. Consideration of the balance of face-to-face, external and blended modes may offer improvements to the learning environment that go beyond the technology itself.
Question, then Question Again
By asking a question a number of times and critically evaluating the distribution of the ARS responses it becomes possible to explore the reasons for the differing or changing responses. Gauging the responses of students through the use of an ARS allows for quick and multiple loops around the material if learning appears to be problematic. D’Inverno, Davis & White (2003) report that the use of an ARS suggests that typically around 40% fail to identify the correct answer to simple questions, and that if the same question is asked again around 20% still provide the wrong answer. (They do, however, suggest that there may be some deliberate entry of incorrect answers as not all students feel that the technology offers them benefit).
Accessibility/Equity for All Students
Even though the cost of keypads is already low, and falling, the provision of one keypad per student clearly represents a large investment and technology management issue for an educational institution. Ownership of keypads by the institution also raises the problem of issuing and collecting the keypads before and after learning sessions, maintenance and so on. One way to overcome this problem is to make the students responsible for the keypads. This can be achieved through the currently developing approach of providing students with shrink-wrapped packages of text topics and keypads, the cost of the keypads being built in to the package purchase price. However, Stone (2004) notes that “Adding the clicker as a required supplement bundled with the new text topic not only helps sell new texts, it stifles sales of used copies that take away from developer revenues … Further, clickers provided by most developer won’t work without activation, so the used clicker has little market value.”
Standards
The number of systems available has grown dramatically in recent years. If different departments in an institution adopt an ad hoc approach to the adoption of these systems, the resulting collection of different brands will lead to incompatibility (Branen, 2005; Stone, 2004). Appropriate policies will need to be implemented to provide a managed environment.
• Reliability: Ideally the technologies can be taken into a room and quickly set up for use. In practice a number of problems have been reported in both setup and operation. Delays impact upon the view that students gain of such systems, Branen (2005) noting that students in a Marketing class felt the systems to be ‘an inefficient use of time’ due to the wastage of fifteen minutes every day getting them to work. It is also noted that Infra Red keypads were not always detected by the system, leading to problems when they were used as a way of checking attendance or for assessment exercises.
• Multiple choice: ARS encourage the use of multiple choice questions and the apparent simplicity of implementation of such questions needs to be balanced against the need for careful design of the questions themselves. (Barrow & Blake, 2004). The development of approaches that allow developers test banks linked to some topics to be quickly converted into an ARS presentation may also raise concerns despite the potential benefits.
Current Developments
A number of systems that utilize personal digital assistant (PDA) technology and mobile phone technology are currently being developed to support text and graphical input, further increasing the versatility and power of these systems (Pelto, & Pelton, 2006; Jones, Marsden, & Gruijters, 2006; Dominick & Bishop, 2006). Many existing keypad vendors are developing their products so that the basic software can be used with virtual keypads implemented on networked PCs. For example one vendor has a virtual keypad that can be used with PDAs, laptops and networked PCs to provide all of the functions of the normal keypad plus text messaging, moment to moment polling and fastest response slides (KEEpad.com). As ARS continue to develop they will also start to link into Web-enabled learning systems to provide support for fully blended learning environments.
CONCLUSION
Considerable time and effort is being invested in distance learning via the Web, but it is equally important that the benefits of technology are applied to support and enhance more traditional face-to-face learning environments.
ARS technology provides educators with an opportunity to supplement their existing teaching and learning strategies in a way that provides them with improved, immediate and dynamic insight to the progress of learners. Students have an opportunity to engage with learning in an active way that helps them see how they, and their peers, are performing on a moment-to-moment basis. The opportunities for learning to be a shared experience are improved and there is the potential for engagement with subject material at a deeper level.
There are many research questions that need to be explored as this technology is introduced. These will include the potential for the use of the technology to promote deep learning, the long-term reactions of students to the technology versus the initial novelty factor, their effectiveness at different levels of study and in different subjects, and many other areas of concern will offer many opportunities for investigation. The use of frequent in-course evaluations rather than a single exit evaluation will allow student concerns to be addressed in a more timely way and will also allow discussion to take place between teacher and learner about both the evaluation instrument and the meaning of the captured data.
KEY TERMS
Anonymity: A feature of an ARS that can protect the identity of a participant. The default state is ‘anonymity’, but it is possible to collect unique keypad identifiers if the response of a specific individual or group is required (e.g. for attendance or testing).
Audience Response System (ARS): An electronic system designed to support and enhance face-to-face group interaction by means of individual hand-held communication devices. May also be referred to by a variety of names, including Classroom Response Systems, Student Response Systems, Interactive Response Systems, Interactive Student Systems and Electronic Voting Systems.
Group Decision Support System (GDSS): A collection of hardware and software used to support decision-makers.
Keypad: A hand-held device that allows a participant to communicate data to an Audience Response System. Also known as clickers or zappers.
Receiver or Base Station: A device that provides communication between the keypads and the ARS software. Increasingly these are permanently mounted in large lecture theatres to reduce set-up time.
