This Blog sets out the rationale behind the use of Classroom Response Systems / Voting Tools in primary and secondary schools, as well as provide the findings of evaluative trials by Falkirk ICT Masterclass Teachers of Classroom Response Systems / Voting Tools supplied on loan for this evaluation from various manufacturers/suppliers undertaken between November 2005 and February 2006 in primary and secondary schools.2.1 Interactive voting systems or assessment systems are becoming more common in Scottish classrooms. They are handheld infra-red or wireless devices that resemble television remote controls.
2.2 These are available from many suppliers and generally consist of a set of pupil remote controls, one teacher control, a receiver and software to make your own slides.
2.3 How the system works is that each pupil is assigned a remote control with voting buttons (depending on the supplier this can vary from a limited number of button choices to a range of numbers, letters and yes/no response buttons, and some with feedback on each handset).
2.4 Questions are arranged as a series of slides and the slides are projected onto a screen using a data projector. The teacher controls the sequence of slides and questions and can choose to simply note the responses, or change the direction of teaching depending on the outcome of the responses, or show the results as a graph, or use one of a range of games which encourage the children to challenge each other in the class. The pupils respond to the questions via their own remote controls and the receiver collects the information.
2.5 A receiver picks up all the responses and these are stored on the teacher’s computer. The answers can be immediately graded, tallied and analyzed by the system. The results can be seen instantly on-screen or later, and the teacher can print off reports, including statistics and graphs.
2.6 Questions can be set in a wide variety of forms. The range of question types varies between the different Classroom Response Systems / Voting Tools packages. When choosing a system the availability of the following question types should be considered in relation to the user’s context and needs:
· True/False;
· Yes/No;
· Multiple choice;
· Numeric (decimals/fractions/negative numbers);
· Multiple mark (more than 1 correct answer);
· Sequence;
· Rating scale;
· Spontaneous/Verbal question;
· Paper based test facility;
· Fill in the blank;
· Short answer specific (text based)
2.7 Teachers are able to customise their questions either prior to or during the delivery of a lesson. Teachers use these to engage and actively involve every participant. Combines real-time assessment, dynamic presentation options, enjoyable learning games, and tools to simplify the creation of materials by teachers.
2.8 A typical Classroom Response System / Voting Tools package comprises:
· a set of handsets (most come in packs from 8 to 36 with additional handsets able to be purchased);
· a teacher handset (which usually has additional controls);
· a receiver to be attached to the computer to pick up the signals from the handsets (can be infrared or radio frequency)
· software, for the computer to which is attached the receiver, in which to make and present questions, and record response information.
3.1 Teachers have reported that voting tools lend themselves to undertaking formative assessment - results can be gathered instantly to enable teachers to identify areas requiring further clarification during a lesson. Voting tools complement the Assessment is for Learning programme (AifL) in that assessment is immediate, the teacher is given instant feedback of the level of understanding of each pupil so that differentiation of support can take place as the teaching is undertaken so that the learning process is enhanced.
3.2 During a lesson teachers can see immediately if the group or individual pupils are struggling. Instant on-screen results can show, for example, that a particular question was answered incorrectly by a large percentage, or that one pupil was always the last to answer. They can then give more instruction or adapt their teaching to suit the needs of the pupils.
3.3 Voting tools can be used effectively for summative testing and free teachers from the burden of manual marking and report-writing - when results or detailed reports are needed to show progress or to evaluate lessons, all the information is already stored. From this, the teacher can select which data and report format they need and simply print off a report, or export to Excel.
3.4 Classroom response systems can transform traditional question and answer sessions, end-of-lesson assessment, class surveys, voting, quizzes, tests and group activities. The systems offer different question and answer formats, from timed multiple-choice to a simple signal that a learner is ready to answer verbally.
3.5 ICT Masterclass teachers reported a marked motivational value of the voting tools.
3.6 There is instant feedback for the pupils, the responses of every pupil for every question is recorded without disrupting the flow of a lesson, there is no marking for the teacher, and the direction of a lesson can be varied immediately in response to feedback from pupils.
3.7 For links to further information about the use of classroom response systems the following may be helpful: http://www.campusclickers.com/GESD%2040resources.htm
3.8 For further comparative information and evaluative comments of classroom response systems the following document may provide useful information: School Tech Leadership
4.1 There are several systems available. Each of the major companies currently supplying Classroom Response Systems / Voting Tools in the United Kingdom were asked to provide a set of voting tools each for a short-term loan evaluation process from mid-November to mid-December 2005 for Falkirk ICT Masterclass teachers in both the primary and secondary sector.
4.2 Each system has different features which are suitable for the varying needs of different educational environments and users. Aspects to consider when choosing which system is appropriate for an individual school’s needs are:
· Cost
· Number of handsets
· Import of existing Powerpoint presentations
· Infrared or Radio Frequency
· Size of handset
· Range of features of handset
· Battery type
· Range of question types
· Inclusion of pre-prepared content
· Inclusion of games/variety of presentation types
· Export of pupil response data into Excel
4.3 The ICT Masterclass Teachers who elected to undertake this evaluation represented primary and secondary, promoted and non-promoted staff, and made use of the tools in varying subject areas both in primary and secondary.
4.6 Guidelines to evaluation were issued to the ICT masterclass teachers. These guidelines specified that the following categories should form the basis for the evaluation and would appear on the Blog.
4.6.1 Ease of setup
4.6.2 Compatibility/ ease of transfer with current a resources
4.6.3 Hardware and technical issues
4.6.4 Comment on range of question styles available
4.6.5 Can feedback be customized to suit need
4.6.6 Storage issues
4.6.7 Pupil response/motivation
4.7 The Blog included a list of the contributors and the system being evaluated. In addition there were weblinks to the web resources for each of the systems being evaluated.
4.8 The companies providing the evaluation sets between November and February 2006 were each invited to provide a demonstration between the end of October 2005 to mid November to the central ICT Curriculum Support team in Camelon Education Centre (with invitations to attend these 1-hour sessions being extended to the ICT Masterclass teachers where they would be available) as well as a one-to-one training session around the same time period with the specific Masterclass teacher who will be evaluating their product. The companies were also able to contribute to the online blog (to add comments or contribute ideas or provide instructional advice).
5.1 In the hands of a skilled classroom practitioner any of the voting systems can be a powerful tool in the teaching and learning process. Each system had strengths.
5.2 Improved motivation with pupils across all abilities and stages was a strong recurring comment by all those evaluating the classroom response systems / voting tools, whichever make was used.
5.3 While this evaluation did not set out to provide quantifiable data to make a connection between using classroom response systems and raising attainment, reference to the following examples of research shows that teachers using Classroom Response Systems have reported a qualitatively noticeable difference in the standard of understanding demonstrated in course work:
www.socratec.com/FrontPage/Web_Pages/study.htm - paper by Dr. Harold M Horowitz, 2003.
http://www.crlt.umich.edu/inst/ECARCRS.pdf - paper by Ian Beatty, 2004
5.4 Wireless, known also as Radio Frequency (RF), is the preferred option over infra-red (IR). RF technology has a greater range than IR signals (typical 300 metres against IR range of 25 metres), enabling a greater number of participants. There is also no need for line-of-sight between base unit and remote as radio waves are omni-directional. The greater cost of RF over IR has to be balanced against the ease of operation.
5.5 Greater choices and options have to be balanced with the ease of use with regard to proposed users.
5.6 Type of responses and number of responses on a handset has impact on range of uses (e.g. only letters or numbers, and restricted number in some).
5.7 Inclusion of games activities, or a variety of presentation options, were seen as a major motivator.
5.8 Pre-created Content has to be considered in costs as appropriate content is seen as essential by ICT Masterclass teachers.
5.9 This evaluation was over a limited timescale and a couple of Masterclass teachers voiced a concern that perhaps the use of a classroom response system / voting tools would only have a positive impact in the early stages of use and the beneficial effects would wear off as the novelty-factor diminished. However a more extended study by the Assessment is for Learning Programme in Northern Ireland undertaken by Canterbury University (http://client.cant.ac.uk/research/case-studies/qwizdom/assess/) found that “The initial concerns of the teachers were however unfounded. Student feedback over an extended period of time demonstrated that the ‘novelty factor’ did not diminish over time.”
5.10 When managing the introduction and implementation in a school of Classroom Response Systems / Voting Tools it would be recommended that some consideration would have to be made with regards to the logistics of introduction and implementation.
5.11 Staff training should be considered in the choice of system – some suppliers provide training as part of purchase, some provide online demonstrations, some provide no training materials.
5.12 Each supplier can provide several different sized sets but for direct comparison costs need to be based on the same class-size (for this evaluation each company was asked to provide the price for a Scottish class limit of 33 children requiring one classroom response unit each with one teacher unit).
5.13 Replacement batteries / rechargeable units. Different systems use different kinds of batteries, from standard AA batteries, through the kinds of batteries typically found in wristwatches, to rechargeable handsets. The lifespan of each and replacement is a cost consideration.
5.14 While it is acknowledged that each Classroom Response System had strengths and performed well in providing a valuable resource for all of the Masterclass teachers, when looked overall at all the systems, and compared across a range of factors, the ICT Curriculum Support team reached their own conclusions as to what they would recommend to schools in Falkirk Council to provide best value, ease of use and versatility to suit the needs of schools in Falkirk Council.
The full report is available here: http://www.reap.ac.uk/reap/public/Resources/Falkirk_EVS_Evaluation.pdf
