DUE WEEK 7, February 26: BLOG POST 4 -- Please write about the teaching and research applications of CLICKERS in the language classroom. If you can, provide research questions/sample activities or briefly discuss the advantages and/or limitations of this device related to ESL and SLA constructs. You could also write about how to further develop this technology to match particular skills and strategies that are necessary in language teaching (or to address learner personality factors in the classroom).
We have mentioned in the class how important it is to conduct empirical research on the measurable benefits of clickers (or, in general, CALL-TELL) for ESL/EFL. Would it be possible for you to use clickers for your own classroom-based research in the future? How would you design this study?
After our discussion in class I understand some of the benefits of using clickers in the classroom: Clickers can help the teacher quickly and accurately measure student comprehension so s/he knows whether to proceed in the lesson or spend a little more time on the subject at hand; Clickers can help shy students who are reluctant to speak up by providing them with a seemingly anonymous way to share what they think the correct answer is; Clickers can assist teachers in tracking each individual students' progress; Clickers can encourage students' discussion about language by providing statistics on how the whole class answered a question - students can then speculate on how or why each answer was or was not selected. I can also see how using clickers in the classroom might help focus rowdy middle school students.
ReplyDeleteDespite these apparent benefits, I am not sure the cost of clickers is justified in the language classroom. Therefore, before committing to their use, I would want to conduct some of my own research. One way to do this would be to have a teacher who teaches two sessions of the same class to students with roughly the same demographics use the clicker in only one of these classes. For some reason, an Advanced Spanish Grammar class comes to mind, probably because the Spanish Grammar classes I have taken always involve plenty of opportunities for the whole class to work together discussing which sentences are grammatical or not, or which would be the correct form to use in a particular context - topics which lend themselves well to the multiple choice format. First, a pre-test would be administered to both groups. After the semester was complete, a post-test would determine which class improved the most and which class knows the most. Additionally,since the same teacher is teaching both classes, s/he could also make note of any differences in classroom interaction brought on by the use of clickers. This would be hard to quantify exactly, and would probably be based more on the overall impression of the instructor (unless, of course, the difference was dramatic).
Clickers;
ReplyDeleteDo we really need them?
I think the answer to this question depends on what type of class you are teaching and what your objectives are. When we awere discussing on the pros of clikers, we said that it creates the opportunity where the students answers are not seen by others. This is a very typical American habit. In y context, I mean in Turkey, the grades are read aloud and people feel free to ask about others` grades or answers. (I do not mean that it is good, I am just pointing to the difference). Therefore, one of the biggest advantages of clickers that is creating privacy is not a big deal in this teaching situation. But is this the onyl pros? Of course not. While I was thinking about what could be the other pros and searhching on clickers on the net, I found out that use of clickers has grown a lot between 2002 and 2004 (from 7 to 40). So there must be something very attractive about these equipments I guess. Immediate feedback, anonymous replies, participation (especially in larger classes) are those I can list as pros but to be honest I believe that clickers are fostering testing and encouring a more competitive and test-based atmosphere class since it is used for answering questions. Moreover, it is expensive to install the system and ask students to buy their own clickers. I do not see it as an innovation. The nicely prepared graphics are great tools for teacher to elaborate on each students performance but I still believe that I would not require it. What percentage of your classes do you allote for question- answer activity? If the answer is more than % 50, go an buy clickers:) Additionally, there are many research results showing that multiple choice questions which are used in the clickers system do not really assess learning.
Here is a link to a teacher`s blog, s/he is listing the procedure of how s/he integrated clickers into her teaching and then she compares the same procedure without using clickers.
http://blog.dotphys.net/2009/10/i-sure-like-student-response-systems-aka-clickers/
Since I have never heard about clickers before Dr. Friginal’s presentation of this new technology device in the class, I found clickers to be an innovating tool with application to language instruction. From the first sight, they seem to bring many advantages to the language classroom. First, use of clickers may significantly increase the interaction between the teacher and students. Second, use of clickers may help the teacher to monitor students’ performance and be of a great help in testing students’ knowledge. I can see that clickers may be used in a multiple choice or write/wrong testing item types. Speaking of the use of clickers in testing, one of the limitations is that clickers can be used only to measure a discreet language features, whether it is a grammatical structure or a lexical unit. Clickers cannot be used to measure students’ productive knowledge of the language, due to the technical limitation of this device. Another consideration in decision whether or not to use clickers is their cost. The money spent by a language institution on clickers should be justified by the clickers’ effective use in a classroom.
ReplyDeleteIf I had to design a study on the use of clickers, I would conduct an experimental classroom-based research. My ideas are somewhat similar to what Michelle has already described in her posting. In a language class, I would have two groups – one control group and one experimental. The control group would be taught without the use of clickers, while experimental group would have to use clickers in their classroom activities regularly. It is important that both groups would have the same instructor and follow approximately the same syllabus. At the end of the course, achievement of both groups would be measured and compared. Based on the results, it may be possible to draw some conclusions about the effectiveness of using clickers in a language instructional setting. In addition, I would conduct an evaluative survey to the students and the teacher participating in the study, in order to reveal their personal attitudes towards using clickers in a language classroom.
I consider that Clickers, Classroom Communication System (CCS), is ONE MORE tool among the great number of technological resources that a teacher can use in the classroom. I personally see more pros than cons using CCS when delivering instruction to students. Among some pros, for example, I can mention that CCS promotes interaction between students, facilitates immediate feedback for both teacher and students, and breaks up traditional routines. However, one of the cons could be the overuse of CCS. Then, if overuse is a factor, there might be a risk of effectiveness detriment, particularly on the side of students. Furthermore, among the cons, I wonder how easily CCS could be damaged in middle school settings where students are rowdy and sometimes careless with technology. I am also thinking how expensive could it be for the institution or for the student to restore or to replace a device. Anyway, for a language classroom I see more advantages than disadvantages. Although CCS can be used more effectively for individual assessment purposes, it also can be used to foster team or classroom discussion. For team discussion, for example, we can just give one clicker to each team that would discuss and agree on a response to a question displayed on the board or asked orally by the teacher. For Classroom discussion, students can share comments on a question before they individually click an answer option. Thus, I want to be optimistic and I can envision the use of CCS in the future with my middle school students.
ReplyDeleteAn idea to develop my own research on the use of CCS could be How clickers influence students motivation to learn the English language?. Then, I would focus on three variables: the frequency on the use of CCS in a language classroom, the students’ engagement in classroom discussions by using CCS, and the student’s perception of CCS for assessing purposes. Then, I will design some specific questions to survey students and gather information for the three variables. In this moment I am undecided if I would develop the study with two groups or even three groups of students, but in the future I will polish the idea.
The use of CLICKERS the language classroom, to me, would be contingent upon a teacher’s preference and his or her desire to incorporate this technology as a means to improve learning. As a language learner, I would enjoy an activity like this on occasion, but I think it would lose its luster after a few times of usage. As with any silent polling activity, a teacher needs to extent the activity to include the classroom objectives. For example, if it is a communication class, a teacher can prepare questions ahead of time to accompany the use of the clickers that students could answer in pairs, groups, or as a whole-class.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of a quick feedback and assessment of students, clickers appear to be a great way to draw in student data and check for understanding in a non-threatening way. On the other hand, I think there is something to be said for students being confident enough to share an answer without fear. When these students are in the real world speaking English, they are going to have to be bold enough to speak, so our language classrooms should prepare them for this challenge.
Personally, if a school offered these, I might use them everyone once in a while, but I would chose not to if it were to cost the students extra money. As much as I would prefer to have immediate feedback, I could just continue to use the multiple choice cards I use now with students. I am still a little hesitant with this technology; when I look at the pros and cons of its usage, I still do not see the pros weighing out the cons. However, if I want to be learner-centered, then maybe I should let my future students be the judge.
I believe it is all in how the teacher utilizes clickers in if they become useful or not. I choose to believe that there are more advantages than disadvantages, and those seemingly disadvantages can be shifted to advantages. In any teaching environment, including ESL, it is essential to know what your students are mastering and not mastering. With the use of clickers you could have a quick and efficient way to assess a baseline to what students understand throughout the lesson and/or at the end. In a bigger classroom many students can get lost, and clickers would be a way of ensuring that everyone has a voice. It would provide a way for full participation to occur without anyone feeling like they have been called out. In an ESL classroom feedback and the immediacy of it is key; clickers would provide just that. A student could take an assessment and immediately know if they understood the lesson, and what they need to work on. “Knowledge is Power” so if the student knows where they are then the control is in their hands to improve that. The unfortunate problem with clickers is that they are currently limited to one response answers. Especially in a communicatively based language-learning generation multiple- choice does not support the uniqueness or complexity of language. I do think this can and will change; an addition of full keyboards could completely obliterate this issue. I personally like the idea of designing an application that could run on students’ cell phones and/or computers as a practical solution. I definitely think I could use clickers in my future research. I think with interviews and DCTs it would be more time efficient and the standard deviation of error would diminish as the researcher would not have to calculate everything by hand.
ReplyDeleteMy problem with clickers is that I still can’t clearly see the nature of the connection between the technology itself (the nuts and bolts, as it were) and the components of learning it is supposed to enhance (btw, the literature they provide as reference is more about the latter than it is about the former). I can see how clickers can be used in the classroom, and how it can add interactivity and immediacy of feedback to presentations and reviews. I can see how it can be adapted in various ways to add a twist to more traditional classroom techniques. I still don’t see how it can become a regular classroom feature, much less how it can become central to a teaching approach (and the necessary investment would call for nothing short of that). It reminds me of the much flagged feature of the earlier Tell Me More language learning software versions, voice recognition, which in my opinion is the weakest of Tell Me More’s component features. The comparison is not a gratuitous one, as both Tell me More and clickers make too much (again, in my opinion) of the potential for learning of computer generated visuals based on learner input (voice in the case of voice recognition, pulses in response to multiple-choice or true/false items in the case of clickers).
ReplyDeleteIn other words, I can see how in teacher-class question-response interaction, for example, clickers may make it easier to add three desirable ingredients of a learning situation, notably a) for the students to have time to ponder their answers, b) for them to have to commit to an answer (personal stake), and c) for them to have the advantage of immediate feedback. I don’t see, on the other hand, how these cannot be supplemented in other, maybe not so technologically sophisticated, ways. Furthermore, there are the issues of meaning and motivation. I don’t see the use of clickers having an inherent effect on motivation, nor do I see it as of itself making content suddenly click with students as more meaningful and relevant (pun intended). These belong in the teacher’s domain of practice, with or without clickers.
Two further features of clickers are double-edged weapons at best. The fact that it allows for anonymity of student responses means that the students may feel relatively safe and comfortable and therefore can respond spontaneously without feeling the pressure of having to save face with their peers. The flip side is that the student may feel too comfortable and not care. A counter-argument to this, namely that the teacher knows, leads to a consideration of the authenticity of anonymity, but more crucial than that, of the purposes with which the feature may be put to use: if the students’ performance on an activity is to be graded, and the student is aware of that, then the feature is a relevant one, as it allows for the students to concentrate and invest themselves genuinely without worrying about peer pressure. But isn’t that the case in a conventional testing situation? And is clickers to be good at that only? The other, related feature of clickers is that it enables record keeping for the teacher. Web-based classroom management systems, to name only another example of instructional technology, also allow for very detailed record keeping. CMS have only gradually been gaining acceptance with teachers, and often not without mixed feelings, and mainly because the trend towards distance learning is becoming so overwhelming. Relying on aggregate (multiple sourced) tool sets for keeping track of learners’ progress can also become a burden for the teacher.
ReplyDeleteFor an empirical study on the effects of using clickers with a group of learners, I would choose a particular area from the language course syllabus, like grammar, vocabulary, or pronunciation, then design a lesson using clickers (treatment) for it. I would divide a more or less homogeneous class into two groups: an experimental group, and a control group. The experimental group would receive instruction in the particularly chosen area, whereas the control group would receive instruction as usual. A pre-test and at least one post-test would be built into the design of the study. Data would be analysed for evidence of meaningful differences between the effects of instruction with a classroom response system (i.e. clickers) and those of conventional instruction.
Some students may dominate the whole class in the interactive activities. The use of Clickers can successfully prevent this phenomenon and give each student an equal opportunity of having their ideas known by the teacher. In addition, it can avoid embarrassing the students who get a wrong answer. While this does not mean that the students who get the wrong answer would not care about their mistakes just because no one knows who are wrong. Actually, when using the Clickers in class, my attention was completely drawn by the statistics presented. I felt eager to know whether I got correct answers or not and easier to recall the information. The ‘noticing hypotheses may be appropriate in explaining the learning process I experienced.
ReplyDeleteAnother advantage of the Clickers, according to my understanding, is that the teacher can evaluate the students’ achievement immediately, which makes it possible for the teachers to clarify some issues that the students failed to understand as soon as possible. After the class, most of the teachers would like to ask the students whether they understand the important information mentioned in the class. Normally, the students would reply that they understand or they think they understand, but that may not be the truth. Through introducing the Clikers into class, the teacher will get a general idea of the achievement of the students, thus can adjust his/her teaching according to the learners’ needs.
As to the research design concerning the use of Clickers, I would like to send out a questionnaire for both of the teachers and students to evaluation different aspects of this technology with a scale of one to five. The questions included may be “Do you think the Clickers draws your attention to the important information? Do you feel comfortable to use it in classroom?” etc. Or the research concerning the effectiveness of the Clickers can be designed as comparing the achievements of the control group and the experimental group after a certain period. At last, I have a question about the use of clickers in classroom: is it difficult to set up the computer for this learning tool?
Alongside Betul’s question, another important one is how clickers can help us in language teaching. There is no doubt that clickers are an innovative and direct means of evaluation, which can provide objective and quick feedback on many task types. In addition, clickers provide an opportunity for students to provide their answers privately, which can come handy for young adults’ classrooms. As awkward as it may seem, I could not think of other advantages besides the quickness, objectiveness and privacy that clickers can provide.
ReplyDeleteAs for the downsides, I think that the cost and the possibility for a teacher to be “accustomed” to objective “quantitative” approach to monitoring students progress is certainly an object of concern. In addition, the fact that clickers involve only a few types of tasks can also limit the scope of evaluation.
The important thing is to be able to evaluate clickers as well as other types of technology while using the parts that fit our teaching style and the needs of specific classes. There is not a classroom that would exclusively call for a qualitative evaluative system nor is there a classroom that allows only for objective means of monitoring. Real teacher ability is to adequate activity types to means of evaluation, forming a concise curriculum.
I think to be truly an effective teacher one must strive to keep activities fresh and exciting to maintain students’ interest. It is my contention that clickers can be used to achieve such a desire.
ReplyDeleteI believe that clickers lend themselves best to reinforcement or the test preparation phase of lessons, since their purpose is primarily information assessment. I think their addition to these phases can be beneficial, because they can increase the level of class interaction. This can occur through teachers and students discussing what strategies they used to find the correct answer. While this can also be done with a quiz, there is something about seeing the question projected on the screen that makes the activity more fun for me personally.
The usage of clickers for review during class time also ensures that all students must participate. This characteristic is unlike quizzes where students can choose not to study for them.
Clickers also enable students to receive immediate feedback as opposed to the time lag that occurs between taking the quiz and getting it back from the teacher. This is important, because people are more likely to pay attention to mistakes while in the moment of making them. With the passing of time, their concern over the reasons behind their error can become an afterthought.
The effectiveness of clickers as a learning tool will be dependent on the activity. I would like to see research done into better clarifying what these activities might be. For me, studies comparing the assessment scores of classes who use and don’t use clickers would be the most appropriate. I would also be interested in qualitative surveys that compared students’ level of engagement for clickers as opposed to more standard assessment tools.
Has anyone ever played the party game Apples to Apples? You get a group of people together, and deal them seven red cards with nouns on them. The judge gets a green card with an adjective and puts it down in the middle of the table for everyone to see. The players then put down the noun they think most appropriate to go with that adjective. The judge then decides which noun *they* think is the most appropriate, and awards the green card to the winner. The judge can select based on linguistic appropriateness, creativity, or humor value, and players often try to “play the judge” by putting down cards they know will get a laugh, or offering complex explanations for why wheat, for example, might be strong, or complex, or exciting.
ReplyDeleteI’ve often thought this would be a great game to play with language students, especially as everyone tries to defend their choices. It would also make an interesting discourse analysis study. Now I’m trying to find a way to work in the clickers.
First, I’d have students work in pairs, and I’d use an extra large deck of cards so they could be divided up in smaller decks around the room (expansion packs are available). Each pair gets their hand of seven cards and a clicker. Then the judge would pull a green card and put it on the projector, but that would be the end of their role. Each pair of players would select a noun and also put it on the projector. Instead of the judge selecting the winning card, *all* the teams would vote using their clickers. The issue I’m having here is whether that’s too much real-time interaction for the clickers—do the multiple choices have to be set up in advance? Or can the judge (let’s call it a facilitator here) create new ones as each set of cards go up on the projector? Am I stretching too hard here?
The other idea I had was to play Fictionary. In this game, one player picks an unfamiliar word (usually from a large, comprehensive dictionary) and displays it for the rest. Everyone writes a made-up definition for what they think the word means, while the word chooser writes the real definition, but in their own words. Then everyone else has to guess which one is the right definition. The trick is to make the fake definitions sound like they might have come from the dictionary, and the real one sound like it might have been made up. Too far in one direction or the other, though, and you tip your hand. This is a great game for discussing language registers, and I’m wondering if the clickers could be incorporated in the part where players vote on which definition is correct. Like the Apples to Apples idea, though, I think this would entail setting up new multiple choice correspondences on the fly for each round of the game. Perhaps an option would be to do the definitions as a writing assignment one day, and the clicker voting another, so the teacher can go home and creating the multiple choice sets.
Honestly, when all’s said and done, the above are just attempts to creatively stretch the potential of clickers beyond simple multiple choice question/answer exercises. I agree with Betul that the clickers seem to encourage test-based classroom formats--sure, you *can* be creative with them, but the mental gymnastics and/or setup required, plus the cost of these gadgets, doesn’t seem justified. It seems like the easiest and most common way to use clickers is to set up easily judged, multiple choice questions with single right answers, and I don’t think that’s a positive direction for education to be going.
The first con that can be imagined for clickers is the fact that the students do not have to respond verbally. However, the use of clickers seems very similar to when teachers introduce a pop quiz before diving into a particular topic. This encourages students to prepare for the topic that will be addressed. Also, once students have already given their answer, they might be more willing to discuss why they chose that particular answer.
ReplyDeleteThen—as others have mentioned—there is the cost. It seems a bit extreme for students to pay an additional $30 or so in order to answer a question posed in class. In general, I think that the concept of answering questions in class and tracking students’ progress throughout the course is very useful. However, it seems that teachers could do this with already common technology. If each student already has a computer in-class, then the students could send in their answer for each question. Additionally, as mentioned earlier, sending in responses from cell phones would be an ideal alternative. There are many free programs online currently that receive text messages from cell phones.
Overall, I think that the idea of answering an in-class question immediately—and building off what needs to be addressed based on these answers—is a very useful approach. However, especially nowadays, it seems inefficient to have a technological device with only use. Instead, it would be better to take already commonly used technology—such as a computer or cell phone—and add the function to answer questions in class.
New technologies will always have their supporters and detractors. And each side will have their arguments for or against the usefulness or necessity of new tool. But over time, the new technology either proves itself and becomes part of every day life; gets integrated into other technologies (who has a pager any more? we all text); or fades away. The story of clickers will be no different. In my opinion, Clickers will be one of those technologies that will be integrated as an application into other technologies like smart phones. With this future in mind, we should find ways to test how we as ESL/EFL teachers can best put this technology to use, once its practical. (I think most of us agree that right now, it’s only practical if the technology is donated - like Logan said.)
ReplyDeleteThe strongest arguments for Clickers are immediate feedback for all students in the class, and the ability to track each personal students progress in a consistent way. I would be truly interested in designing a study that asked a research question like: does the information gained from clickers allow teachers to better inform their lesson plans, in gauging the difficulties for students in their class? This study could be carried out with 3 classes. One being taught by “traditional means;” one learning using clickers, but the tracking information would not be available to the teacher; and the last would be a classroom where clickers were used and the teacher was encouraged to use the information gathered by the clickers to inform how much time to spend on certain elements in their lessons. The study would be carried out over an entire semester, where each class has the same syllabus, objectives and text.
The clickers have the obvious benefits that we described in class. They allow students to choose selections without being influenced by the choices of their fellow students and, simultaneously, the students’ choices are anonymous to the other students. These are great attributes, because they address affective concerns that might otherwise make students reluctant to choose answers for fear of embarrassment at being publicly wrong.
ReplyDeleteBut, I believe the feature that best lends itself to research is the clicker’s ability to capture student responses and the precise timing of those responses as computer data, available for later evaluation. Because of the availability of good timing information it might be interesting to apply the implicit association test technology developed by the psychologists at Harvard to measure the beliefs and biases of ESL students (demo available https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/ ). Maybe we could learn something about what ESL students think a good teacher should look like and thereby investigate bias against foreign appearing graduate students that teach ESL.
And now a cheap, but lesser alternative to clicker technology that imitates the features of making students making selections anonymously and uninfluenced by other student selections. The multiple choice question is presented and each student mentally choosea his or her answer. Then the teacher has all the students close their eyes and cycles through all the choices having the students raise their hands and tallying the counts on the board. For the final choice the teacher instructs the students to put their hands down and then for all the students to open their eyes. This seems like a very odd behavior to have students perform in class, but I’m sure it could be taught like any other classroom skill. When the students open their eyes, they get the instant feedback, like the display of the count bar graph.
Clickers could be effective in ESL classrooms because they could track the responses of the students which would allow the teacher give more individualized feedback. In a larger classroom, it's very difficult to know who's getting concepts during a lecture and who is not. Also, although homework can give us some indication, I have had the problem in my reading class of students copying each other's answers. With clickers, I could use in class questions to see who understands the material and who doesn't. Also, even if someone's speaking or listening is low, using a powerpoint and clickers, I could still check their comprehension in class.
ReplyDeleteI think it would be interesting to use clickers in an extensive reading class like mine, to see whether or not students who are low in speaking and listening benefit from the kind of instaneous feedback and engagement that clickers provide. I would use three sections of this class in an IEP classroom of the same level for this research. One class would use no clickers, one class would use clickers 50% of the time and the other would use them 80% of the time. Students with low listening and speaking would be determined using the IEP placement exam. The purpose of the study would be to see if this kind of participation increases student engagement and the amount of individualized instruction they receive.
Clickers seem more appropriate for receptive activities since the type of response is limited. I would be interested to learn more about the different types of clickers that are out there for typing.