ARTICLES, REVIEWS, ESSAYS, & PRESENTATIONS on TEACHING ENGLISH

Remote Controlled Discussions

By Eric Grossman

Introduction/Background
Teachers who are easily smitten with technology are warned to start with sound pedagogical principles and then look for technological tools which will serve those principles. Fun technology can be a solution in search of a problem. Sometimes, though, a technology tried for fun can launch a search that reveals previously unseen gems. Simple and inexpensive means to gather response data from a classroom or lecture hall of students is one such technology. A “classroom response system” (CRS) is a generic term for a set of individual electronic remotes that communicate wirelessly with a central computer. Many such systems are available commercially from a variety of vendors. Class activities using the remotes can be fun – students “click” their answers to questions posed by the instructor and watch as the tabulated results are projected on a screen. I adopted this technology on an experimental basis. The system I used is called the Classroom Performance System and is available from eInstruction. I have since uncovered good reasons to use this technology – reasons that were not obvious to me before. Using questions – and student responses to those questions – as the focus of instruction has the effect of shifting from a teacher-centered to a student-centered classroom. Remembering the right answer becomes less important than articulating reasons for a chosen answer, and reconciling those reasons with those offered by others. Students ultimately drive the course of instruction by remote control.

Question-driven instruction
Teachers pose questions to their students. Often they do this after a lesson – to see what students remember. They may also pose questions prior to a lesson – to find out what students already know. A third possibility is to pose questions as the lesson.

Since 1993, the University of Massachusetts Education Research Group has taught using CRS. According to Beatty et al. (2006) “posing questions… forms the very core of the instructional dynamic.” The model developed by the group requires instructors to create and modify – not just use – questions. Conceiving of and then engineering questions is a deliberate process – because just posing specific questions frames the inquiry. Answer choices must be crafted with equal care, depending on the pedagogical goal. A well designed set of choices will include common student misunderstandings, alternative assumptions, or alternative interpretations. “[Students] are supposed to wrestle with the questions…true learning occurs in the struggle and resolution.” (Beatty, 2004)

Posing questions with an immediate means to collect and tabulate responses – even in a large class – makes it possible to accommodate instruction to the immediate needs of the students. When feedback collected during class is used to make teaching and learning decisions it is called formative assessment. This distinguishes it from summative assessment. To make use of formative assessment the instructor must be prepared to react spontaneously depending upon emergent data. This may mean extemporizing a mini-lecture, allowing students more time in a learning activity, or simply facilitating a forum to reconcile competing ideas. This adaptability has been called agile teaching. (Beatty et al. 2006)

Classroom response systems
The idea of electronically collecting individual feedback from students during class is not new. Judson and Sawada (2002) report a history of such configurations going back into the 1960s. They describe early attempts by instructors to monitor their pace during lecture by means of such feedback, in order to maximize efficiency toward student achievement. The current trend is toward utilizing CRS in a dynamic, constructivist mode. More emphasis is placed on the questioning process itself, and on the role of the individual in a community of learners. “While electronic response systems are still used for individual replies and for test taking purposes, framing and responding to ideas has become a much more public event. Recent literature portrays student-to-student and student-to-instructor discussion as taking on key significance.” (Judson & Sawada, 2002). There is good evidence that students enjoy using remotes, and are more engaged when CRS is employed by instructors. “Polls from the 1960s through the late 1990s found that the use of electronic response systems made students more likely to attend class, pressed them to think more, prompted them to listen more intently, and made them feel instructors knew more about them as students.” (Judson & Sawada, 2002)

Teachers do not need CRS in order to pose questions to students, of course. There is a striking effect of having to choose an answer though, with only a delayed, and anonymous report of what other students have chosen. “Once students have committed to and externalized an answer, even if only guessing, they are emotionally invested in the problem and pay far more attention to subsequent discussion and resolution.” (Beatty, 2004) Students apparently like the class-wide histograms displayed after everyone has responded. They are re-assured that many other students often answer as they do – and that the classroom environment is intended as a forum to encourage thinking about mis-understandings as much as the right answers. The systems’ ability to provide anonymous participation with private accountability is a critical feature of CRS.

Peer instruction
Among scholars currently reviewing CRS, the recommended usage now emphasizes student-to-instructor and student-to-student interaction. “Student discussion that advances understanding of concepts and unveils misconceptions now takes on paramount importance” (Judson & Sawada, 2002)” Peer instruction pre-dates CRS, of course, and its enhancement with CRS has been described by Mazur (1997). Before CRS, Mazur asked students to hold up signs with their answer choice. This was followed by small-group discussion. This model can be effective – particularly with small classes, but an upper limit is soon reached. The ceiling is broken by the instant aggregation of responses and their output into a histogram made possible with CRS. This greatly facilitates the use of student feedback in even large classes or lecture halls.

Dufresne et al. (1996) describe a model of CRS use that also alternates student-student interaction with whole-class discussion. They suggest starting with small group discussion followed by keying in answers. Students are then asked to explain their choices. Although this provides another level of feedback to the instructor, the process is integral to the constructed knowledge of the students. As Beatty et al. (2006) note with reference to using this same model, “…the act of articulating beliefs, perceptions, assumptions, expectations, understanding, and reasoning is inherently valuable to students… Exposing students to their classmates’ thinking challenges their own and promotes learning. Arguing and reconciling differences promotes yet more. Telling students what to think is notoriously ineffective; eliciting their thinking, confronting it with alternatives, and seeking resolution works better.”

In a CRS classroom, collaborative discourse becomes instruction. Alternately convening small-groups and then the whole-group with the purpose of reconciling individual response trends provides a powerful modality. Judson and Sawada (2002) note that “within the mode of interactive engagement, this display of responses becomes the catalyst for further discussion. Students are encouraged to defend their answers and to attentively listen to other students articulate their thinking.” “Students acknowledge that hearing other students’ reasoning helps to clarify their own.” (Beatty, 2004) Students can be reticent to speak in front of a large group, however, so the chance to bring up ideas within a small group first is important. “Students are more inclined to speak up in whole-class discussions after having first spoken in small-group discussion. It seems students are more afraid of being incoherent than of being incorrect.” (Beatty, 2004) Students value small group discussions over whole group discussions. Reay et al. (2005) report that students ranked these discussions as the most important part of the CRS interaction.

CRS Questions
The questions posed using CRS are essentially multiple-choice. Three basic multiple-choice question types will be considered here: open, objective, and opinion. Each question type implies specific strategies for designing the questions and for launching discussions based on student responses to those questions. The example questions are those that are appropriate for a lesson in using CRS.

Open questions
Open questions are defined here as those that have more than one acceptable answer. Questions can be open because there are multiple defensible answers, because the wording of the question is ambiguous, or because there are unstated assumptions in the question.

One goal for an open question with multiple defensible choices is to encourage students to compare reasons for several potentially good responses. This can be a safe way for students to show what they know. The process of committing to and then defending an answer also helps students edify their thinking. A question with ambiguity may be poorly worded – but having multiple interpretations can be a set-up for a productive discussion. Students forced to answer ambiguous questions will either press for the information they need or they can be pressed to explain why they chose their interpretation of the question. A very powerful open question is one that contains (or requires) unstated assumptions. The instructor may hope to reveal faulty assumptions, to elicit from students a variety of responses depending upon their assumptions, or to stir students to request the missing information.

Ex. 1 Question with multiple defensible choices
Why use a CRS instead of just raising hands?
A. Students aren’t immediately influenced by others’ responses
B. Students participate anonymously
C. Software tracks students’ responses
D. Student participation, interest, and sincerity is heightened
E. Opens the door for new kinds of formative assessment

Ex. 2 Question with ambiguity
What problem might some have with questions as instruction?
A. confusion
B. inefficiency
C. stress
D. loss of authority

Ex. 3 Question with unstated assumptions
When should students be assessed?
A. seldom or never
B. during instruction
C. before and after instruction
D. it depends

Open questions are bound to generate good discussion. Because there is no single best answer, students understand that the emphasis is on their thought process – and their articulation of it. They may cooperate more fully if the instructor explains the goal of such questions in advance. Questions with multiple defensible answers, if well-designed, should yield a good distribution of responses. The histogram can be the starting point for discussion. Many potential questions can emerge about responses and their relative frequencies. “Why was C the most popular choice?” is one example. Relatively unpopular choices also yield important discussion. As those (few) students justify their choice, some reasoning may emerge that had not yet been considered by the majority.

Questions with ambiguities should also distribute students across a range of responses depending upon their interpretations of the question. As students reconcile their answers with each other, the potential interpretations of the question are brought to light. Students can also discuss the implications of specific interpretations to their answer choice. “If I had read the question that way, I would have said D instead of A” for example.

Unstated assumptions in a question may be easier to overlook. Answering a question may depend upon its context – which may be quietly assumed by students. The best questions will give students room to apply their own, different, assumptions to the question. As students explain their choices, their assumptions can be challenged by others and hopefully reconciled with alternative assumptions. “When should students be assessed?” for example, depends on the pedagogical principles embraced by the instructor. In the context of a question-driven CRS lesson assessment will happen during the lesson. A discussion between diverse learners, however, is bound to include those who do not agree with the constructivist assumptions underlying this kind of instruction. A fruitful dialogue could be engaged between participants seeking to articulate not just why they chose the answer that they did – but the underlying pedagogical principles behind their choice.

Objective questions
Objective questions have one right answer. They do not lose – and they probably gain – power to generate discussion as a result. As with open questions, when the goal is to generate discussion, the design needs to be with a mind to eliciting divergent responses. If the material is so unfamiliar or confusing that students just guess the right answer, this is easy to do. The activity is not random or wasted, though, because having made a choice students are more likely to listen as others explain the answers they have chosen. Questions do not have to deal with new or unfamiliar knowledge in order to generate wrong answers. A well designed question will include answer choices that trap likely misconceptions or faulty assumptions. The intention is not for the instructor to trick or embarrass students, however. Students must be allowed to catch and correct each other in the spirit of a learning community. Objective questions – used as instruction and embedded in peer discussion – can help motivate students to build knowledge.

Ex. 4 Objective question
CRS have been in used in some college lecture halls since
A. the 60’s
B. the 70’s
C. the 80’s
D. the 90’s

When the histogram of responses is projected for everyone to see, the instructor should not indicate the correct answer. By subtly proceeding from the wrong answers to the right one, however, a good discussion can ensue. The instructor should ask for students to explain their choices. The goal is to start by having students either articulate misconceptions, or to find that they cannot offer good reasons for their choices. The hope is that other students will be able to catch these misconceptions, support good reasoning, and to eventually offer unassailable support for the right answer.

The use of peer instruction is especially helpful when dealing with objective questions. Students often do not feel comfortable offering their own explanations to a large group without first vetting those explanations with a small group of their peers. Not only do they want to avoid being wrong, but they want to avoid sounding incoherent. The alternation of small-group and whole-group interaction effectively ameliorates these anxieties and gives students a chance to build knowledge together.

Opinion questions
Opinion questions can elicit preferences or evaluations. Students value the opportunity to express their preferences – it helps them feel known. Evaluations are similarly subjective – but students can be pressed to justify responses. A good evaluation requires high level thinking that subsumes solid content knowledge along with conceptual understanding of the ideas or issues at stake. While preferences may have rationalizations, evaluations require justifications.

Ex. 5 Question that elicits a preference
My preferred use of a CRS
A. to take attendance and for occasional assessment
B. occasionally as a way to provoke discussion
C. as a frequent tool in formative assessment
D. none of the above

Ex. 6 Question that elicits an evaluation
Instructors should convert lectures to student centered discussions using CRS
A. Strongly disagree
B. Disagree
C. Neither agree nor disagree
D. Agree
E. Strongly agree

When probed for their preferences, students will likely enjoy explaining their choices. During the ensuing discussion, students – as well as the teacher – may gain an appreciation for the diversity within a class. Convening small groups may not add much to the potential discussion – as preferences may be highly individual and the trends that could generate discussion may not emerge until the whole class is sampled. A response that only one or two students in a class choose may generate the most interesting discussion. The distribution of responses may generate one or two discussion questions itself – and then the instructor may want to take volunteers to explain their preferences – starting with those in the majority.

Students should be prepared to justify their choices following an evaluation question. Small group discussion may be helpful especially if students are evaluating something complex. If groups are asked to key in a consensus answer, they will be forced to justify to each other the reasons for their evaluation. The distribution of responses will again be fertile ground for discussion. Outlier evaluations in particular will demand justification to be reconciled by the whole group.

An alternative small-group discussion strategy
A primary benefit of requiring all students to answer all questions is student engagement. When pressed to provide reasons for an answer in front of the whole class, however, many students demur. Allowing students to discuss questions in a small group before submitting answers by remote relieves some of that anxiety. Several researchers have been cited that utilize some kind of alternation between small-group and whole-group discussion of questions. Another strategy that works very well is to give groups copies of the questions and allow some time at the outset for students to discuss all the questions and come to a consensus. Reconvene class and then have groups key in their answers (one question at a time). When the distribution of student responses is projected on the screen allow a speaker from each group to defend their answer. The whole-class discussion is much more productive when students have already voiced their thoughts within a small group. When all competing explanations have been heard – and hopefully reconciled, allow students to re-key their responses. This requires time – 10+ minutes per question – but generates deep discussion – and therefore likely comprehension – among many students.

My experiences with CRS
I first saw CRS used at a conference and thought they would be fun for my high school biology class in Jefferson County, KY. I taught at the Teenage Parent Program (TAPP). There were many teaching challenges related to high absenteeism, low academic achievement, and low socio-economic status of my students. I viewed the technology as a novelty that would be fun to try. I had no compelling pedagogical gap that needed filling.

I borrowed the Classroom Performance System (CPS) from our school district, loaded the software onto my computer, plugged in the receiver, and opened CPS on my computer. Literally a few minutes later I handed the infrared remotes to my students for the activity. We read a small section of text aloud. On CPS I started a “verbal question” so that the number 1 and four blank choices (A-D) were projected on the screen. I made up an objective question from what we had just read and said it aloud along with four choices – only one of which was correct. When all students had responded I ended the question on CPS and checked the right answer. The distribution of student responses was displayed on a histogram on the screen with the correct answer noted. My often sleepy-eyed students perked up noticeably. We continued through several sections of round-robin reading interspersed with my electronic checks-for-understanding.

Several students commented to me after that class that using the remotes was fun. From my perspective we had done nothing ground-breaking. Aside from the novelty of “clicking” in answers – we had changed very little from a well-worn teacher-led classroom activity. From the students’ perspective, however, a different dynamic had emerged.

Without remotes the teacher will still pose a question aloud to check for understanding. He may even, cruelly, call on a random (or sleepy!) student. But the chances aren’t terrible – 1 in 30? – that I’ll get called on. So I’ll rest this time, if he calls on me I’ll use other cues to make my best guess. But what’s this – today he waits for everyone to respond. And there aren’t any good cues to what the right answer is – except what we just read. And my answer is registered and projected – what if I’m the only one who gets it wrong? But wait, I got it right. And look, some people got it wrong. YIPPEE!

For future classes I assigned remotes to students so that the software could track student performance. That didn’t add much to how I utilized the system, however. I had discovered enough of a benefit to justify the continued use of student remotes. Good teachers have ways of providing incentive for students to pay attention – and I had stumbled unintentionally upon one. That my students enjoyed answering by remote is anecdotal – but that they all answered every question is empirical. I watch the computer screen until every remote has transmitted a response.

When I moved to a teaching position in the education department of Emory & Henry College in SW Virginia, I decided that it was incumbent on me to continue experimenting with student remotes. I teach an ethics class that is part of the general education curriculum. The class enrollment has averaged 30 students per semester. My primary objective in using remotes in ethics class has been to drive discussion.

For the Spring semester of 2007 I converted most of my class meeting time in ethics to question-driven discussion enabled by CRS. I used both small and whole-group formats. During small-group discussion students discussed questions that had been printed for them. When the whole group reconvened, students were asked to respond via their clickers. For whole-group discussion, the questions are projected and students are required to click their answers without prior discussion. As an illustration, I’ll fully relate the questions I designed for the class session after students were assigned to read Chapter 7 of Daniel Dennett’s book “Freedom Evolves.” The chapter is 27 pages of dense arguments for the evolution of moral agency. I carefully selected 7 questions that I thought represented the key arguments. The questions are objective to the extent that students comprehend and embrace the author’s arguments.

1. Dennett calls farsighted self-interest ______________.
A. myopia
B. hyperopia
C. pragmatism
D. benselfishness

2. According to Boyd and Richerson, a group can evolve extreme conformism provided:
A. the group is composed of highly related individuals
B. punishment has a relatively low cost
C. a strong leader emerges
D. dependent social relationships

3. Evolutionary "original sin" is _____________ according to Dennett.
A. cheating on your mate
B. hosting the first meme
C. thinking of yourself as God
D. defecting instead of cooperating

4. The best way to advertise trustworthiness is to
A. be good
B. know when you are being watched
C. calculate the costs and benefits of each social interaction
D. cooperate with cooperators

5. The idea that we might prefer a lesser reward now to a greater reward later is due to
A. ignorance
B. intertemporal conflict
C. deception
D. inability to compute reward values

6. According to Dennett the key innovation in the evolution toward free will was
A. the self
B. making oneself "determined"
C. language
D. bipedalism

7. We are most free when we render ourselves
A. sensitive to environmental considerations
B. insensitive to environmental considerations

I entered these questions into the CPS database. At the start of class I “engaged the lesson.” This allowed one question at a time to be projected on the screen through an LCD projector connected to my computer. Students had purchased their remotes at the bookstore and registered them online. The process was automatic from there. Students simply clicked their answers and their responses were collected via a receiver attached to my computer. After everyone had answered the question displayed, I clicked finish and the histogram of tabulated responses was displayed. At that point I led a discussion oriented around the results.

Because Dennett explained his concept of self-interest using a memorable anecdote about Ben Franklin, question 1 was answered uniformly. While it was a gentle start, it did allow a brief discussion about important ideas related to selfishness. Question 2 was trickier because the correct answer is less intuitive than other options provided. The anthropologists cited found that low cost punishment allows conformism to evolve. The other responses also have merit, however. Students often feel attached to the answer they first choose and so I try and let them explain their choices. Questions 3-7 hone in on important elements of Dennett’s arguments. The ideas did not sit particularly well with students, however. Based on answers that students prefer we were able to generate productive discussion – even if students were only provisionally convinced.

The time required for responding to and discussing these 7 questions approached an hour. Although time-intensive, allowing students to drive discussion through transparent disagreement – and reconciliation – can prove a powerful tool. This has always been possible with small groups. Classroom response systems make question-driven instruction possible for even very large class sizes.

References

Beatty, I.D., Gerace, W.J., Leonard, W.J., & Dufresne, R.J. (2006). Designing effective questions for classroom response teaching. American Journal of Physics. 74(1), 31-39.

Beatty, I.D. (2004). Transforming student learning with classroom communication systems. Educause Center for Applied Research, 2004(3), 1-13

Dufresne, R.J., Gerace, W.J., Leonard, W.J., Mestre, J.P., & Wenk, L., (1996). Classtalk: A classroom communication system for active learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 7, 3-47.

Judson, E., & Sawada, D., (2002). Learning from past and present: electronic response systems in college lecture halls. Journal of computers in mathematics and science teaching, 21(2), 167-181.

Mazur, E. (1997), Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Reay, N.W., Bao, L., Li, P., Warnakulasooriya, R, & Baugh, G. (2005). Toward the effective use of voting machines in physics lectures. American Journal of physics. 73(6), 554-558.

Home  |  About |  Articles  |  Powerpoint Presentations

www.s e c o n d a r y e n g l i s h.com