Clickers, iPad, and Lecture Capture in One Semester: My Teaching Transformation

Abstract

Using technology to enhance the classroom environment can have a tremendous impact on student learning, as well as on an instructor's teaching. This paper describes one instructor's transition from traditional chalkboard lectures to a fully technological presentation of content. After carefully reviewing the literature, clicker technology was introduced to increase student participation and use peer instruction activities through voting. To maximize the effectiveness of clickers, using a tablet in teaching and explorations with lecture capture were natural next steps in increased use of technology. Presented here are the author's reflections on the transformation process as well as insight into how the technology allows for more active student engagement in class.

Productive Mathematical Whole-Class Discussions: a Mixed-Method Approach Exploring the Potential of Multiple-Choice Tasks Supported by a Classroom Response System

“…The results of this study strengthen earlier findings suggesting that CRS has the potential to create opportunities for active participation by students (e.g., Latulippe, 2016;Lucas, 2009). However, earlier research in this context has built its results on teacher and student perceptions (King & Robinson, 2009a, 2009bLucas, 2009), the mere fact that almost all students give a response to a task (Latulippe, 2016), or the fact that students had the opportunity to talk in peer discussions (Lewin et al, 2016;Lucas, 2009). This study contributes knowledge about student participation in mathematical whole-class discussions by building on data from several observations.…”

“…These results indicate that students had opportunities to talk and thus actively participated in the wholeclass discussions, although the teachers dominated the discussions. The results of this study strengthen earlier findings suggesting that CRS has the potential to create opportunities for active participation by students (e.g., Latulippe, 2016;Lucas, 2009). However, earlier research in this context has built its results on teacher and student perceptions (King & Robinson, 2009a, 2009bLucas, 2009), the mere fact that almost all students give a response to a task (Latulippe, 2016), or the fact that students had the opportunity to talk in peer discussions (Lewin et al, 2016;Lucas, 2009).…”

“…In the context of CRS and mathematics instruction, researchers and teachers have designed their interventions with an expectation to improve the extent and quality of students' attendance (Liu & Stengel, 2011), students' engagement and participation (Lucas, 2009), feedback to both students and teachers (Green & Longman, 2012), and classroom discussions (e.g., Cline et al, 2013). Concerning attendance and participation, CRS in mathematics instruction has been shown to have the potential to increase students' attendance (Liu & Stengel, 2011) and participation (King & Robinson, 2009b;Latulippe, 2016;Lucas, 2009), which increases their opportunities to engage in mathematics. One suggested key factor for this increase in student attendance and participation is the possibility for anonymity when responding to tasks launched by a CRS (Boscardin & Penuel, 2012).…”

“…Another promising activity for achieving these productive discussions entails using a digital classroom response system 1 (CRS) and implementing challenging but less complex and less time-consuming tasks in a multiple-choice (MC) format (Cline & Huckaby, 2021;Gustafsson & Ryve, 2022). CRS can present tasks, activate students, and collect anonymous responses from every student and automatically display them in a bar chart on a shared screen (e.g., Latulippe, 2016). This chart can serve as a foundation for whole-class discussions (Cline et al, 2022;Gustafsson & Ryve, 2022).…”