Challenge, Potential, and Success:
A University-wide Approach to
Classroom Response Systems
Ed Evans
Purdue University
Director of Learning Spaces
edevans@purdue.edu
Copyright Ed Evans 2005. This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is
granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided
that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that
the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish
requires written permission from the author.
Overview
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
About Purdue University
Pedagogy: Why classroom response systems?
Background
Selection Considerations
Deployment Process
Feedback
Future Work
Lessons Learned
About Purdue
• Founded in 1869
• Public, Land Grant Institution
• 4 campuses, main campus in West
Lafayette, IN
• System wide enrollment of 69,000
Main campus enrollment of 38,700
Pedagogy: Why classroom
response systems?
• “Seven Principles for Good Practice in
Undergraduate Education” by Chickering &
Gamson in 1987.
– Good practice encourages contact between students
and faculty
– Good practice communicates high expectation
– Good practice develops reciprocity and cooperation
among students
– Good practice uses active learning techniques and
gives prompt feedback
Background
• Technology In the Classroom (TIC): 207
classrooms
• Classroom response initiative began
December 2003
• Grassroots Initiative
• Began with IR clickers in 6 classes with
1200 students using eInstruction CPS
through McGraw-Hill
Selection Considerations
• Technology evaluation
– IR vs. RF
– What about RF interference?
• Software evaluation
• Vendor evaluation
– Support process for students
• Pricing Considerations
Deployment Goals
• Adopt a standard response system for
campus that would
– minimize student costs
– minimize barriers to faculty use
– and maximize the ability of ITaP to support
classroom communication systems.
Deployment Goals
• Equipment for all system-wide classrooms (over 350
rooms)
• Integration into WebCT Vista (which would reduce effort
in creating student accounts and courses in eInstruction
software)
• No semesterly subscription cost for students (absorbed
by the institution)
• Students would be required to purchase their own input
device which can be used for their entire Purdue career
• Upgrades to future classroom software and equipment
Deployment Process
• Spring 2004: Began with IR
clickers in 6 classes with 1200
students using eInstruction CPS
through McGraw-Hill
• Fall 2004: 1400 students in 7
classes
• Fall 2004: Signed system-wide
agreement with eInstruction
Deployment Process
• Spring 2005:
– Move to RF system – 2500 students in 13
classes
– Began regular meetings and training sessions
for faculty
• Summer 2005: Integrate registration with
WebCT Vista
Deployment Process
• Fall 2005 - 207 TIC sites (each site can handle
1000 pads)
• 76 classes System-wide
• 7600 students System-wide
– Average West Lafayette class size: 150
– Smallest West Lafayette class: 10
– Largest West Lafayette class: over 400
• Students purchase response pads ($16 at
bookstores); can be resold
• Response pad can be used for any classes
• Pad registration through in WebCT Vista
Deployment Process
• Primary Staffing:
– Project Manager – oversaw project handled
many of the faculty meetings
– Instructional Technologist – oversaw
deployment process to TIC sites, worked with
technical problems
– Instruction Designer/Trainer – developed
faculty training, provided overview sessions
– Other staff drawn in as needed for software
installs, Vista integration consulting, etc.
Feedback
• Empirical:
– Spring 2005 – nearly 800 students surveyed in 5
classes
– Scale of 1-5: 1 Strongly Disagree, 5 Strongly Agree
– Student perception that the system will have a
negative impact on their grades - 2 = disagree
– Students understood the system after the introduction
by their instructors - 4 = agree
– Students find CPS easy to use - 4 = agree
Feedback
• Empirical:
– Students had low concern about others seeing
answers - 4 = agree
– Students found use of CPS somewhat beneficial with
respect to knowing what was coming on exams – 3.5
– CPS encouraged class attendance – 3.5
– Students like using CPS – 3.5
– Students Were inclined toward use the system in the
future – 3.5
Feedback
• Anecdotal:
– Students believe the system encourages
preparation and attendance
– Faculty believe attendance is better and test
scores are higher
Future Work
• Couple CPS to our LMS
– Ease of gradebook uploads
– Access question databases
• Review and document policies and
standards related to protected data access
for instructional applications
• Develop more resources for student
support
Lessons Learned
• Opportunities to engage new areas of
campus
• Consider support issues for student
devices
• Engage the text book managers at the
bookstores
the Quiz!
More information
• Purdue’s website:
– http://www.itap.purdue.edu/tlt/einstruction
• Discussion group at Purdue:
– send mail to majordomo@purdue.edu
– with message body of: subscribe crs-discuss
• Educause Instructional Technologies
Constituent Group
– http://www.educause.edu/Community/Constitu
entandDiscussionGroups/5982