i>clickers
For College & University Courses
(with a slight focus on Philosophy)
5 Types of Clicker Questions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Questions that clarify
Questions that test
Questions that reinforce
Polling questions
Brainstorming questions
Clarifying Question

What do you think is the most important
reason for using i>clickers in this course?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Increase lecture attendance
Encourage more participation
It's an objective way of assigning participation points
Test understanding of the material
Spark active engagement with the material
Testing/Clarifying Question:
Informal Logic

Which of the following statements is true?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
No valid argument can have a false premise
No valid argument can have a false conclusion.
No valid argument can have all true premises and a false
conclusion.
All of the above.
None of the above.
Testing/Clarifying
Question: Psychology
Tanisha was bitten by a dog. Now she is afraid of
every dog she sees.
Clicker Question: Tanisha’s fear of dogs is a(n):
A. Unconditioned stimulus
B. Unconditioned response
C. Neutral stimulus
D. Conditioned stimulus
E. Conditioned response
Testing Question: Symbolic Logic

Clicker Question: Which of the following is a
correct symbolization of ‘cats and dogs make
good pets’?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
(x)((Cx v Dx)  Mx)
(x)((Cx & Dx)  Mx)
(x)((Cx & Dx)  Mx)
(x)((Cx & Dx) & Mx)
(x)((Cx v Dx) & Mx)
Testing Question: Symbolic Logic

Clicker Question: How many different things
can we say using just 2 schema letters and
our 5 truth-functional operators?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
6
8
12
16
24
Testing Question: History of
Philosophy
What is the meditator’s response to the
deceptive senses argument?

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
He rejects the first premise (that our senses are sometimes
deceptive).
He rejects the second premise (that if our sense are
sometimes deceptive, we can never trust them
completely).
He challenges the validity of the argument.
All of the above.
He doesn’t object to the argument.
Testing/Reinforcing Question

What sort of argument is Aquinas offering?
Select all that apply.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Deductive
Inductive
Abductive
A priori
Polling Question: Metaphysics
Do you believe we have free will?

A.
B.
C.
Yes, at least some human actions are freely chosen.
No, free will is an illusion.
I’m on the fence about whether or not we have free will.
Polling Question: Business Ethics
Scenario from business ethics:
Global sales from in-app purchases estimated to be 37 billion in 2017, much
of that coming from minors using phones linked to a parent’s billing
information. In one case, a 7 year-old amassed a $6k bill on his dad’s
account, with $2.2k of that purchased in under an hour.

Clicker Question: Who do you think bears the most responsibility in this case?
A.
The child
B.
C.
D.
E.
The
The
The
The
parents
app developer
software developer (Apple, etc.)
phone carrier (Rogers, etc.)
Polling/Reinforcing Question

Do you think Anselm’s argument is
compelling?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Yes, the argument is sound and provides Anselm’s intended
audience with a good reason to believe that God exists.
No, the argument isn’t valid.
No, the argument is valid, but at least one of the premises is
false (or not plausible to Anselm’s intended audience).
No, the argument is invalid and at least one of the premises is
false.
I’m on the fence about whether or not the argument is
compelling.
Polling / Clarifying Question:
Biomedical Ethics
Paternalism:
Interfering with someone’s autonomy for their own good.

Clicker Question: Do you think that seatbelt laws are justified?
A.
B.
Yes
No
Polling / Clarifying Question:
Biomedical Ethics
Paternalism:
Interfering with someone’s autonomy for their own good.

Follow-up Question: Do you think a health care professional can be justified in
denying a patient’s request for treatment for their own good?
A.
B.
Yes
No
Polling / Clarifying Question:
Biomedical Ethics
Paternalism:
Interfering with someone’s autonomy for their own good.
Strong Paternalism (SP):
We can interfere with a person’s autonomy for their own good, whether or not they
are encumbered.
Weak Paternalism (WP):
We can legitimately interfere with the autonomy of persons in their own interests
only if they are encumbered (not competent) and could harm themselves.
Brainstorming Question

Clicker Question: in 3 words or less, what’s a
standard one could appeal to in assessing the
plausibility of an explanation?
Further Mechanics



Instructions to students
Setting up i>grader
Computing grades