The ITEAM project - a joint JISC/UH funded project Individual EVS case studies – mapped to UH Assessment- for-Learning themes Engages students with assessment criteria Support personalised learning Ensures feedback leads to improvement Focuses on student development Stimulates dialogue Considers student and staff effort Discipline How did you use EVS? What were the benefits to you? Health (radiography & imaging) MCQs with conditional branching at key decisions to facilitate clinical decision making skills Immediacy of feedback allowed me to judge level of understanding in class, to correct misconceptions and also underline impact of errors on patient care. Life Sciences Teaching mathematics and statistics (used as a diagnostic aid). Education (postgraduate) Used to vote on agreement or disagreement with a given statement. This promoted discussion and exploration of the topic in more depth. Health and Emergency To facilitate a weekly team debate It was a large cohort (180) so it was important to ensure everybody was following the explanations correctly as the lecture progressed (part of assessment). I could look at the results after class and organise tutorial groups accordingly, students therefore got the right level of support. This use of evs helped to challenge students thinking, get them talking and engage them in personal reflection. Cohort size approx. 12 It was easy to use. It also encouraged them to think more carefully about their response (as it was a small cohort it was easier to see where opinions were divided) and forced all members to have a view. It also promoted group dialogue. The subject matter was potentially dry so the debate brought it to life (helped the students engage with the subject). It supported team working &peer What were the benefits to the students? Immediate feedback, non-threatening environment particularly as it was a large, diverse cohort. The ability to link scenarios (theory) to practice. Social interaction as students talked about answers (dialogue). Enabled peer support. Immediacy of results showed what the student knew or needed to revise or get support on. Where there any barriers to use? Length of time to prepare scenarios Any other comments? None No Much quicker than OMR. Following discussion with them I felt they were engaged in higher order thinking as a result of the technology. Also as they were a small cohort they felt their vote had more worth (one vote could make a big difference). Biggest drawback was to ensure it is not used as an entertaining aside as it will be perceived novelty which will wear off. The key to avoiding this is to put great though into the question asked. Evs builds confidence and mutual trust. Provides anonymity and is good for generating debate. It also gives less dominant members of the group a voice It reduced peer pressure and gave all students a voice. It supported participation and active learning as students listened intently. Students felt able to change their No, but it is important to give clear instructions on use and set ground rules for debates e.g. Students said ‘it made the debate seem more important (using The ITEAM project - a joint JISC/UH funded project Health (Nursing) To test recall. To identify knowledge gaps. To evaluate the day. Life Sciences Drop quizzes. Ice breaker. Practice run for summative MCQs. Engineering Formative quizzes at end of lecture to test recall. To encourage attendance. Quiz at new starter event Nursing (preregistration) Law To mediate debates on contentious ethical issues (cohort size40) review skills and helped build a learning community. mind (anonymity) as their understanding developed. Competition motivated students to actively search and critically appraise the literature. They also developed skills in justifying their stance. They seem re-assured that the votes would be correctly counted. latecomers can’t vote. EVS encouraged honesty of responses (through anonymity). The immediacy of results allowed quick adjustments to teaching to deal with knowledge gaps. Promoted dialogue. Capturing the results enabled evaluation of the session itself at a later time. Helped me see where additional support or revision was needed. It encouraged the students to reason why an answer was correct or incorrect. Broke up lengthy lectures (so improved management of attention span). It encouraged students to pay attention in lectures. The students could see how difference of opinion and knowledge could impact on patient care. None Communicated expected level of knowledge. Removed barrier of embarrassment. EVS helped students see where they needed to revise. Remove fear of giving the wrong answer. Students could develop deeper understanding of the material. Keeping students focussed. Student who forget their handsets. Time to prepare slides Risk of trivialising subjects. Occasional technology problems e.g. laptop to slow Lack of personal experience It was a good way to get a new group of students to work together. It also facilitated a sense of community. Previously did same exercise without evs; this way improved management of group and was more efficient use of space in classroom (fewer people moving around). The exercise helped students build skills in research, reflection and constructing and defending arguments. Students were Knowledge could be evaluated in a ‘safe’ way. Revision of subject matter. Able to see how performance compared to others in the class. Improved knowledge of subject matter in preparation for assessments. Also developed transferrable skills such as literature searching and reflection. Gave voice to less articulate, confident students. Access to handsets (now improved as all students have them) evs)’, ‘easy to use’ , ‘enormous fun’ and ‘futuristic tool’, ‘reports votes more accurately’ Technology was easy to use and had a significant impact. Attendance didn’t improve The ITEAM project - a joint JISC/UH funded project Nursing (preregistration) Business To support lead lecture about managing conflict situations. Scenarios were used to aid decision making (working in groups) Drop quiz for summative feedback (best of 5/7). Testing recall. Used (anonymised) league table to generate competitive element. Life Science (Human Physiology) Used in a variety of ways including formative questions during workshops, practicals and lectures and summative drop quizzes. Also used to brief students about an assignment which used peer assessment. Computer Science Peer assessment to mark students’ website during their presentations for first year and masters level students more engaged in material as a result of using the handsets. It also promoted a more collegiate environment. Cohort size 40. Safe environment enabled me to see exactly what students would do in certain situations. Using evs improved engagement (100% participation). Improved management of large groups (120-150) Students found formative use enjoyable. They were more engaged in topic and attendance increased. They also seemed to put in extra effort because of the marks attached to the drop quizzes. It provides instant feedback of student opinion and anonymity of responses. Immediacy of feedback enabled me to make workshop more suitable for students needs and also provided information for improvement during the peer marking process. The use of evs in the peer marking workshop showed a more positive attitude towards peer assessment at the end of the workshop when compared to views obtained at the beginning. The chance of doing EVS live meant the impact is much greater. Also, managing the data (e.g in the first years case, 27 different votes x >200 students – e.g >5400 separate student decisions made) is actually very easy. It provided a ‘safe’ learning environment (anonymity). It enabled them to see links between theory and practice. Scenarios take time to build. Need to make sure time for discussion is built in. It provided immediacy of feedback and clarification of subject matter. Students doing less well could see where they needed to get extra support without feeling threatened or stupid. International students participated more. Getting students to collect handsets in first weeks of starting programme. Some technical issues e.g. handset not working. Students forgetting handsets. No Would be good for collecting module feedback. It is quite difficult to ask complex questions (e.g multiple response or fill in the blanks). It also means that the whole class must answer questions at the same speed. Sometimes Overall though, it is a fantastic technology which makes teaching and learning so much more enjoyable Students could express their true views without revealing their identity. Students understood the assignment. Expectations were clear. Stops the students getting too bored or restless – it punctuates the lecture with things to make the students think, and to allow the students to participate The speed of results is phenomenal. It is advisable to tell students whether you are or are not using their evs device numbers to record results in each session. The ITEAM project - a joint JISC/UH funded project there are some lingering issues of which-clickerbelongs-to-whichstudent – as well as accessibility/disability concerns.