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.