Proposal to Instructional Technologies Advisory Committee:
Recommending a Single Personal Response System (aka
Clickers) at UW
Report contributors: Andrea Chappell, Mark Morton, Shawn Gilbertson
For discussion at the 17th March 2008 ITAC meeting, and 3rd April 2008 UCIST meeting.
Background
Over the past three years instructors at the University of Waterloo have been exploring the use of
clickers, or personal response systems (PRS), to engage students in their large lecture classes.
The clicker system consists of a small “remote control”-like device used by the student to submit
responses to questions posed in class, and a receiver, operated by the instructor, that collects the
responses. The professor asks a question, and the students use the clickers to respond. The
responses are tabulated at the receiver end, and the summary is immediately available as a
histogram.
Multiple models of clickers, primarily from two vendors, have been in use, which means that
some students have had to purchase more than one clicker. Moreover, technical support of
multiple brands places a greater burden on staff resources. This document explores the situation,
with a view to standardizing on one system and formalizing the support for that system on
campus.
Understanding the Use and Costs of Clickers at UW
In considering support for a recommendation to standardize on one clicker, ITAC should
understand and consider the following factors about clickers: impact on learning; impact on
teaching; usage; usability issues; accessibility issues; impact on technical support; costs.
Impact on Learning
Recent studies have indicated that clickers, when used effectively, can have the following
positive impacts:
1. Increased student engagement. Kaleta (2007) reports that "Faculty agreed or strongly
agreed that there was greater student engagement (94%), participation (87%), and
interaction (68%) in class as a result of clicker use. … The majority of students also
agreed or strongly agreed that the use of clickers made them feel more engaged (69%) in
class, increased participation (70%), and helped them pay attention (67%).
2. Improved class attendance. Caldwell (2007) reports that “when clicker scores
accounted for 15% or more of the course grade, attendance rose to 80-90%.”
3. Diminished attrition. Caldwell (2007) reports that clickers reduced end-of-term attrition
from 8-12% to about 4%.
4. Improved learning outcomes. Caldwell (2007) reports that "Most reviews agree that
‘ample converging evidence’ suggests that clickers generally cause improved student
outcomes such as improved exam scores or passing rates, student comprehension, and
learning and that students like clickers." Kaleta (2007) reports that “The statistical
Page 1 of 5
analyses of grade data collected for the 11 parallel courses between fall 2004 and fall
2005 showed a statistically significant impact of clicker use on student performance....
There was an increase of 2.23% in the number of students obtaining a grade of C or better
in the courses that used clickers.” Fies (2006) reports that “There is great agreement that
CRSs [clickers] promote learning when coupled with appropriate pedagogical
methodologies.... The literature also indicates that CRS-supported environment lead to
greater learning gains than traditional learning environments.”
Impact on Teaching
Clickers allow an instructor to gauge how well students have mastered the material in question:
they provide an instant snapshot of whether the students are “getting it,” so that an instructor is
better able to determine whether he or she can move on to the next unit or needs to revisit the
current unit. Instructors should realize, though, that clickers should not be used as a mere “addon,” but rather that their use needs to be thoughtfully integrated into every class.
Usage
The following table outlines sales and enrolment data from the UW Bookstore, including the
number of units sold, and the Faculty in which the course is offered. All units used now are
radio frequency, not infra-red. (Note: There are some courses that used clickers that are not
included in these data (Chappell, 2007). For example, the table does not show the first clickers
used at UW, infra-red units from eInstruction, purchased in Arts. Also, through a grant from the
student endowment fund, HiTT clickers were implemented in courses in the Math faculty.)
S 2005
F 2005
W 2006
S 2006
F 2006
W 2007
S 2007
F 2007
W 2008
Total units sold Brands
through
UW
Bookstore
195
CPS-RF
1457
CPS-RF
45
CPS-RF
Students
enrolled
(sections)
228 (1)
1763 (8)
447 (4)
Used in Faculty
1018
793
306
844*
36
97*
CPS-RF
iClicker
CPS-RF
iClicker
CPS-RF
iClicker
1046 (4)
1375 (5)
744 (5)
1559 (9)
171 (1)
97 (1)
Arts
Sci
Arts
Math, Sci
Arts
FES
1100
1700
110
997*
CPS-RF
iClicker
CPS-RF
iClicker
1145 (4)
3282 (23)
161
2944
Engr
Arts
Arts
Arts
Math, Sci
Arts
Math, Sci, Arts
Note: “*” designates some used units were re-sold.
Page 2 of 5
In Fall 2006, the UW Bookstore agreed to purchase used iClicker units from students. Since
then, some of the units sold have been used, and other used units have been sold to/through
WLU.
Usability Issues
This section outlines key features and issues to consider in the use of clickers in UW classrooms,
both for faculty members and students.
 Instructor issues
o Convenience in integration to course presentation materials.
o Numeric inputs (for some).
o Costs to students.
o “Cheap and Simple.”
 Student issues (from reference papers)
o Want inexpensive, durable, and dependable.
o Like clicker-based confirmation that answer was sent and received (two way/LCD
panel, or LED confirm light).
o Battery availability and cost.
 Technology issues
o Radio frequency, not infra-red.
o Additional classroom set-up time (becoming less significant as the software
integrates more naturally with the computer and other applications).
o Integrate with ANGEL (upload of results for use in gradebook).
o Make sure interference is not a problem (with units in rooms next door, or with
wireless).
 Other
o Registration process needs to be simple.
o Additional registration fees are inconvenient.
o Bundling with textbooks is not a requirement.
Accessibility Issues
The Office for Persons with Disabilities has offered that a clicker without a display, and with
large and tactile buttons, would be preferable. They caution that besides vision issues, there are
also cognitive concerns, especially for timed questions for which points are associated, where
using clickers may increase anxiety for those students with certain learning disabilities or where
English is a second language.
Impact on Technical Support
In clicker installations to date, the response receiver and the software are installed either in the eclassroom podium computer, or else on the instructor’s laptop. The podium computers in
Registrar-controlled e-classrooms are maintained centrally by the ITMS (Instructional
Technologies and Multimedia Services) and CS (Client Services) groups in IST. Clicker receiver
and software installation and maintenance would fall under their responsibilities. In the case of
personal laptops or tablets maintained by the owner, best attempts would be made to help with
installation issues.
Page 3 of 5
Each technology adopted in UW e-classrooms requires support in terms of installation,
maintenance, trouble-shooting and training for people who use it. As with other software in these
classrooms, support may also come from the local Faculty computing offices.
Costs
The costs associated with using clickers include purchasing the individual devices (clickers) and
the receivers (classroom/lecturer level including software). For one manufacturer, there is also a
fee for registering the clicker; this cost is paid by the student on a per course, term or life-time
basis. Most of the manufacturers provide a receiver based on the number of clickers sold (e.g.,
one receiver for 100 clickers sold). This means that at this time the incremental cost is borne by
the students. A recent article in LBE – Life Science (Barber and Njus, 2007) provide a good
review of current systems and their costs (albeit in US dollars.)
Towards a Recommendation for Standardizing on One Clicker
Issues identified in the three areas of Usage, Impact on Technical Support, and, in particular,
Costs, in the above section point to the advantages of supporting just one clicker system.
Standardizing in this way means just one vendor to negotiate with, one system’s quirks and
capabilities to understand for students, faculty members, and support staff, and most importantly,
just one system for all students to purchase. It also increases the opportunity of reselling the
clicker units, a cost saving option for students (just as is the case in the resale of textbooks).
At present there are two competing clicker brands used on campus, eInstruction’s CPS system,
and the iClicker system. This situation has occurred primarily because the persons pursuing a
clicker solution were investigating solutions on their own, perhaps unaware of others already
doing so, or perhaps influenced by the bundling of a particular clicker with a textbook of interest.
It should be noted that to date, iClicker has not provided an LED/panel version.
Meetings were held by the Learning and Teaching Through Technology (LT3, now part of CTE)
group, in which instructors using clickers were invited to provide feedback on what clicker
features were of importance, and their experiences with their clickers to date. That information
provides much of the information in the Usability Issues section above. The overall findings
were that no individual was particularly invested in one brand over another, and were
willing to work towards standardizing on whichever one was chosen. Another information
session, “Clickers in the Classroom”, was held by CTE, focusing on best practises.
During discussions in both of these forums, one issue arose that potentially could have a
significant impact on selection was the type of questions that an instructor could design/integrate
using the clicker. All of them allow for multiple choice questions. While multiple choice
questions can be used many different ways (e.g., True/False as the two choices; Provide 5
different results to a quantitative problem), some instructors had expressed the desire to use a
clicker with the ability to facilitate numeric inputs (e.g., 79.5). After discussion, it was generally
determined that the LED or display option is not a requirement for anyone currently using the
clickers. One professor who used this option in one term found that he could design the questions
to good effect without requiring numeric input.
Page 4 of 5
In addition, the iClicker system is seen as simpler and more suitable for those with
accessibility issues.
In addition, a subgroup from the Instructional Technologies Advisory Committee (ITAC), met
with the vendors of the two clickers to talk about support issues, costs, resale, licensing, and so
on. eInstruction was very well represented at their meeting. However, a significant drawback to
the CPS system is the registration system and fee, introducing greater support issues.
Finally, the authors point out that recommending one brand is not the same as endorsing or
promoting the use of clickers; rather, it is recognition of a support need and responsibility for
an existing activity. We also recognize that clickers may be perceived as an interim solution,
given their uni-purpose utility, and the potential for multipurpose utilities (like UW-ACE and
PDAs) to provide the classroom engagement function in the future.
Recommendation
Our recommendation to ITAC (for presentation to UCIST):
 Support UW faculty and students in the use of one clicker, the iClicker brand.
 Support will include …
o Technology – Installation (if required) of receiver, and support of the use in
the e-classrooms (IST).
o Pedagogy – Best practise of use (CTE).
o Training and documentation – How to use the technology (IST).
o Distribution and resale (Bookstore).
 During an interim period of two (2) years, track alternatives to clicker uses (e.g., UWACE combined with PDAs), and at the end of two years be prepared to recommend
continued support for the current clicker, iClicker, or to recommend a different brand or
solution for this activity.
References
Barber, M and Njus, D. (2007). Clicker evolution: Seeking intelligent design. CBE—Life
Sciences Education, 6, 1-20.
Caldwell, J.E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best practice tips.
CBE, Life Sciences Education. Vol. 6, Spring, 8-20.
Chappell, A. (2007). “Clickers”, Project page initiated Nov 2005, updated April 2007. (accessed
13 June 2007) http://ist.uwaterloo.ca/~chappell/IST/Electronic_Classrooms/clickers.html
Fies, Carmen et al. (2006). Classroom response systems: a review of the literature." Journal of
Science Education and Technology, Vol. 15, No. 1, 101-109.
Kaleta, Robert et al. (2007). Student Response Systems: a University of Wisconsin system study
of clickers." Educause Center for Applied Research. 2007 (10), 1-12.
Page 5 of 5