Audience Response
Systems: A Mode for
Enhancing Student Learning
Colleen F. Visconti, Ph.D., CCC-SLP
Baldwin-Wallace College
ASHA Poster Session #0475
November 16, 2006
Miami, Florida
Abstract
 The educational environment is forever changing and
technology is a large part of the changes that have
occurred. The Audience Response System is one of
the new technologies available for enhancing student
learning in the classroom. The purpose of this
presentation is to discuss the TurningPoint Audience
Response System, the various uses of this
technology in the fields of communication sciences
and disorders, and its benefits for both the students
and the faculty in the classroom setting.
System Requirements to Support
TurningPoint
 Windows 98, 2000 or XP
 Microsoft Office 2000, XP or 2003, should
include PowerPoint, Excel, Word and Outlook
 Pentium 3 Processor with 650MHz, 128 MB
RAM
 100 MB free disk space
The “Clicker”
Hardware
Types of Interaction









Reality Check
Knowledge Check
View Check
Choice Check
Fact Check
Self Check
Group Check
Pulse Check
Fun Check
Reality Check
 Practical application – the intent is to move
from ideas to action.



What would you do if
?
How would you treat X patient?
How would you
?
Knowledge Check
 Testing understanding – measure
effectiveness







What did you learn?
Practice exam questions
Quizzes
Terminology understanding
Causes for disorders
Treatment options
Assessment options
View Check
 Opinion surveys – gather data from the
audience





Ethical issues
Case management issues
Environmental causes
Caregiver roles
Cultural issues
Choice Check
 Spark controversy – think hard about an
issue



What would you choose?
Theoretical controversies
Opposing treatment philosophies
Fact Check
 Share information – activates interest in a
topic




What do you know about X disorder?
The preferred treatment approach for X
disorder is
.
Which factors impact treatment goals?
Statistics about various disorders.
Self Check
 Self-assessment – audience self-analysis




What do you think you know?
Reviews before exams
Introductions to a topic
Application of concepts
Group Check
 Audience Profiling – get audience
demographics

Who are you?





Year in school
Major
Minor
Courses completed
Areas of interest
Pulse Check
 Speedometer – Stay in touch with the
audience




How do you feel?
How is this class going?
Pacing of information
Types of activities
Fun Check
 Lightening up the pace – humorous interlude



Can you smile?
Are you awake?
I want to go home.
The Basics
 Create a PowerPoint presentation with
TurningPoint
 Present presentation to class
 Students then respond to specific slides
 Data is automatically generated and
projected after each slide
 Data can be saved for later
 Can check specific student performance, if
student is assigned a specific “clicker”
number
Use at Baldwin-Wallace College
 2005-2006 - faculty members began using
Audience Response Systems
 Currently 18 faculty members are trained in
its use
 12 faculty members responded to a survey
regarding use and the following data is based
on those results.
 It is being used in at least 24 different
courses, some with multiple sections
Frequency of Use
4
3
2
1
0
Daily
1-2x per week
Couple Times
per month
Once a month
1-2x per
Semester
Once a
Semester
Once a year
Types of Interaction
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Reality
Check
Knolwedge
Check
View
Check
Choice
Check
Fact Check Self Check
Group
Check
Pulse
Check
Fun
Faculty Benefits









Greater participation & engagement
Opens up class discussion
Eliminates group induced bias
Makes all students think about the question(s)
Quick assessment of student understanding
Identifies areas of confusion
Anonymity
Teaches students to read simple statistics
Students own the data which leads to ownership of
the class
 Less grading time of quizzes
Student Benefits
 Keeps them engaged
 Confirms their understanding of the material
compared to their peers
 Participation without speaking
 Immediacy of feedback
 Anonymity
 More interesting for the students
Faculty limitations and downsides
 Preparation Time


Preparing the PowerPoint
Handing out remotes
 Doesn’t fit all courses
 Students don’t take notes when using it
 Passive tool for students – although it does
generate discussion
 Technical glitches
Student Response to the Clickers
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Positive Response Students like it
Neutral Response Students don't really
care
Negative Response Students don't like it
Impact on Learning
 Currently, it is not clear how the use of
clickers impacts learning. It is believed that
since the students are more engaged in the
course content, there should be an increase
in the retention of the material.
 One faculty member, Dr. Margie Martyn, is
currently investigating the impact of using
clickers in the classroom on learning
outcomes.
Some Classroom Response Systems
 Response Card from TurningTechnologies,
LLC (www.turningtechnologies.com)
 Classroom Performance Systems from
eInstruction (www.einstruction.com)
 InterWrite Personal Response System from
GTCO CalComp Corp.
(www.gtcocalcomp.com)
 Classoom Reponsse System from HyperInteractive Teaching Technology
(www.h-itt.com)
Uses Outside of the Classroom
 Faculty training for grading reliability of
common course papers
 Faculty meetings – vote on faculty
governance issues
 Polling faculty on campus issues
“Technology is not the lesson,
but the mode of delivery for the
lesson.” (Baker & Baker, 2004,
p. 151)
Suggested Readings
 Astleitner, H. & Leutner, D. (2000). Designing instructional technology






from an emotional perspective. Journal of research on computing in
education, 32(4), 497-510.
Baker, P. & Baker, P. (2004). Teacher adjustment to technology:
Overcoming cultural mindsets. Journal of Educational Technology
Systems, 33(2), 147-156.
Brewer, C.A. (2004). Near real-time assessment of student learning
and understanding in Biology courses. BioScience, 54(11), 1034-1039.
Draper, S. W., & Brown, M. I. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures
using an electronic voting system. Journal of computer assisted
learning, 20, 81-94.
Fitch, J.L. (2004). Student feedback in the college classroom: A
technology solution. Educational technology research & design, 52(1),
71-81.
Hines, L. (2005). Interactive learning environment keeps Modesto
students engaged. T H E Journal, 33(2), 40-41. Retrieved January 20,
2006, from Academic Search Premier.
Zemsky, R. (2000). The mission and the medium. Policy Perspecitves,
9(3), 1-12.
Special Thanks to  John DiGennaro, Manager Educational
Technology, Information Technology. Thank
you for training me in the use of the Audience
Response System and for answering all of my
questions.
 Dr. Susan Oldrieve, Director of the Center for
Transformational Learning. Thank you for all
of your ideas, suggestions and support.
 Thanks also goes to the Scholarly Teaching
Program for providing funding to attend and
present at the ASHA convention.
 For a copy of the handout for this poster
session, please visit the ASHA convention
website or email me at cviscont@bw.edu