Challenge, Potential, and Success: A University-wide Approach to Classroom Response Systems

1. Challenge, Potential, and Success: A University-wide Approach to Classroom Response Systems Ed Evans Purdue University Director of Learning Spaces edevans@purdue.edu

2. Overview • About Purdue University • Pedagogy: Why classroom response systems? • Background • Selection Considerations • Deployment Process • Feedback • Future Work • Lessons Learned

3. About Purdue • Founded in 1869 • Public, Land Grant Institution • 4 campuses, main campus in West Lafayette, IN • System wide enrollment of 69,000Main campus enrollment of 38,700

4. Pedagogy: Why classroom response systems? • “Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education” by Chickering & Gamson in 1987. • Good practice encourages contact between students and faculty • Good practice communicates high expectation • Good practice develops reciprocity and cooperation among students • Good practice uses active learning techniques and gives prompt feedback

5. Background • Technology In the Classroom (TIC): 207 classrooms • Classroom response initiative began December 2003 • Grassroots Initiative • Began with IR clickers in 6 classes with 1200 students using eInstruction CPS through McGraw-Hill

6. Selection Considerations • Technology evaluation • IR vs. RF • What about RF interference? • Software evaluation • Vendor evaluation • Support process for students • Pricing Considerations

7. Deployment Goals • Adopt a standard response system for campus that would • minimize student costs • minimize barriers to faculty use • and maximize the ability of ITaP to support classroom communication systems.

8. Deployment Goals • Equipment for all system-wide classrooms (over 350 rooms) • Integration into WebCT Vista (which would reduce effort in creating student accounts and courses in eInstruction software) • No semesterly subscription cost for students (absorbed by the institution) • Students would be required to purchase their own input device which can be used for their entire Purdue career • Upgrades to future classroom software and equipment

9. Deployment Process • Spring 2004: Began with IR clickers in 6 classes with 1200 students using eInstruction CPS through McGraw-Hill • Fall 2004: 1400 students in 7 classes • Fall 2004: Signed system-wide agreement with eInstruction

10. Deployment Process • Spring 2005: • Move to RF system – 2500 students in 13 classes • Began regular meetings and training sessions for faculty • Summer 2005: Integrate registration with WebCT Vista

11. Deployment Process • Fall 2005 - 207 TIC sites (each site can handle 1000 pads) • 76 classes System-wide • 7600 students System-wide • Average West Lafayette class size: 150 • Smallest West Lafayette class: 10 • Largest West Lafayette class: over 400 • Students purchase response pads ($16 at bookstores); can be resold • Response pad can be used for any classes • Pad registration through in WebCT Vista

12. Deployment Process • Primary Staffing: • Project Manager – oversaw project handled many of the faculty meetings • Instructional Technologist – oversaw deployment process to TIC sites, worked with technical problems • Instruction Designer/Trainer – developed faculty training, provided overview sessions • Other staff drawn in as needed for software installs, Vista integration consulting, etc.

13. Feedback • Empirical: • Spring 2005 – nearly 800 students surveyed in 5 classes • Scale of 1-5: 1 Strongly Disagree, 5 Strongly Agree • Student perception that the system will have a negative impact on their grades - 2 = disagree • Students understood the system after the introduction by their instructors - 4 = agree • Students find CPS easy to use - 4 = agree

14. Feedback • Empirical: • Students had low concern about others seeing answers - 4 = agree • Students found use of CPS somewhat beneficial with respect to knowing what was coming on exams – 3.5 • CPS encouraged class attendance – 3.5 • Students like using CPS – 3.5 • Students Were inclined toward use the system in the future – 3.5

15. Feedback • Anecdotal: • Students believe the system encourages preparation and attendance • Faculty believe attendance is better and test scores are higher

16. Future Work • Couple CPS to our LMS • Ease of gradebook uploads • Access question databases • Review and document policies and standards related to protected data access for instructional applications • Develop more resources for student support

17. Lessons Learned • Opportunities to engage new areas of campus • Consider support issues for student devices • Engage the text book managers at the bookstores

18. the Quiz!

19. More information • Purdue’s website: • http://www.itap.purdue.edu/tlt/einstruction • Discussion group at Purdue: • send mail to majordomo@purdue.edu • with message body of: subscribe crs-discuss • Educause Instructional Technologies Constituent Group • http://www.educause.edu/Community/ConstituentandDiscussionGroups/5982