AUDIENCE RESPONSE SYSTEMS

ARS refers to any system in which an audience interacts with a speaker(s) during a presentation. ARS can involve low-technology tools, such as colored cards held up during a presentation, or high-technology dials used to indicate favorability to a speech (e.g., widely used in political-campaign analysis). The purpose of ARS varies based on the goals of a presenter. However, all ARS involve interaction between the audience and the presenter(s).

Twitter is an online system in which individuals send messages composed of up to 140 characters to any number of subscribers (i.e., followers). Audiences use Twitter for back-channel communication or short messages to one another or the presenter(s) (Atkinson Reference Atkinson2010). Sometimes Twitter is broadcasted on an overhead display to increase transparency and communication between the audience and the presenter(s).

Twitter attempts to take education out of the classroom by allowing students to engage in topics among networks of professionals and peers and increase communication among students, though effects are unclear. One study that used Twitter to democratize student involvement had both positive and negative effects (Blair Reference Blair2013). Other research indicates a number of challenges in using online communication tools due to the different social-interactive mechanisms to which we are accustomed (Blair Reference Blair2013). For example, in face-to-face communication, a person who is asked a question feels more pressure to answer than in an online communication (Middleton Reference Middleton2010). At the same time, some of the social pressures have the opposite effect. In another study, students who experience shyness or anxiety were more likely to use and prefer anonymous devices in class compared to hand-raising, and they were less likely to be subject to group conformity (Stowell, Oldham, and Bennett Reference Stowell, Oldham and Bennett2010).

Twitter uses a Bring Your Own Device (BOYD) system; in general, any device connected to the Internet can send and receive Twitter comments. Students and instructors usually bear the costs of BYOD systems themselves, and the costs vary based on the particular device used (e.g., an iPad, iPhone, or laptop).

Clickers entail dedicated devices with limited functions that allow communication between an audience and a presenter(s). The clicker system requires all audience members or a university to purchase identical devices. The presenter must have dedicated software and hardware support to use this ARS. The two most popular companies currently developing and distributing clickers are iClicker and Turning Technologies. Some of the services involve subscription fees in which students must rent access to a BYOD system; other services require the purchase of the devices. In both cases, the cost to students ranges from $20 to $50 depending on the type of device and the style of its use in class.

ARS are widely recognized as a way to increase interaction in class and to create an active educational environment (Draper and Brown Reference Draper and Brown2004). These systems have been available since the 1960s in various forms of technology (Judson and Sawada Reference Judson, Sawada and Banks2006). Several studies have documented how using clickers can improve class attendance and students’ learning (Blasco-Arcas, Buil, Hernandez-Ortega, and Sese Reference Blasco-Arcas, Blanca Hernandez-Ortega and Sese2013; Bruff Reference Bruff2009; Caldwell Reference Caldwell2007; Draper and Brown Reference Draper and Brown2004). For example, one study suggested that immediate feedback and correction of errors on exams result in students’ greater retention of material (Epstein et al. Reference Epstein, Lazarus, Calvano, Matthews, Hendel, Epstein and Brosvic2002), whereas other studies showed either mixed results or no demonstrated improvement in student learning (Banks Reference Banks2006, 3). One study indicated a correlation between students who used clickers and answered questions correctly and their achieving higher grades (Kennedy and Cutts Reference Kennedy and Cutts2005); however, this suggests that the differences are based on student ability rather than clicker use.

In summary, many of the studies conducted on the impact of ARS indicated positive results when accompanied by self-reported data from students. Studies that analyze grades and test performance vary, providing mixed results on the impact of these ARS technologies.

CLICKERS AND TWITTER IN CLASS

In the courses involved in this study, the teaching assistant and the instructor monitored Twitter using iPad devices, and both made Twitter comments (tweets) during and after the daily lectures. These tweets provided additional information, including website references, clarifications, and definitions of complicated technical terms. The purpose of the Twitter comments was to expand the focus of the course discussion and to clarify important information. We also tweeted questions for discussion to prompt student thinking during the lecture using a simple AppleScript® application called keynotetweet. ^{Footnote 1} It allowed the lecturer to copy designated text from the presentation into Keynote® and to automatically post the text segments to Twitter at specific points in the lecture.

Unlike Twitter—which generally operates in the background and does not need class time for students to ask or answer questions—clickers require explicit use of class time. During various opportunities in class, the instructor poses a question to the students, who then read and think about the question, after which they answer it using their clicker. When the instructor views the results, he or she decides whether a discussion among the students will increase their understanding. Discussions work best when there is some disagreement among the students and they are asked to convince one another to agree with their own answer. ^{Footnote 2} For the courses examined initially, the questions had no objectively correct answer. This fostered greater discussion, analysis, and use of evidence to defend a position, thereby increasing participation and engagement with other students.

Instructors may also use clickers to assure students’ learning of content. In this study, the instructor provided questions that mimicked exam questions, which allowed students to recall and review material from previous classes. The questions generated discussions when students disagreed on the answers; however, these questions required objectively correct answers. (Samples of both discussion-based and content-based questions are available for download as supplemental materials from the Cambridge University Press/ CJO website at doi:10.1017/S1049096514000869.)

For both Twitter and clicker users in a class, some preparation time is required to learn how to operate the software and hardware tools. Logistical issues are greater for clicker use: instructors must assign devices to students for recording attendance and scores, and they sometimes require distribution and collection of the devices in each class. ^{Footnote 3}

Questions for students using clickers can be prepared in advance or during class. When questions are prepared in class, on-the-fly, only a generic question and answer options are presented to students on screen. These same questions are recorded in reports. Therefore, instructors need to be aware of questions they create in class if they wish to review them later. The software takes a screenshot of the computer, which assists instructors if they have question and answer texts within their slides. Questions prepared and entered into the clicker software before classes appears as it was entered for the students and on reports generated later.

When using Twitter, all in-class tweets must be prepared in advance. The software used to tweet during a lecture examines each slide as it appears for any Twitter-feed texts. Instructors also must observe the Twitter feed during and after class to identify and respond to student tweets, if necessary. Ideally, this outside-of-class observation requires little from the instructor if other students have high participation rates. In this case, students respond to one another, thereby reducing faculty involvement.

Students received points for participation only when the instructor asked objective questions—and only when they were answered correctly. Students earned attendance points separately from participation with Twitter or clickers in class. The lack of a grading system for using Twitter or clickers may influence the degree of participation when students focus on grade-performance indicators.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The study results suggest two primary conclusions. First, the use of clickers in class slightly increases student attention and attendance. Statistical indicators, shown in table 1, combined results from the first three classes as well as from the second set of classes to create two groups; the second group used the clicker technology.

For the first three classes in which clickers were not used and the second set of four classes in which they were, the average survey response scores increased slightly for all questions; however, only two of the four survey questions had a statistical significance greater than an error rate of 0.05. This suggests that students evaluated themselves higher in rates of attendance and they rated the course higher after the instructor began using clickers. Based on this self-reported data, the within-group analysis suggests that clickers were successful in increasing class attendance and the overall evaluation.

Table 1 Survey Results with Corresponding Difference in Means t-Test p-Values for Clickers

Note: *p < 0.05.

In classes using Twitter, results for the evaluations appear to be similar. As shown in table 2, only Question 1, asking students to self report their attendance, provided significant results.

Table 2 Survey Results with Corresponding Difference in Means t-Test p-Values for Twitter

Note: *p < 0.05.

Overall, the evidence suggests that clickers had a greater magnitude of effect in a positive direction and a significant effect on both attendance and class evaluation. ^{Footnote 4} When evaluated statistically, there was positive improvement in attendance between the classes without and with clickers from 67.3 to 71.1%, but the t-test suggests that the difference between the averages is not significant enough to rule out random variation at the 0.05 level (p = 0.1988). The use of Twitter resulted in a significant decline in course attendance without significant changes in other indicators. This suggests that clickers performed better than Twitter and that Twitter had a slightly negative effect on class attendance.

Furthermore, results of the between-group design using clickers suggested no improvement in students’ test scores. Comparing the change in final-exam scores between the human-rights course taught in 2011 with no clickers and the 2012 class with clickers revealed a negative impact on test scores, from an average of 78.46 to 66.51%, with a significant t-value at the 0.05 level. This suggests that the use of clickers in this course actually decreased grade performance.

In these classes, the instructor provided only subjective questions with discussions; however, when combined with objective questions in a subsequent class, the same results emerged. In the 2012 course (i.e., introduction to international relations), clickers were used for subjective assessment and to elicit discussion among students for only half of the course. In 2013, the same course used clickers with both subjective questions for discussion and objective questions to review and prepare for the final exam. Comparing the two courses, the average final-exam score decreased from an average of 79.9 to 73.3% and did not show statistical significance at the 0.05 level. In other words, it is clear from the data that there were either no effects or negative effects present. When comparing the use of clickers with objective questions versus subjective/discussion questions, students’ grades decreased using objective questions. This result may seem counterintuitive because we expect objective questions to improve exam performance more than interactive discussion questions.

Examining students’ comments about both the Twitter and clicker courses provided insight about their perspective on these two ARS. In courses that used clickers, except for one student, all of the comments suggested that they enjoyed using them in class. For example, students stated that combining lectures and participation increased their attention level, avoided other distractions, helped them to engage in lectures, made the class more exciting, woke them up, and allowed them to express their opinions. In the one negative comment made orally to the instructor, the student stated that the use of clickers is “childish” and not what a college class should look like. This student expected others to have a high degree of interest and interaction regardless of the use of technology in class. Because colleges have become more audience- and business-focused in recent years, and because of the tension between the roles of “entertainer” and “teacher,” this student’s opinion is important to consider.

When students in the Twitter courses were asked for daily feedback, only two comments referenced Twitter. One student said that the Wi-Fi system in the classroom did not allow constant use of the Twitter feed. The second student did not yet use Twitter but was willing to try it. Wi-Fi severely limits the use of any ARS product in a class that requires constant Internet connectivity. When 100 or more students access the Internet through a single access point in a classroom, it is difficult to have consistent use of the technology.

A possible reason that Twitter was less effective (based on the self-evaluation and qualitative measures) involves the lack of Twitter culture among students in the class. More than 60% of those who answered the final survey had never used Twitter before taking the course. Despite our efforts to encourage their use of Twitter by tweeting responses to questions and extra information during class, students failed to adapt to the culture during the course. This suggests that Twitter does not work well when students are not accustomed to the technology. Simple technology that requires less effort by students and instructors, such as clickers, is more likely to be successful in class.

Overall, the research indicated a distinction between Twitter and clickers for increasing course participation. The qualitative results suggested that students enjoy using clickers in class and believe that it provides a means to maintain greater attention. The results also suggested that students self-reported better attendance and more enjoyment of the class with clickers. The attendance records corroborated this result, although at statistically insignificant levels. However, this attention and satisfaction in the self-assessment did not coincide with improved test scores.

Based on student reactions, clickers may have an advantage over Twitter by allowing students a feeling of greater participation in and enjoyment of a class, whereas the use of Twitter depends largely on the culture of use among students. When students are accustomed to the technology, they will have higher use of advanced technology. When they are not accustomed to the technology, then simplicity dominates as the most important efficacy factor. With clickers, however, there are the logistical difficulties of purchasing the devices and maintaining the technology.

Based on the findings presented in this article, the study concluded that technology has distinct benefits to students in a classroom. Educators need to give more attention to the different ways that instructors use the same technology and to the lack of performance improvement presented in this study. Future research that addresses the connection between the use of ARS technology and testing classroom improvement could yield more insight about the conditions under which the technology successfully increases performance.