Advertisement

Audience Response Systems Reimagined

  • Sebastian MaderEmail author
  • François Bry
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11841)

Abstract

Audience response systems (ARS) allow lecturers to run quizzes in large classes by handing to technology the time-consuming tasks of collecting and aggregating students’ answers. ARSs provide immediate feedback to lecturers and students alike. The first commercial ARSs emerged in the 1990s in form of clickers, i.e., transmitters equipped with a number of buttons, which impose restrictions on possible questions – most often, only multiple choice and numerical answers are possible.

Starting from the early 2010s, the ubiquity of smartphones, laptops, and tablet computers paved the way for web-based ARSs which, while running on technology that provides more means for input and a graphical display, still have much in common with their precursors: Even though more types of questions besides multiple choice are supported, the full capability of web-based technology is still not fully exploited. Furthermore, they also do not adapt to a student’s needs and knowledge, and often restrict quizzes to two phases: Answering a question and viewing the results.

This article first examines the current state of web-based ARSs: Question types found in current ARSs are identified and their support in a variety of ARSs is examined. Afterwards, three axes on which ARSs should advance in the future are introduced: Means of input, adaption to students, and support for multiple phases. Each axis is illustrated with concrete examples of quizzes.

Keywords

Audience response systems Adaptive learning environments Large classes 

References

  1. 1.
    Azevedo, R., Hadwin, A.F.: Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition-implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instr. Sci. 33(5), 367–379 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brusilovsky, P., Millán, E.: User models for adaptive hypermedia and adaptive educational systems. In: Brusilovsky, P., Kobsa, A., Nejdl, W. (eds.) The Adaptive Web. LNCS, vol. 4321, pp. 3–53. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-72079-9_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bryfczynski, S.P., et al.: uRespond: iPad as interactive, personal response system. J. Chem. Educ. 91(3), 357–363 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caldwell, J.E.: Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips. CBE-Life Sci. Educ. 6(1), 9–20 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cooper, M.M., Grove, N., Underwood, S.M., Klymkowsky, M.W.: Lost in Lewis structures: an investigation of student difficulties in developing representational competence. J. Chem. Educ. 87(8), 869–874 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Crouch, C.H., Mazur, E.: Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results. Am. J. Phys. 69(9), 970–977 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    González-Tato, J., Llamas-Nistal, M., Caeiro-Rodríguez, M., Mikic-Fonte, F.A., et al.: Web-based audience response system using the educational platform called BeA. J. Res. Pract. Inf. Technol. 45(3/4), 251 (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gross, M.: Collective peer evaluation of quiz answers in large classes through pairwise matching, Institute of Informatics, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. Bachelor thesis (2017)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grüner, G.: Die didaktische Reduktion als Kernstück der Didaktik. Die Deutsche Schule 59(7/8), 414–430 (1967)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haladyna, T.M.: Writing Test Items to Evaluate Higher Order Thinking. ERIC, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hattie, J., Timperley, H.: The power of feedback. Rev. Educ. Res. 77(1), 81–112 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hauswirth, M.: Informa: an extensible framework for group response systems. In: Bertino, E., Joshi, J.B.D. (eds.) CollaborateCom 2008. LNICST, vol. 10, pp. 271–286. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03354-4_21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hauswirth, M.: Models and clickers for teaching computer science. In: 7th Educators’ Symposium@ MODELS (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hauswirth, M., Adamoli, A.: Teaching java programming with the informa clicker system. Sci. Comput. Program. 78(5), 499–520 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hunsu, N.J., Adesope, O., Bayly, D.J.: A meta-analysis of the effects of audience response systems (clicker-based technologies) on cognition and affect. Comput. Educ. 94, 102–119 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hwang, G.J.: Definition, framework and research issues of smart learning environment - a context-aware ubiquitous learning perspective. Smart Learn. Environ. 1(1), 4 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Imazeki, J.: Bring-your-own-device: turning cell phones into forces for good. J. Econ. Educ. 45(3), 240–250 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jensen, J.L., McDaniel, M.A., Woodard, S.M., Kummer, T.A.: Teaching to the test or testing to teach: exams requiring higher order thinking skills encourage greater conceptual understanding. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 26(2), 307–329 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jumaat, N.F., Tasir, Z.: Instructional scaffolding in online learning environment: a meta-analysis. In: 2014 International Conference on Teaching and Learning in Computing and Engineering, pp. 74–77. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kay, R.H., LeSage, A.: Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: a review of the literature. Comput. Educ. 53(3), 819–827 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kulik, J.A., Kulik, C.L.C.: Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Rev. Educ. Res. 58(1), 79–97 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mader, S., Bry, F.: Phased classroom instruction: a case study on teaching programming languages. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education, CSEDU, vol. 1, pp. 241–251. SciTePress (2019)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Maheady, L., Mallette, B., Harper, G.F., Sacca, K.: Heads together: a peer-mediated option for improving the academic achievement of heterogeneous learning groups. Remedial Spec. Educ. 12(2), 25–33 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Martyn, M.: Clickers in the classroom: an active learning approach. Educ. Q. 30(2), 71 (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    McLoone, S., Brennan, C.: A smartphone-based student response system for obtaining high quality real-time feedback-evaluated in an engineering mathematics classroom: National university of ireland maynooth. Thinking Assessment in Science and Mathematics, p. 148 (2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Roselli, R.J., Brophy, S.P.: Experiences with formative assessment in engineering classrooms. J. Eng. Educ. 95(4), 325–333 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schön, D., Klinger, M., Kopf, S., Weigold, T., Effelsberg, W.: Customizable learning scenarios for students’ mobile devices in large university lectures: a next generation audience response system. In: Zvacek, S., Restivo, M.T., Uhomoibhi, J., Helfert, M. (eds.) CSEDU 2015. CCIS, vol. 583, pp. 189–207. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29585-5_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stanger-Hall, K.F.: Multiple-choice exams: an obstacle for higher-level thinking in introductory science classes. CBE-Life Sci. Educ. 11(3), 294–306 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Staudacher, K., Mader, S., Bry, F.: Automated scaffolding and feedback for proof construction: a case study. In: Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on e-Learning (ECEL 2019). ACPI (2019, to appear)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van Merriënboer, J.J., Kirschner, P.A., Kester, L.: Taking the load off a learner’s mind: instructional design for complex learning. Educ. Psychol. 38(1), 5–13 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    White, E.M.: Assessing higher-order thinking and communication skills in college graduates through writing. J. Gen. Educ. 42(2), 105–122 (1993)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wood, D., Bruner, J.S., Ross, G.: The role of tutoring in problem solving. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 17(2), 89–100 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of InformaticsLudwig Maximilian University of MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations