Campus Clicker Adoptions – Agile Learning

The Chronicle of Higher Education recently posted an essay by Michael Bugeja titled “Could You Be a Hoopla-dite?” in which Bugeja criticizes those at colleges and universities who advocate for instructional technologies without thinking critically about the hidden costs (training, technical support, etc.) of those technologies or without assessing those technologies to see if they are worth their cost. Bugeja takes a pretty harsh tone in his essay, but he provides some sensible suggestions for institutions adopting instructional technologies. Check out his seven recommendations at the end of his essay.

Bugeja uses clickers as an example of a technology that wasn’t properly vetted at his institution, Iowa State University. Unfortunately, this is the only example of an instructional technology he describes in his essay, which makes it a little too easy to see his essay as directed at those who would uncritically advocate the use of clickers. I don’t think that’s his intention, but as someone who advocates the use of clickers (not uncritically, I like to think), I would have appreciated an example or two of the adoption of other instructional technologies.

Bugeja writes, “We need to assess technology to weed out ineffective systems and applications and preserve those that truly enhance our educational missions.” This sounds sensible to me. However, as Steve Ehrmann said on this blog, “When evaluating educational impact, it’s not possible (or desirable) to separate technology from the pedagogy that makes use of it.” It’s not possible to “assess the product” (one of Bugeja’s recommendations) without assessing the instructional choices teachers make when using the product. This complicates the task of assessing instructional technologies like clickers. Fortunately, in the case of clickers, there’s a growing body of research that explores the impact on student learning of the ways in which instructors make use of clickers.

What steps has your institution taken to assess the impact of the use of clickers on your campus? What challenges have you encountered in undertaking assessment efforts?

Michael Bugeja says:

September 19, 2008 at 7:10 am

First, thank you very much for beginning a discussion on this. It’s needed. I have an investigative feature forthcoming in The Chronicle concerning the cost of clicker engagement and the corporate colonization of higher education. The issue is not student learning; it’s the cost of that learning as opposed to students simply raising their hands. Look at the economy collapsing around us. It’s already affecting research institutions like Georgia and Florida. Clickers represent the worst antiquated technology at the highest cost–and that’s not opinion; there’s research backing up that statement, and it will be published soon.

admin says:

September 19, 2008 at 8:31 am

I’m always glad when the authors of the articles I mention on the blog stop by and leave comments. Thanks for doing so. I look forward to reading your research on the financial cost of clicker engagement. Is the increased student engagement and student learning made possible by clickers worth the cost in dollars of supporting the technology? That’s a good question to ask.

Did you explore some of the literature comparing clickers with other response methods? For instance, Stowell and Nelson (2007) compared clickers with hand-raising and response card methods and found some distinct advantages to using clickers.

I’ve shared a few other thoughts on the merits of clickers over low-tech methods, such as hand-raising, in a previous post.

September 19, 2008 at 9:44 am

Thanks for keeping a proactive interactive blog. My research on clickers does not focus on digital response pedagogy; it focuses on the tremendous cost of attaining a measurable level of teaching enhancement through those pedagogies. I have been investigating technology on cost analysis since 1999, and the route from the publisher’s marketing team to “free” infrared clickers to universal ones will go down as one of the worst investments in higher education, costing students and taxpayers across the country untold millions. The article had been slated for September. I don’t have a run date yet. When I do, you’ll know; but know this as well–I post my fact checks on my research site, so that online viewers have access to the same data on which to base their opinions.

October 1, 2008 at 12:06 am

I’m a little puzzled by your comment that your research “does not focus on digital response pedagogy.” Does that mean that you didn’t look into the learning benefits of using clickers? It would seem that in a cost-benefit analysis, it would be important to look not only at costs but also at benefits. Perhaps I’m misinterpreting your comment.

As for classroom response systems being one of the “worst investments in higher education,” have you conducted similar analyses of other instructional technologies, like course management systems or lecture-casting technologies? Both of those technologies are expensive, and I’ve seen arguments that the learning benefits are marginal. I’m not saying I agree with those arguments, but they would make interesting cases for comparison.

I look forward to reading your article.

The Cost (and Benefits) of Clickers says:

December 3, 2008 at 2:26 pm

[…] that link, unfortunately.) In his essay, Bugeja expands on a few points he made about clickers in a prior essay. I thought I would respond to a few of his points […]

Leave a Reply Cancel reply