Survey on Clickers in Mathematics

I was recently contacted by Samuel King, a graduate student at the Mathematics Education Centre at Loughborough University in England, who is conducting research on the impact of clickers on the teaching and learning of college mathematics. He is interested in hearing from mathematics faculty members about their experiences using clickers.

If you’re a math instructor who teaches with clickers and would like to assist Sam in his research, please consider completing this online survey about your experiences. Responses to this survey will inform Sam’s continuing research on this topic. The survey consists of 34 items, 10 of which are open-ended questions and 24 of which are multiple-choice questions. The survey should take no longer than 25 minutes to complete.

You’re also invited to share this survey with any colleagues of yours who use clickers in mathematics.

2 Responses to "Survey on Clickers in Mathematics"

Steve Ehrmann says:

June 2, 2009 at 6:51 am

The survey, imho, commits a classic error in its design. It asks about outcomes (e.g., whether students like clickers) but never asks about the pedagogy that probably would strongly influence those outcomes. We all know there are many course activities that might be supported with student response systems (including clickers): taking role, polling students every few minutes to see if they’re paying attention, supporting peer review, quizzing students in a way that allows instant grading, etc. Which of those teaching/learning applications are getting traction in math courses? Do any of the math faculty see evidence that one or more of those applications is educationally successful? That’s what I’d be curious about.

PS. I’ve been doing some writing about methods for studing Student Response Systems: http://www.tltgroup.org/flashlight/Handbook/PRS.htm

We’re also interested in working with folks at TLT Group subscribing institutions, current or new, on evaluations of uses of student response systems. Here’s a list of current subscribing institutions: http://www.tltgroup.org/subscription/currentsubs.htm

Reply
Samuel King says:

June 9, 2009 at 11:25 am

Hi Steve,

Thank you for your comment on the structure of the questionnaire.

I share your view that research on clickers should focus as much on pedagogy as it does on outcomes. However, I think that the questionnaire addressed a number of pedagogical issues. Items 7-17 cover a whole range of pedagogical issues. Responses to Item 12 (supplemented with data from Items 19 and 11), for instance, would provide me with information on the inherent pedagogical approaches of the respective respondents. I should be able to tell whether the respondent is adopting a peer instruction approach, or a direct, question-driven approach. In addition, Items 9 and 10 would give me an indication of whether the way an individual uses clickers would help in holding students’ attention, which was one of the other issues you raised.

Generally, I made a decision to leave out some items in the survey. These are either items or issues that I felt could not be investigated in-depth via a survey or those that I already have some information on, based on previous (limited-sample) studies conducted. Apart from this particular survey, I am collecting data on the use of clickers in math via other methods (i.e. mixed-methods approach) including:

• Classroom observations: I have observed math classes at 4 universities in the UK and my advisor, Dr. Carol Robinson went to observe Prof. David Lomen’s class at the University of Arizona
• Surveys with students
• Interviews with students
• Focus groups with students
• Informal Feedback from students
• Case study research with three math faculty in the UK
• Staff blog

Moreover, the design of the survey was constrained by the research questions for my (PhD) dissertation, which I intend to submit by January 2010. My PhD focus is the evaluation of the impact of clickers on the teaching and learning of college math. This is why I have sections on student experience/engagement, feedback and achievement. This is also why there is a focus on outcomes in the survey, as the pedagogical issues, based on my research design, have been and are being investigated more thoroughly via other methods. Anecdotal evidence from talking with maths staff in the UK also suggests that they would be interested in empirical evidence-based outcomes (based on a large sample). And then they might be in a position to rethink their classroom practices in the light of pertinent evidence.

But I think there is a need for collaborative research on the impact of clickers on teaching and learning, not only in math, but also in other disciplines. There are currently no research initiatives of this nature that I am aware of – although there is an indication that the MAA is planning such a study, as most studies tend to be individualised and specific to the authors’ institutional contexts. And I think that with your expertise on survey design (along with Derek Bruff), you would be well positioned to champion such research endeavours.

Regards,
Sam

Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply