Teaching with Clickers – JMM 2010 CPS and Minicourse

This is the online “home base” for the contributed paper session titled Engaging Students with Classroom Voting at the 2010 Joint Mathematics Meetings in San Francisco, CA.  The session was organized by Kien Lim of the University of Texas-El Paso, Kelly Cline of Carroll College, and me (Derek Bruff, Vanderbilt University).

This is also the “home base” for the minicourse titled Teaching with Clickers and Classroom Voting at the 2010 Joint Mathematics Meetings in San Francisco, CA.  The minicourse was facilitated by Adam Lucas (St. Mary’s College of California) and Derek Bruff (Vanderbilt University).

CPS Presentations

  • 8:00 a.m., Use of Classroom Voting In Liberal Arts College Classes (Small and Large), Ron Buckmire*, Occidental College [Abstract] [Slides]
  • 8:20 a.m., Clickers in the Classroom, Kimberly Jordan Burch*, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, [Abstract] [Slides]
  • 8:40 a.m., Classroom Voting: Using Students’ Responses to Write Better Questions, M. McGivney-Burelle Jean*, University of Hartford [Abstract] [Slides]
  • 9:00 a.m., Utilizing Personal Response Systems (Clickers) in Liberal Arts Mathematics Courses to Support a Lecture Format, Janet A White*, Millersville University of PA [Abstract] [Slides]
  • 9:20 a.m., Using Clickers in a Refocused College Algebra Course — Part I, Erick B Hofacker*, University of Wisconsin – River Falls, Kay Shager, University of Wisconsin – River Falls [Abstract] [Slides]
  • 9:40 a.m., Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Perceptions of Clicker Use in their College Mathematics Course, Travis K Miller*, Millersville University of Pennsylvania [Abstract] [Slides]
  • 10:00 a.m., Using Classroom Response Systems in Mathematics to Facilitate Discourse, Reasoning, and Representations in the Development of Mathematical Content Teacher Knowledge, Sherrie J Serros*, University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire, Kathryn T Ernie, University of Wisconsin – River Falls, Erick B Hofacker, University of Wisconsin – River Falls [Abstract] [Slides]
  • 10:20 a.m., Using Classroom Voting to Address Students’ Probability Misconceptions, Tami K. Dashley*, University of Texas at El Paso [Abstract] [Slides]
  • 10:40 a.m., A randomized experiment exploring features of clicker use and their impact on undergraduate students’ engagement and learning in statistics, Herle M. McGowan*, North Carolina State University, Brenda K. Gunderson, University of Michigan, Vijay N. Nair, University of Michigan [Abstract] [Slides]
  • 11:00 a.m., Classroom voting in an introductory real analysis course, L Pedro Poitevin*, Salem State College [Abstract] [Slides]
  • 11:20 a.m., Clicker examples versus board examples in Calculus: how are they different?, Kim Roth*, Juniata College, Lynn Cockett, Juniata College, Communications Department [Abstract]
  • 11:40 a.m., Using Clickers in Advanced Undergraduate Mathematics Courses, Patti Frazer Lock*, St. Lawrence University [Abstract] [Slides]

Minicourse Presentations

Question Banks

Other Resources

CPS Call for Proposals

Classroom voting is a teaching method in which students are asked to respond to multiple-choice or numeric-result questions posed by their instructors during class, often using handheld transmitters (“clickers”) that allow for the instant display of distributions of responses.  Classroom voting can be used to make on-the-fly teaching choices that are responsive to student learning needs, to generate small-group and whole-class discussion, and to create “times for telling” in which student misconceptions are uncovered and addressed.  Clickers allow students to respond to questions independently and without their peers knowing how they have responded while allowing instructors to track student responses and thus expect full participation.

We seek papers on classroom voting that focus on at least one of these areas: teaching objectives (e.g., writing effective questions, engendering cognitive conflicts, addressing misconceptions), instructional strategies (e.g., peer instruction, team-based learning, methods of guiding class discussions), new technologies (e.g., using cell phones as clickers, integration with online resources), impact on students (e.g., enhanced student learning, increased student engagement, improved retention), overcoming constraints (e.g., limited class time for active learning), development of new materials (e.g. new sets of classroom voting questions) and strategies for getting started at the course and department level.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *