One question, multiple (individual) votes (“Peer Instruction” Mazur, 1997)
Students vote individually (a well-designed question will split the class)
Students discuss their answer with peer(s)
Students vote for second time, again individually
One question, one (pair/group) vote, discussion (“Class-wide discussion” Dufresne et. al., 1996):
Initial vote by pairs/groups (a well-designed question will split the class)
Some pairs/small groups explain their response to the class
Class-wide discussion initiated
Effective use – findings from University of Surrey pilot of TurningPoint
Existing beliefs about teaching and student learning
Willingness to experiment; openness to developing practice
Teaching confidence and personal concerns: “The traditional power balances shift” (Exley and Dennick, 2004)
Suitability of physical environment e.g. acoustics; layout
Student culture and expectations: some students “expect to switch off in lectures” (D’Inverno, 2003)
“ Questions that target core concepts...most effective in promoting conceptual change, especially when answer choices reflect common student conceptions that may diverge from target understandings” (Penuel et al, 2006)
Use of EVS ranged in effectiveness and influenced by multiple factors:
Banks, D., 2006. Audience Response Systems in Higher Education: Applications and Cases . London: Information Science Publishing.
Exley, K and Dennick, R., 2004. Giving a lecture: From presenting to teaching . London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Nicol, D. and Boyle, J., 2003. Peer Instruction versus Class-wide Discussion in large Classes: a comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom. Studies in Higher Education, 28 (4), pp.457-473.
Simpson, V and Oliver, O., 2007. Electronic voting systems for lectures then and now: A comparison of research and practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23 (2): pp.187-208.