Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Terrell wesley final presentation senoir project


Published on

Final presentattion for Senior thesis

  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

Terrell wesley final presentation senoir project

  1. 1. Implementing Audience Response Systems: An Efficient Means to Collect Data and Engage Constituencies Terrell Wesley
  2. 2. Foreword Hurricane Sandy and 2012 Elections  Data  Feedback ARS as the best way  Technological advancements  Accessibility Potential future uses
  3. 3. Audience Response Systems• Clickers• Classroom Response Systems• Student Response systems• Multimedia Response Technology
  4. 4. How does this technology work
  5. 5. Introduction Validate the uses of ARS  classroom  Multiple platforms Advancements in the technology  Location  Devices Possible consideration for universal use.  Internship at Turning Technologies
  6. 6. ARS: The Most Efficient Way toIncrease Student Performance andEngagement Medina, Medina, Wanzer, Wilson, Er and Britton (2010)  Efficiency in the classroom  Non graded material proved better acceptance.  Anxiety  Most beneficial or efficient means to receive responses in the classroom
  7. 7. Other Classroom UsesIoannou and Artino (2010) Used ARS in different types of class settings Reinforce lecturesBaytiyeh and Naja (2010)  Validation Quantitative and qualitative analysis•
  8. 8. ARS:Implementation Yu and Smith (2008)  Supports multi-dimensional classroom:  Implementation:  Four Variables  Engagement:  Six Variables
  9. 9. Implementation Cont: Zapf and Garcia (2011)  Technologically proficiency  Engagement and performance  Clicker classes vs not clicker classes  National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)  Variety of reports  Previous knowledge  Found no evidence of dissatisfaction
  10. 10. ARS Increases Engagement in All Platforms Keske and Smutko (2010)  Used on small community  ARS provided immediate data vs. other methods  Limitations: larger communities will require:  Smaller number of questions  Distribution of clickers
  11. 11. Other Uses Osterman (2007)  Library  Generate conversation  Guide lecture  Participants are more engaged  Better knowledge of audience (Anderson, 2011)  Impact ARS had on adults  Evaluative analysis of previous research  ARS has positive effect on adult learners.
  12. 12. Companies Maximize Interest byAdvancing Application Integrations Stav, Nielsen, Hansen-Nygaard and Thorseth (2010)  Technology integrations  Mass array of users  Increase accessibility  Increased in overall reaction  Tablets, smart phones, laptops and PC
  13. 13. Things to consider in universal integration (Masikunis, Panayiotidis, & Burke, 2009).  Role of the lecturer  Presenter logs  Methods should be individually based  Suggestion of further research  No definite strategy  Must determine a strategy
  14. 14. Synthesis Efficient: Anderson (2011) Yu and Smith (2008), Medina et al (2010)  Classroom  Outside of classroom Effective: Osterman(2007), Zapf and Garcia (2011)  immediate data collection Accessibility: Stav et al. (2010), Medina et al. (2010), Baytiyeh and Naja (2010),
  15. 15. Conclusion Increases engagement Privilege to poll from any location simultaneously Any internet connected device Increased accessibility
  16. 16. Final Note: Uses Across all age groups. Comfort Likelihood Opportunity for Implementation  Research question: ARS is the most efficient means to gain responses from any constituency in any location.  Can we integrate this into our electoral process?