TP User conference 2011 presentation

328 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
1 Comment
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • I would like to acknowledge Mike Cameron from Newcastle University for providing the pictures on the first two slides, Nitin Parmar from the University of Bath for the ResponseWare flowchart diagram. I would also like to acknowledge my colleagues Kate Reader and Ajmal Sultany who worked with me on the mobile device survey, and Cengiz Turkoglu from the School of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences at City University who enthusiastically carried out the RW pilots. Finally I'd like to thank Paul Jenner from Reivo (UK reseller for TurningPoint products) for his help and support in the RW pilots.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
328
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
1
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • At City University in London we have basic, simple (wireless) clickers now – like this TurningPoint one here which works off radio wavesThese work well an students enjoy them a lot, however they are expensive (£40 each) and lecturers and EVS practitioners commonly cite problems with handing clickers out, collecting them back in.Also found that with our clickers, restricted to multiple choice answers, can’t offer free text answers, which does restrict the types of questions that the lecturer can ask, could argue that by allowing for free text answers, you can ask questions that test at the higher end of cognitive complexityNow there are clickers which allow for free text entry, however these are more expensive, heavier and arguably more likely to run out of battery faster than the the regular clickers.
  • So we decided to make use of the mobile devices that students have in their pocket as voting devices using a system called ResponseWareWe felt this would help solve some of the logistical and pedagogic problems of the existing EVS
  • This is how Response Ware works…Remember to credit Nitin
  • Before we let loose ResponseWare on our students, we piloted it an ESTICT event last year at the University of Edinburgh. My colleague Mike Cameron and I used ResponseWare with a prezi presentation and it worked really well. Thewordleshows a visual summaryof their comments relating to their likes and dislikes of voting using a mobile device to vote withGenerally quite positive, one of the comments was “In control, with a device I was familiar with”
  • Sian.lindsay.1@city.ac.ukMOBILE
  • In the survey we asked students: ‘in an ideal world, how would you like to use you mobile devices in a teaching and learning context’?As this graph shows, most students expressed a preference for receiving and accessing information via their mobile devices, as opposed to using their mobile devices for interacting with others and content online.So for example lots of students wanted to be able to view timetable information on their mobile device, whereas only a few wanted to read and participate in online forums.From this graph we wondered were our students actually web 1.0 when we wanted them to be web 2.0 ?
  • We then asked students about their attitudes to using their mobile device as an electronic voting device, or clicker, in class. We asked students to select a statement that they most agreed with in relation to this, and as you can see most students agreed with statements which indicated a preference not to use their mobile phone in class.A few students expressed negative views around using their mobile devices in class, with some saying that mobile phones and texting would be too distracting and might cause dumbing down in terms of communicating written language via text speak!
  • Generally the views were positive, for example…
  • Have a short 30 sec audio recording from Cengiz here…CengizTurkoglu from the School of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences used ResponseWare™ extensively with student mobile devices and in PC labs where students used PCs to vote and write back full-text answers. Like the EVS practitioners and students, he condoned ResponseWare’s ability to allow textual feedback and work in parallel with regular clickers. However only 10-15% of his students used their mobile devices for voting with. Using focus group feedback this could be explained by the inability and/or costliness of some mobile phones to access the Internet. At the time, City University did not have a wireless network capable of providing access for mobile phones - had this have been in place, more students may have tried ResponseWare™ because it would have allowed them free Internet access. Cengiz will be trying ResponseWare™ again next year and hopes to have better success with it now that a mobile phone-enabled WiFi is in place at City and students with Smartphones become more commonplace.
  • Rww and tp anywhere for instant text feedback!
  • Any questions?Include email address#sianylindsay
  • TP User conference 2011 presentation

    1. 1. Using studentmobiles as votingdevices withTurningPointResponseWareDr Siân Lindsay27th October 2011Turning Technologies User ConferenceUniversity of Surrey
    2. 2. What is this?
    3. 3. EVS classroom circa 1966
    4. 4. EVS classroom 45 years later…
    5. 5. EVS...The Future? Allows for free-text answers, anonymity maintained and lecturer can feedback to individual devices Can be used in parallel with regular clickers Eliminates practical/logistical and maintenance problems of present EVS A TurningPoint product = integration with PowerPoint
    6. 6. ResponseWare(RW)
    7. 7. EVS Practitioners’ View of RWMost people (72%) expressed positive notions about being asked to use their mobile device to vote with
    8. 8. EVS Practitioners’ View of RW• 71% able to use their mobile device, 4% were unsure and24% unable to take part – had poor mobile phone receptionand denied access on certain mobile browsers• 14% said they experienced known technical problems, e.g.need to refresh the screen following each question• 75% of respondents said there were differences in usingtheir mobile device:1. seeing graphs on their device’s screen2. being able to provide free-text answers3. being less immediate than the clickers where you just press and go
    9. 9. What do you think of ResponseWare? Let’s try this now.Please connect your mobile device to the Internet and go to www.rwpoll.com - Session ID is MOBILE- You can enter your name if you want (not compulsory)
    10. 10. In this demonstration I’ll be using ResponseWare and TurningPointAnywhere together to enable two- way feedback. You can simply use RW with PowerPoint too. +
    11. 11. In an ideal world, how would you like to use your mobile device(s) in a teaching and learning context?
    12. 12. City Students’ View of RW “(using my mobile) gave me a sense of freedom because I know my“I liked that people weren’t put mobile phone, there’s that level ofat a disadvantage if they didn’t comfort...you’re able to use yourhave the right type of mobile or own stuff without having to rely onwere on pay as you go contracts the clickers”and had to pay to get online” “got me to know how to use “while the questions my mobile phone better!...I were coming up in had no problems with it, I was succession we didn’t fine. I preferred using my mobile phone actually rather really have time to get than clickers...I don’t know distracted, so it wasn’t a why...maybe it’s because it’s problem for me” my own mobile phone...I’m just used to it I guess ”
    13. 13. City Students’ View of RW “I didn’t have feelings either way really, but maybe my mobile was“I couldn’t access the Internet on my slightly moremobile phone without having to pay for distracting...on oneit and that’s pretty much the only reason occasion a text messageI didn’t use it...simply cost (if using came through which led tomobile) I probably would have checked a me reading it after the questions were asked...iftext message on my phone irrespective my mobile had been in myof where it was...in secondary school and bag or pocket it wouldn’t‘A’ levels and stuff you weren’t allowed have been touched. This isphones in your pocket let alone out on a failing on my part, butthe table at University, right there in one brought on by the usefront of you using it for lectures! ” of these phones.”
    14. 14. Lecturer View of RW: CengizTurkoglu from City University
    15. 15. Lessons Learned1. Mismatch between student expectations and student experience, students have their own technology and seem happy to use it2. Pros: Simple, familiar, anonymous, free-text, two-way feedback, PowerPoint integration, parallel use with regular clickers3. Cons: dependent on Internet connection (ideally free WiFi so students not out of pocket), not all students will have right mobile device/browser, limited characters for text feedback, ideal if also supported voting by text, Twitter(?), pricing model could support ad-hoc use4. What Next? – keep exploring features, use more in conjunction with TurningPoint Anywhere (to enable two- way feedback)
    16. 16. Acknowledgements Mike Cameron Kate Reader Educational Development Senior Educational and e-Learning Team, Technologist Newcastle University City University , London Nitin Parmar Ajmal Sultany Learning Technologist Researcher University of Bath City University , LondonPaul JennerTurningPoint Account ManagerReivo Ltd.
    17. 17. Thank you for listening.Any questions?sian.lindsay.1@city.ac.ukhttp://uk.linkedin.com/in/siany#sianylindsay http://www.flickr.com/photos/ianvisits/5107112789

    ×