Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Effects of a Student Response System on the Reading Comprehension Skills of Struggling
Readers in a High School English Language Arts Classroom
Lories Slockbower
William Paterson University
Author Note
This is a research paper submitted for ELCL629/630, Research in Education I & II, in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the Master’s Degree in Education at William Paterson
University, Fall 2012-Spring 2013
ii
Abstract
This study sought to add to research that is under-represented in the scientific literature, the
effects of a student response system (SRS) on reading comprehension and student engagement in
diverse secondary students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. While prior research has
focused on clicker use in mathematics or science classes, this study implemented a SRS during a
four-week period in an urban public high school and included 35 participants from two freshmen
English Language Arts classes, including an honors level. Students responded daily to review
questions after reading informational text. Scores were recorded and tabulated to determine
learning growth. Additionally, pre and post standardized reading assessments and state unit
assessments measured student achievement. Although statistically significant results showing
that clickers helped increase reading comprehension skills were only found for the honors
students, all students appeared to benefit from their use.
iii
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank her professors, Dr. Hillary Wilder and Dr. Heejung An from
William Paterson University for their invaluable knowledge, guidance and patience. She also
thanks Mr. Carlos Rios, Dr. Dennis Vroegindewey, Dr. Burnie Bristow and Mr. Housen
Maratouk for all their technical support; Mrs. Alexandra Gina, Mr. Jason Rieder, Ms. MaryAnne
O’Gorman and Mrs. Judith Rich for their help in gathering instructional materials; Ms.
MaryAnne Perrotta, Mrs. Nicolette Thompson and Mrs. Wendy Munoz for their administrative
support and encouragement. The author expresses deep appreciation to her son and his wife,
David and Megan Nye, for their invaluable statistical support. She also extends deep
appreciation to her family and friends for all their encouragement and understanding when
family get-togethers and conversations were missed due to work on this thesis. Most of all, the
author thanks God for giving her the ability, understanding and physical strength to complete this
project.
iv
Table of Contents
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………...…….. vi
List of Figures……...…………………………………………………………………………….vii
CHAPTER I……………………………………………………………………………………….1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Overview………………………………………………………………………………………..1
Review of the Literature………………………………………………………………..............1
Impact of clickers in a high school setting. ............................................................................. 2
Student engagement. .............................................................................................................. 11
Student learning ..................................................................................................................... 18
Reading comprehension…………………………………………………………………….29
Gender differences…………………………………………………………………………. 34
Summary of the Literature Review ........................................................................................... 40
CHAPTER II ................................................................................................................................. 44
Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................................. 44
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................. 46
Definition of Variables .............................................................................................................. 47
Struggling urban high school students................................................................................... 47
Student Response System…… .. ........................................................................................... 47
Interactive technology………………………………………………………………………47
Reading comprehension skills………………………………………………………………47
Literacy skills…………………………………………………………………………….….47
Student engagement….……………………………………………………………………...47
Formative assessment………………………………………………….……………………48
Hypotheses…………….………………………………………………………………………...48
Hypothesis 1. ......................................................................................................................... 48
Hypothesis 2. ......................................................................................................................... 48
Hypothesis 3…………………………………………………………………………………48
Additional Research Questions .............................................................................................. 48
CHAPTER III ............................................................................................................................... 49
Methods......................................................................................................................................... 49
v
Participants ................................................................................................................................ 49
Materials .................................................................................................................................... 49
Assessment materials ............................................................................................................. 49
Intervention materials ............................................................................................................ 50
Procedures ................................................................................................................................. 50
Pre-intervention procedures ................................................................................................... 50
Pre-intervention assessments ................................................................................................. 50
Intervention procedures ......................................................................................................... 51
Post-intervention assessments. .............................................................................................. 52
CHAPTER IV……………………………………………………………………………………53
Results ........................................................................................................................................... 53
Overview………………………………………………………………………………………53
Analysis of Data……………………………………………………………………………….53
Hypothesis 1 - The effect of a student response system on student engagement……….…..54
Hypothesis 2 - The effect of a student response system on reading comprehension skills ... 56
Hypothesis 3 - The effect of a student response system on formative assessment scores…..60
Additional Research Questions .............................................................................................. 62
Summary of Results .................................................................................................................. 64
CHAPTER V ................................................................................................................................ 66
Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 66
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 71
Educational Implications ........................................................................................................... 73
References ..................................................................................................................................... 79
Appendix A. Sample STAR Renaissance® questions for Pre and Post Tests .............................. 83
Appendix B. Pre-Test Unit 2 State Assessment……………………………………………….…84
Appendix C. Post-Test Unit 3 State Assessment………………………...………………………86
Appendix D. Sample PowerPoint multiple-choice questions……………………………………93
Appendix E. Incidences of Off Task Behavior Chart……………………………………………95
Appendix F. Student Survey……………………………………………………………………..96
vi
List of Tables
Table Page
1. Pre and Post-test results of STAR Renaissance ®Assessment for Intervention
Group
57
2. Pre and Post Unit Assessments for Class A 59
3. Pre and Post Unit Assessments for Class B 60
4. Student Survey Results 63
vii
List of Figures
Figure Page
1. Off-Task Behavior Chart 55
1
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Overview
For several decades colleges have used student response systems, also known as clickers,
to increase student attendance, participation and student achievement in large lecture settings.
The small handheld devices allow students to respond to instructors’ questions that are posed in a
PowerPoint presentation. Their answers can be immediately shown to the class in a bar graph.
Research has cited the advantage of this instant feedback as an aide to instructors and students to
measure understanding of the material. Studies have been largely confined to the use of these
audience response systems in higher education math and science courses. Little research
demonstrates the impact of clicker use in secondary education classes. Since technology has
helped forge significant gains in student learning, research must be expanded to determine if
clickers can engage high school students as they do college students, particularly in subjects
other than math and science.
Review of literature
Although most of the studies regarding student response systems focus on their use in
higher education, their findings are of interest to educators considering their use among high
school students. The limited research conducted in high school settings supports some findings
and poses new questions. While two studies look at the use of technology in regards to its effects
on students’ reading comprehension skills, none have been conducted to examine the use of
clickers in an English Language Arts classroom. In addition to using the word “clickers,” in
reference to automated responses systems, the studies in this review use the following
terminology: Student Response System (SRS), Audience Response System (ARS), Personal
2
Response Devices (PRD), Interactive Classroom Communications Systems (ICCS), Student
Response Technology (SRT), Electronic Voting System (EVS), Personal Response System
(PRS), and Classroom Response System (CRS).
The following literature review will examine the use of clickers and technology in five
areas: usage among high school students, gender differences, reading comprehension, student
engagement, and student achievement. High school students refer to adolescents in grades 9
through 12. Gender differences focus on the difference in attitudes towards clickers between
males and females. Reading comprehension refers to the strategies that assist with the encoding
of information: generating questions, answering questions, summarizing and paraphrasing text.
Student engagement describes the involvement of students with their peers, teacher, and digital
tools as they work on their classroom tasks. Student achievement refers to student performance
on formative and summative assessments.
Impact of clickers in a high school setting research. Studies in this section examine the
use of clickers among secondary education students. Despite their limitations both in size of
participant groups and in duration of their research, these studies tend to correlate with the
findings of researchers on the use of clickers in colleges. Generally, student achievement and
engagement increased when clickers were used in the classroom. However, the studies also point
to the need of more research to confirm whether it is the pedagogy or the technology or a
combination of both that produce favorable results among high school students who use clickers.
Blood (2010) conducted a study to determine if a SRS would increase class participation in
high school students with a low participation rate. The participants were five students (four boys
and one girl); age 15-18, in a self-contained classroom for students with emotional and
behavioral disorders (EDB) in a suburban public high school in the United States. They were
3
identified as low responders because they responded to less than 60% of the questions posed by
the teacher during an observation. Students demonstrated a proficiency in SRS during a practice
session before the study. Each class was 45 minutes long. The teacher would lecture for about 20
minutes followed by students working independently on assignments. Class sessions were
recorded for observational data.
The study took place in two phases in the subject of American history. During the first
phase, students answered formal questions verbally in a lecture without any visual display. In the
second phase, the SRS was introduced and students viewed questions in a PowerPoint
presentation and used the clicker to respond. Researchers measured their response rate, time on
task, percentage correct on daily and end-of-phase quizzes. The study showed a strong
association between SRS and increased response to formal questions. Overall, students
responded to 32% of the formal questions in the first phase compared to 100% when the clickers
were introduced. Questions made up during the class, without the use of an SRS, continued to
have a fairly low response. Therefore, research concluded that a SRS helps increase student
participation.
However, the SRS did not appear to increase on-task behavior. The researcher observed the
students who were off task most often would keep attention long enough to answer with a
clicker, and then return to off-task activities. The researcher suggested that other variables could
account for the off-task behavior such as the lecture format of teaching history to EBD students,
classroom management or peer distraction. The study concluded that a SRS by itself might not
be enough to change disruptive and off-task behaviors in a classroom. In addition, the increase in
student response did not correlate with an increase in achievement as noted by quiz score results.
Therefore, learning was not increased for these students. The scores on the quizzes given at the
4
end of the phase fluctuated and did not correlate with SRS use. The study suggested that factors
should be investigated such as finding the relationship between the opportunity to respond to a
question, the lesson’s content, and the student’s prior knowledge of the subject.
This study is limited in several ways. It involved a small number of students with specific
emotional behavioral problems. It used two sets of questions - formal and informal - in the
study. It's possible that the manner the question was posed, orally or visually in a PowerPoint
presentation, influenced the students’ response behavior. Regular attendance was also an issue as
several of the students missed three days and the study was delayed on occasion because of
teacher absences.
While the study gives evidence that an SRS increases student participation, it does not
show why there is not a correlation of increased learning as evidenced in other studies conducted
on higher education campuses.
Kay and Knaack (2009b) conducted a study to analyze the benefits, problems and usage of
automatic response systems among 213 secondary school science students. They hypothesized
that the use of clickers would increase student engagement and provide formative assessment of
student understanding. However, they also identified possible challenges. These included
decreased student involvement when ARS were used for summative assessment, when the
novelty of ARS faded, stress from limited time when using an ARS, as well as occasional
technical difficulties.
Participants included 213 students of which 107 were males, 105 females and one missing
data. They were enrolled in grades 10, 11, and 12. The ARS were used in biology, chemistry,
physics and general science classes taught by seven teachers with eight to 26 years of teaching
experience. Data was collected from a sample population from seven classrooms in six different
5
secondary schools. Researchers selected students through convenience sampling. While teachers
used the ARS in their classes for three months, the study collected data during the final month
when the ARS was used once or twice.
Teachers used three general assessment-based strategies with the ARS. Findings supported
previous research that formative assessment is rated highly positive rather than summative
assessment. At the end of three months students were surveyed on their usage about ARS.
Researchers found 70% of the students agreed they were more involved in classroom discussion
with the use of ARS. Fewer students commented about their participation and only 12 made
comments about paying attention. These comments indicated that they paid attention more
because they needed the response systems to answer questions. Although students reported being
enthusiastic about using ARS, some reported being stressed and pressured when it was used for a
test purpose. Results from the survey indicated that 35% of secondary students felt badly when
they selected an incorrect response when everybody else selected the correct response. Most
comments about assessments were positive.
The study suggested that while ARS increased engagement and participation, they didn't
necessarily raise attention in class. Researchers weren't sure if the increase in student
involvement at first was linked to the excitement of using the devices or a reflection of how
students learn and teachers’ strategies. They recommended the need for future studies to examine
what exactly engages students when they use ARS. While students agreed they liked using the
ARS to review material before a test, at least 23 students felt that their learning was hampered
when ARS were used in summative assessments.
Another study by Kay and Knaack (2009a) explored the individual differences in attitudes
toward audience response systems among secondary students. Their research revealed that
6
students were more positive about ARS when they were used for formative as opposed to
summative assessments. Their study analyzed six variables that they felt had a significant impact
on ARS including gender, grade, subject area, of a level of comfort with computers, and
participation level.
Their research focused on 659 students enrolled in all high school grades in five different
subject areas including business, computer technology, social science, science and math.
Researchers collected data from 23 different classrooms in 15 different high schools involving
23 teachers. After receiving training on ARS software, teachers used ARS in the classroom for
three months. Each teacher used a laptop computer and LCD projector and ARS system. Data
was collected through a survey in the third month of the ARS use. Ninety-four percent of the
secondary students had reported using the response system once or twice; 6% of the students
used ARS once a week.
Overall, students were positive about the use of ARS. Regarding the gender variable, males
had a significantly better attitude toward ARS than females. Males said they liked using ARS to
test their knowledge and they felt that the ARS helped them improve their learning more than the
traditional methods. The study reported no significant differences in grade levels although closer
analysis revealed that students had slightly more positive attitude when using ARS in science
mathematics. The researchers theorized that social science students had more positive attitudes
perhaps because of the approach rather than the subject and indicated more research must be
done in that area.
When asked how actively they were engaged in a typical class before using ARS, 348
students reported that they only worked occasionally in class. However, 273 students said they
almost always participated. The tests showed that low participation students were actually more
7
positive about the response system that high participating students. The author of the study said
that perhaps grade level had no impact on attitudes in a secondary school environment because
the students are open to new technology. They have had less time than college-age students to
settle into a particular learning pattern.
Overall, they found that the variables that impacted attitude toward ARS the most were
type of use, computer comfort, previous participation level and gender. Grade level and subject
area variables were not. They noted that all four predictors accounted for only 20% of the total
variance in student attitudes regarding ARS. More research is needed to determine other
influences.
While the study seems to support that students are receptive to ARS, it has limitations.
Data was only collected once and the ARS intervention was only used once or twice a month so
the impact may have been different if they were used more regularly. Also, the study didn't
examine a variety of teaching strategies that were used with ARS. For example, ARS research
conducted at the college level has shown the value of peer-based instruction that needs to be
further evaluated.
Barnes (2008) conducted a study using an ARS, Quizdom, in a high school biology class to
determine if a student response system would result in learning gains compared to a formal
lecture and note-taking classroom. This study involved 43 students at an Idaho public high
school from November 27, 2006 to March 2, 2007. Before the intervention, students took a 30 to
42 question ungraded multiple-choice pretest on the first day of each session for three units.
They followed with the post-test at the end of each of the three units. Class periods were 70
minutes in length. Two class sections used Quizdom while the other used lecture and traditional
PowerPoint methods. All the students were exposed to both approaches including other
8
classroom procedures such as labs, videos, and class discussion.
Data was collected through summative assessments and anonymous surveys of the classes
after all the students had experienced both learning methods. Test results indicated that the
lecture-free classes scored an average 2.6% higher than students in the lecture-base classes, but
this was not a statistically significant difference. According to the survey, the majority of
students indicated they preferred lecture-free methods and also that they learned more with the
ARS when compared to lecture-based methods. However, a small majority felt that the ARS led
to more frustration. A large proportion, 93%, believed that Quizdom should be used more days
per week.
Although the gains did not support the researcher's hypothesis that the less the teacher
spoke the more the students learned, student responses indicated that 55% preferred using a
clicker, 20% did not and 25% were neutral. Barnes noted that 68% of the students believed that
working in small groups to answer questions was a better way to learn than answering questions
individually. Also, data indicated if the answer was not immediately shown on the board,
students benefited from the teacher’s discussion to the correct response. Barnes determined that
the use of Quizdom resulted in an increase in student understanding of biology compared to
traditional lecture format and student participation and enjoyment also increased. Unlike college
students whose maturity often allows them to participate in a lecture-only environment, he found
that a high school student may find a lecture-only environment too much of a challenge. Barnes
concluded that a combination of Quizdom and cooperative learning created a better environment
for learning.
Vital (2011) conducted a study that focused on the use of clickers in a high school
chemistry classroom as a form of review in comparison to the usual strategy of a worksheet and
9
oral response. Clickers were used as a form of formative assessment over several years in a
public high school in a suburban upper-class middle-class town in the U.S. Participants were
first-year honors and college preparatory chemistry classes. Students were a mixture of second
and third year and had no prior chemistry classes. Each section had between 22 and 24 students
with an equal number of males and females. Students took 90–minute exams with 40 to 70
questions of which approximately half were multiple-choice, 35% open-ended, and 15%
graphical analysis. Throughout this study identical exams were given. Each clicker had an
assigned number to a student. As a student submitted answers, a color would change in the
clicker display to let the instructor know who responded. When all the responses were tallied, a
bar graph appeared and teachers would hold a discussion as to the choices that students made. A
clicker review session was held several days prior to exams; about 15 to 20 responses helped the
instructor clarify any misunderstandings students had before the exam.
Test results showed some improvement in test scores when clickers were used on three
conceptual units regarding matter and energy, atomic structure and nomenclature compared to
test scores in non-clicker years. In contrast, clickers in this study had little or no effect on
increasing student scores on mathematical concepts compared to non-clicker scores. Since
questions regarding calculations required more time, the use of clickers in those forms reduced
the number of questions that could be asked in a session. Instructors also noted that high school
students in chemistry frequently had difficulty with algebra and lacked the mastery of math skills
that would be evident with clicker usage. However, they noted that clickers offered an advantage
with calculations because if the questions were phrased properly, they might be effective in
revealing exactly where students make the error in thinking.
Classes surveyed in 2009 showed 88% of students agreed that clickers helped them better
10
prepare for summative assessments. About 82% said the use of clickers helped the teacher
understand areas of their weaknesses. Findings of this study paralleled those taken in college
classrooms where students indicated that clickers helped them be more involved, more attentive
and more interactive. A large group, 92% of students, believed clickers helped them understand
class content better and helped them better prepare for summative assessments. While scores did
not always rise with use of clickers, 70% of students indicated their scores improved because of
clickers. Also, 84% agreed the clickers helped them focus on their learning.
Vital concluded that in a secondary classroom clickers could provide positive motivation
and help students to better prepare for summative assessments. He thought the use of clickers
allowed students to have formative assessments without penalizing them thereby creating a
comfortable environment where students could make errors that didn’t affect their grades. He
concluded that while clickers were an effective tool to improve classroom instruction, they had
drawbacks. These limitations include cost durability and equity. The cost for could range from
$700-$1200. Also, technical difficulties, breakage, and time to create the questions can be
obstacles.
A study conducted by Conolye, Croom, Moore, and Flowers (2007) set out to determine if
ARS impacted student achievement. Researchers compared the impact of student feedback from
ARS to non-technology methods. The study measured differences in student achievement
between those students who used the ARS compared to those who received verbal and written
response feedback. The study took place in three sections of Agriscience Applications course at
Southern Nash High School in Bailey, North Carolina. Participants were 61 students and three
teachers. Two classes received the clickers while another class served as a comparison. During
the second half of the instructional unit, group roles were switched. Achievement data was
11
collected in all three sections. All three teachers were trained in the use of ARS. At the
completion of each instructional unit, students took an achievement test and that score was
recorded. The process was repeated for the second unit.
The study determined that students who received feedback through an ARS achieved
higher scores than those who received feedback from non-technology-based methods. The
treatment group had a mean score of 89.98% on a 100-point scale, compared to 84.41% for the
comparison group. While the study recommended that an ARS be integrated in the Agriscience
classrooms, it recognized the limitations of funding, training, and preparation time needed to be
considered before the system is put in place. Another limitation of the study was that it used a
relatively small sample in a particular type of subject matter.
Student engagement. The following research demonstrates the impact of student response
systems on student engagement. These studies were conducted in a college setting.
Using qualitative and quantitative data, Siau, Sheng, and Fui-Hoon Nah (2006) assessed
the effects of the classroom response system (CRS) on student involvement. Hypothesizing that
when students interact with instructors they are more engaged in their learning, researchers
designed a pretest and posttest to measure a CRS in a systems analysis and design course. This
course had limited interactivity and followed a traditional lecture approach.
Participants included 138 undergraduate and graduate students at a large public university
in the Midwestern United States. The study took place in a 16-week semester course that was
conducted in a lecture format until the fall of 2004 when the instructor began using a CRS named
Hyper-Interactive Teaching Technology®, to increase student participation. The first half of the
semester had the traditional class and the second half used the CRS. Students completed a
posttest at the semester’s end to determine their interactivity in the classroom.
12
Researchers measured interactivity in 10 areas: student involvement in the class, their
engagement in the class, student participation in class, students receiving feedback from
instructors and students’ self-assessment. They measured both individual and overall classroom
interactivity. Findings indicated that this CRS enhanced interactivity in the classroom. Before
CRS was used, the average level of interactivity at the individual level was 6.1, and overall, 6.3.
Following the use of CRS, individual interactivity rose to 6.8 and overall class interactivity to
7.1.
Student responses to the qualitative data, which included open-ended questions, revealed
their support for CRS. They thought the system was fun to use in class; they liked the ability to
vote anonymously, and believed they were more involved because of the instant feedback
provided by the clickers. They also responded that the system helped the instructor understand
their level of understanding, but in all, students cited their active involvement in the class as one
of the best reasons for using such a system.
However, students also cited disadvantages. They identified weaknesses in the system as
follows: technical problems, questions are limited to a true and false and multiple-choice format,
some do not use the voting seriously, clickers can be distracting, and the use of the clickers uses
valuable class time.
Researchers concluded that the qualitative comments point to the need of further research
to show how to improve interactivity in the classroom using clickers. While students affirm their
use, they also suggest that technology must work effectively so the transmitter should be checked
before class to make sure batteries are full. Spare transmitters might be available in case others
don't work and also faculty needs to have sufficient training so the use of clickers doesn't disrupt
the pace and flow of the classroom.
13
Sternberger (2012) conducted research to measure student satisfaction when a SRS was
used in the classroom. She used a constructivist approach with the goal of creating a learning
environment that integrated technology and helped the learner formulate higher-level
understanding through discussion and work with peers. Participants were 72 students enrolled in
an undergraduate disaster healthcare course at a public university in the United States. Of the
group, 92% were white and 88% were female. While 13 reported having used clickers in the
past, none had routinely used them in any classes.
The weekend course was taught in a workshop style. The researcher used clickers to
engage the nursing students through a PowerPoint that displayed questions with scenarios and
images. Students used the clickers to record their responses as a group. A histogram of the
composite responses appeared on the screen after all the participants voted. During each topic
session, clickers were used at least four times.
At the end of the course, students took a 50-item multiple-choice comprehensive exam
online through Blackboard. The test posed different questions from those used for class
discussion. However, the questions followed the same categories of apply, analyze and evaluate.
The mean for the exam was 41.8, with scores ranging from 30-49. In addition, students
completed a 22-item questionnaire designed to have them rate the usage of clickers. Results
indicated that study participants strongly agreed that clickers led to active learning and a deeper
understanding of the content. The study revealed three benefits perceived by students using
clickers: the novelty of using them, use of scenarios and images that promote discussion on the
PowerPoint, and clickers made learning fun by creating a game-like environment. Seventeen
participants credited the clickers with improving their performance on the licensing exam
because it gave them a deeper understanding of looking at the information.
14
While the survey responses supported that active engagement in the class led to enhance
learning, the examination scores were not as high as expected. This led researchers to conclude
that the examination for licensing should be completed closer to the course workshop in order to
help students retain knowledge. The study was also conducted the first time the researcher had
used the technology. While the histogram provided important dialogue in the classroom to ensure
understanding, it appeared to the researchers that the knowledge was not retained.
Results from this study did not clearly indicate that the use of clickers enhanced student
achievement as it did student interactivity. The researcher advised more research is needed to
determine whether the novelty of clickers stimulates learners or the type of questions and
collaborative learning with peers and the instructor is the factor that attributed to higher student
achievement.
Gok (2011) conducted a study that examined how SRS provided instructors with an
effective method of engaging students. He addressed the key problems with prior research on
SRS that had included an excessive focus on qualitative data on student attitudes rather than an
examination of the actual learning and cognitive process involved in SRS use. Gok’s research
used both qualitative and quantitative results with statistical analysis from real-life experiences
from both the instructors and students. His data sources included interviews, observation and a
survey.
Participants of the study included six faculty members, three female and three male who
were using clicker technology in their teaching of a broad range of subjects including chemistry,
physics, and geology. They had college teaching experience ranging from eight to 37 years.
Their experience using clickers ranged from less than two years to more than ten. Unlike a whole
class study, Gok used two students per instructor for total of 12 students who represented various
15
academic learning levels from freshman to senior year in a public university, to participate in
interviews. The student sampling included six female and six female students – four freshmen,
four sophomores, two juniors and two seniors. A total of 523 students (241 males, 262 females)
from the teachers’ classes volunteered to take the SRS survey. Of that number, there were 135
freshmen, 129 sophomore, 131 juniors and 128 seniors.
Each instructor provided four sets of classroom slides that demonstrated the range of use
for SRS. The researcher analyzed these slides to see how they followed the taxonomy of critical
thinking. Then, the researcher interviewed the students to learn how they related to the use of
SRS and the teaching strategy. At the end of the semester, students completed an SRS attitude
survey. The researcher also interviewed each instructor to explore their methods and experience
using the SRS.
Instructors indicated that the clickers enhanced classroom learning and teaching, were an
effective tool for helping instructors think about the questions they wanted to ask their students,
and that questions generated a discussion because of the immediate feedback a clicker provided.
Instructors believed clickers increased student engagement and attendance. As mentioned in
other studies, there were glitches in the technical use of clickers; however, these instructors cited
their own personal error as the main reason for these problems. None of the instructors believed
they had mastered the use of clickers at that point.
Researchers who were non-participatory observers in the classroom found that instructors
encouraged their students to hold a peer discussion regarding most of the clicker questions that
were posed. Student interactivity was observed to have highly increased at that point.
Gok analyzed 12 sessions of slides that included 143 clicker-question slides and noted that
most of the clicker slides contained application questions followed by knowledge level slides. It
16
appeared difficult to create higher-level thinking with the multiple-choice questions however
critical thinking was steered to the discussion in the way that the instructors posed the questions.
The researcher suggested that instructors can get a better understanding of students’ difficulties
by using question sequences and then provide corresponding feedback. He recommended they
prepare a single question and answer sequence.
In conclusion, this study determined that university instructors found the SRS beneficial in
increasing student participation and attendance. It enhanced collaborative learning and reduced
the amount of time spent grading and gave the new thoughtfulness to their preparation of their
presentations. Most of the 12 students liked the use of clickers in the classroom and noted they
liked making the peer comparisons with the histogram and enjoyed the discussions that followed.
Most beneficial according to the students in the study was the effective use of clickers to review
and to generate classroom discussion. Most students, however, did not connect the use of
clickers with enhanced higher-level thinking. The study also noted gender differences in relation
to the use of SRS. Male students were significantly more positive than female students about the
use of clickers. Males were more motivated when using SRS and more engaged. They liked
using the SRS, particularly in summative evaluations. Female students, however, said they saw
more stress when using SRS.
Gok’s research supported that of other outcomes, but he believed that his study would
encourage other to examine variables that affect the success of student response systems.
Hoffman and Goodwin (2006) conducted a study that looked at the technology usage in a
university library. In an effort to meet new information literacy standards and help drive student
centered learning, the authors of the study used the clickers at Texas A & M University libraries
in College Station, Texas to teach students library research skills and library orientation. Before
17
introducing clickers to the students, the researchers used them at a meeting in which 30 library
faculty members were asked simple multiple-choice questions. This was a pilot test to gauge the
response time for 30 participants and gave instructors an opportunity for practice before set up in
the remaining library classrooms.
Clickers at TA and new libraries are part of the Interwrite PRS system that has
compatibility with Web CT Microsoft PowerPoint and Microsoft Excel. Researchers loaded the
software into the computer. Instructors used the clickers in three different types of instructional
sessions that each had a unique class objective and served a different student population.
The first class trained 30 faculty members on Web.2.0 concepts and tools. The second class
instructed students on the topic of plagiarism. Clickers were used in this study to assess students’
background knowledge of information literacy standards and ensure that students had a basic
understanding of library services. The third class was attended by students in instruction for
English composition classes to give a general overview of library services. Librarians also
conducted classes using lecture only as a way to compare the effectiveness of SRS. Student
contact time was limited to one 50-minute session.
Students in each session were posed six multiple-choice questions followed by open-ended
questions that were geared to create the basis for a more student-centered environment. Pretest
and posttest questions were asked in order to emphasize the importance of library services and
make sure students understood this information. Clicker questions were included in specific
portions of each lecture.
Clickers worked successfully and enabled the instructors to meet their learning objectives
in all five sessions. Student feedback was positive. Students in their survey actually asked for
more clicker questions to be part of the presentation. Based on observation and feedback, the
18
authors of the study determined that clickers ensure interaction with the audience, keep students
focused, increase participation, promote discussion, increase retention and create a fun
environment for learning.
They also cited challenges to clicker use which have been noted in other studies such as
technology glitches, preparation time as instructors must set aside time to create well-developed
questions, and lastly, the system software had to be installed on every instructor’s computer so a
laptop was recommended for portability.
Researchers noted that the challenges could be resolved through further practice and use of
clickers. However, because of the positive outcome, the instructional services at Texas A & M
planned to expand the use of the student response clickers for all undergraduate library sessions
when the class size is 30 or smaller. Hoffman and Goodwin concluded that the use of clickers for
library instruction has a potential for greater use in many classes for faculty and students alike.
Student learning. This review of literature focuses on how clickers impacted student
learning on college campuses in a SRS lecture-based instruction. Some studies reflect a
measurable increase in student achievement while others report lesser gains.
Blood and Neel (2008) conducted a study on the impact of SRS in lecture-based instruction
on student engagement and learning. They compared student mastery of content between lectures
with a student response system and those without. Researchers determined that engagement
alone was not enough to produce an increase in achievement. Researchers also measured the
level of student satisfaction with the system believing that variable would play a major role in
maintaining student engagement.
Participants in the study were 35 graduate students (28 female and seven male) enrolled in
an introductory course on educating children and youth with behavior disorders at a public
19
university. The course was comprised of 10 three-hour sessions held weekly. Each class included
over one-hour lectures using Turning Technologies® software and PowerPoint slides with
lecture notes and was paired with a class activity. Each pair had one SRS lecture and one
without. In the weeks using SRS, three to five questions to test understanding were added to
PowerPoint presentations where students could receive immediate feedback. During regular
classes, only the PowerPoint presentations were used and there was no immediate testing of
understanding or feedback. In all the sessions, however, any questions students raised were
answered.
A quiz was administered at the end of each class. Students recorded answers on a sheet and
then were polled about the SRS and feedback on their answers was provided. This was done to
control for novelty in using the SRS. Students were unaware of the focus of the research until the
10th week. When the last quiz ended, researchers explained the study and obtained consent to
use the student scores. The study used several measurements: a weekly quiz, weekly
engagement, self-assessment and an overall course evaluation questionnaire at the end of the
quarter.
The results indicated that weekly quiz scores were significantly higher in the SRS sessions
than those of the PowerPoint only sessions. The engagement scores of the SRS sessions were
also significantly higher. However, researchers cautioned that the reason for the improved
learning in this study could not necessarily be tied entirely to the use of SRS. Students did like
the system and they believed it helped play a role in their learning. It was also possible that the
response questions may have helped increase those scores, too. Researchers reasoned that it was
also possible that the clarification of errors while teaching may have increased student
confidence that created an increasing interest.
20
They suggested that more work needs to be done to determine the cause for improved
learning, particularly taking a look at the role of re-teaching a misunderstood concept and the
secondary effect of an instructor’s presentation. The study was limited in that it was only
conducted with one class of students so perhaps the specific features of that class could
determine the results. Also the class was made entirely of graduate students, not the general
college population. It is also possible that the novelty of SRS engaged the students more because
the study was only 10 weeks long.
A study by McCurry and Hunter Revell (2010) sought to determine the effectiveness of
using personal response systems (PRS) in undergraduate nursing research courses. This study
examined class quiz averages between and within groups that used PRS and those that did not.
Researchers wanted to look at the effectiveness of PRS questions on paper and pencil quiz scores
versus PRS-targeted quiz items.
Researchers used Inerwrite PRS® technology system in the fall of 2009 in an introductory
nursing research course on a university campus. One course had 35 students and the other, 29. A
majority of students were women between the ages of 18 to 22 and had more than five years of
experience with technology. Fifty-three percent had previous experience using PRS in another
college.
Each student was given the individual handheld devices at the beginning of class. Both
researchers had taught the course for several years and were more familiar with Interwrite PRS®.
They had developed weekly PowerPoint lectures with formatted multiple-choice, true-false and
fill-in-the-blank questions. An average of four PRS questions for each lecture focused on content
review and assigned readings. Researchers also developed six 10-item unit quizzes to evaluate
student understanding.
21
Analysis of the findings suggested that participants who used the PRS technology
performed better on PRS targeted quiz items and had a greater understanding of course material.
Students in one of the clicker-enhanced classes scored higher, 82.71%, compared to students in
the corresponding class with no clickers, 65.86%. However, Class 2 scored lower with the PRS
usage, 76.21%, compared to the non-PRS technology class average of 83.97%. The variations in
the content for each course could account for the differences in scores that researchers found
between classes.
The findings of this study are limited since the class content ranged from introductory to
theory and classes were taught using different teaching approaches. However, researchers used
individual item analysis and based on that data determined that PRS technology was an effective
strategy to enhance student learning. From this study, they suggested that PRS technology should
be useful in courses where math for medication administration is taught. Clickers can help
educators develop a structured question process to help students solve problems methodically.
Researchers recommended further research that controls for valuables that were not addressed in
this study such as designing a comparison of pretest and posttest scores to demonstrate a stronger
statistical link. Additionally, it may be helpful to look at differences in outcomes of PRS
technology with students from different cultures.
Kennedy and Cutts (2005) conducted a study to determine if there was an association
between students’ use of electronic voting systems (EVS) and their performance on assessment
tasks. The EVS in the Kennedy study involved a computer with presentation software such as
PowerPoint, electronic handsets for students to respond to questions, and a receiver to capture
the students’ answers and project them on a screen.
Study participants were students enrolled in a first-year computer science class at the
22
University of Glasgow in Scotland in 2002. Although 330 students enrolled in the class, data was
fully obtained from a subset of 241 students. The researcher used EVS the first semester and
those students who used both the end-of-semester and end-of-year assessments were included in
the content study. The EVS were used in 13 lectures with about two to six questions each session
for a total of 33 by semester’s end. Nine questions asked about their general study attitudes and
the others regarded course content. Students were given about two minutes to respond and were
encouraged to discuss their proposed responses with a neighbor but peer-based discussion was
not a major strategy used. Students received immediate feedback with their responses displayed
on the screen. Classroom discussions were held to clarify any misunderstandings, but students
rarely had the opportunity to respond to an EVS question for second time.
Students’ performance was measured with an end-of-semester test and a final exam.
Researchers found variations in student learning outcomes. The results from both stages of
testing were consistent showing that there is an association between EVS usage and learning
outcomes for students who generally have a higher achievement level. The analysis also showed
that students who were frequently given the EVS and were relatively correct when answering the
questions performed significantly better than other students who generally answered less
correctly in the EVS over the course of a semester. The latter tended to perform more poorly on
informal assessments whether or not they were high or low responders using the clicker. This
was a pattern that persisted over the course of study.
Initially researchers suggested that EVS assist student learning by encouraging active
participation and providing instant feedback. They speculated that students using the EVS would
have higher learning outcomes because they could see the correctness of their response.
However, the study did not indicate a correlation with students who were not high achievers. For
23
students who do critically think and construct their answers, the EVS would be profitable.
Researchers concluded that learning benefits associated with using EVS seemed to be most
observed in students who had a level of content knowledge that more easily connect their
understanding to the material during the course of lesson. Researchers concluded that processing
or re-processing material from a lecture is not beneficial to all students. The high number of
incorrect responses indicated that some students were not thinking of the lecture material in a
constructive manner. For these students, EVS may not be useful, particularly if they do not
participate in a class-wide discussion. The study indicated that higher ability students perform
better in the class-based assessments, which may indicate that there is little educational benefit of
using EVS other than giving the lecturer a way of identifying struggling students. However, the
fact that low EVS use in high-ability students did not result in higher assessment scores tends to
conflict with that conclusion. Therefore, this investigation is somewhat inconclusive in this
matter since low-usage high-ability category students did not emerge in the second cluster
analysis. Maybe other variables for high-performing students such as attendance, accurate
response and high motivation may account for the positive connection between their
performance and the use of EVS.
Researchers were surprised at the low proportion of correct responses given by students.
Even students who did well in assessment tasks only answered about half of the EVS questions
correctly. Students correctly answered lectures questions only 20 to 25% of the time, which,
according to Kennedy, highlighted the need for instructors to make sure questions were at an
appropriate level and that they provide appropriate feedback. Lectures must be tailored to the
students’ needs because students were not given the opportunity to respond to an EVS question a
second time.
24
The study did not address whether the instructors’ explanation was effective in clarifying
their students’ initial misunderstanding. In this study students were not given opportunity to
discuss their answers with each other. If the study was modified to accommodate repeat voting
and peer-based discussion, it may be expected that higher scores would be made on the
assessments. However, over the course of the semester, frequency and correctness of students’
responses were found linked to their performance on the end-of-semester assessment. Further
research is recommended to see the impact that repeat voting and peer discussion between
questions would have on assessments.
Martyn (2007) conducted research to determine whether clickers or pedagogy of active
learning were responsible for improved learning outcomes in a class. The study also examined
how students perceived their own learning in comparison to clickers and classroom discussion.
Participants in this study included 92 students in four sections of an introductory computer
information class at a small liberal arts college in the Midwestern United States.
Two sections used clickers (45 students) while the other two sections (47 students) used
only class discussion and raised hands to assess student learning. The majority of participants
were 18 to 22 years of age, full-time students. Student achievement was measured by a pretest
and posttest. Students also completed a perception survey to determine their thoughts on a
Student Response System (SRS). All classes met twice weekly for 75 minutes per course and
included lecture and question sessions. Clicker responses were collected by Turning Point
Technology® software that uses PowerPoint. The four classes were taught by the same instructor
and used the same textbook, learning materials, and assessments.
To measure learning outcomes, the researcher used the comprehensive final exam at the
semester’s end and took a pretest at the beginning of the study to note any statistical significance
25
between the two test groups.
There was no statistical significance between the pretest and posttest scores of the two
groups. The mean score for the comprehensive exam for the group using clickers was 85.80 and
for group discussion group, the mean was 87.19. The average pretest score for the group that
used clickers was 49.18, compared to 51.72 for the class discussion group. In contrast, the seven-
question perception survey results indicated mean scores were consistently higher for students
who had used clickers. Students perceived the benefit of using clickers and recommended them
for future classes. However, contrary to the researcher’s hypothesis, clickers did not improve
learning outcomes more than the traditional active learning approach of using a class discussion.
The lower assessment scores for the clicker group might be explained by the author’s
inexperience integrating the clickers into her teaching. It was her first experience of using
clickers in a classroom. Martyn suggested more research is needed to determine if the new
technology can enhance the benefit of using traditional active learning approaches.
Greer and Heaney (2004) conducted a study to determine the value of student response
technology (SRT) in a large introductory geo-science course that was taught in the traditional
lecture format. Researchers wanted to observe the impact of more progressive teaching methods
that would encourage student involvement and comprehension. Their purpose was to encourage
student participation and develop problem-solving skills during a class time that had an average
attendance of less than 50% by the midpoint of the semester. They wanted to see if SRT
enhanced both student learning and instructor teaching. To measure this, researchers conducted
an assessment of student opinions on the benefits and advantages of using technology and
compiled data using student surveys and attendance records. They also collected data from
student interviews and from faculty who observed operation of SRT in their classes.
26
The study took place between spring semester of 2002 and 2003 in four sections of large
classes of an earth science course at Penn State University. Instructors developed questions
included in the categories of quantitative problems, popular misconceptions of science, applied
reasoning and critical thinking. Generally, the instructors presented material, posted a problem
then asked the students for a response. They allowed a discussion on the SRT question after
students wrote down their initial individual response. The instructor led a group discussion after
the students had responded to the question and the results were projected on the screen.
Although this study did not actually prove that student learning was enhanced by the SRT,
its assessment results indicated that the students perceived the SRT as an enhancement to their
learning process. Even though students had to purchase their own SRT, nearly 90% of the
respondents favored continue usage of it because it was effective in their learning.
Researchers saw an increase in attendance from 30 to 40% to 81 to 84% by the midpoint of
each semester. This broke a 10-year pattern where attendance hovered around 50% despite the
use of daily quizzes that were part of attendance. The SRT responses, regardless of correct or
incorrect answers, were 5% to 15% of the final grade.
The researchers believed that their experience in the use of SRT developed a rapport
between the professor and students in large lecture environments.
The qualitative and quantitative assessments supported the conclusion that the SRT is
perceived by students to be a useful teaching tool. While the study can't determine which part of
an interactive classroom setting - structure, or the think, pair, share techniques or the SRT
enhanced the course - it did suggest that the technology gives students a sense of ownership in
the course content. Students became emotionally invested in their results often cheering when
they had a correct answer. The study did show that incorporating SRT in the classroom required
27
additional effort on the part of the instructor by learning how to use the software-developed
questions that are appropriate when constructing lessons in such a way as to make an interactive
classroom. They concluded that SRT is most effective when instructors are flexible in the
classroom and use student response results to guide their teaching. They recommended future
research to more fully assess the use of SRT as a learning tool and cautiously predicted benefits
of the response technology to flow into other areas of geology classes on the college level.
Fallon and Forest (2011) conducted a study which compared outcomes for clickers and
handheld response cards. Researchers assessed students’ test performance along with their
feelings of anxiety and expectations for upcoming tests after attending review sessions for an
introductory psychology course. Considering all the publicity regarding the use of clickers,
researchers wanted to try a low-cost method to see if learning outcomes were any different.
Participants in their study were 70 undergraduate students enrolled in two sections of a general
psychology course. All students were 18 to 21 attending a small comprehensive college in New
England. Among the many academic emotions that could affect learning, researchers targeted
one positive emotion, hope, and one negative emotion, anxiety, in regard to testing. Students
rated their emotions on a scale of one to nine before the review started. After their review, they
rated their feelings of preparedness and anxiety. Researchers also asked students to rate the
overall usage of the review, using a response range of one to nine. For the review, researchers
presented 10 multiple-choice questions each with four possible answers, similar to those that
students would respond to during tests. Response cards were 6 x 8 index cards, and the student
response system was CPS 3.2, a classroom performance system. Review sessions occurred five
times during the semester, the evening before tests.
For the first review, students used response cards in one session and clickers in another.
28
For the next three reviews, students alternated between clickers and response cards. By the end
of the study period, students had use clickers or hand-held response cards an equal number of
times.
Results showed that clickers improved students’ experience in answering an interactive
problem during a focused review session. During the first half of the study, test scores for
students in Session A were higher when students used clickers rather than cards. However,
students also improved over the semester when using response cards. Emotionally, students felt
moderately more prepared as the semester progressed during the first half. Students in Session A
reported greater gains in preparedness after they used clickers but the feelings of preparedness
when using cards improved over the semester. Regarding their level of anxiety, students reported
less anxiety with the use of clickers, as well as response cards. They also said that reviews were
slightly more effective with the use of clickers. While all the students surveyed said they
preferred clickers to response cards, 24 students, 72.73%, said they especially favored the
anonymity provided by clickers. The authors of the study showed that clickers didn't produce
tremendous improvement in test scores or increases in feelings of hope or reductions of anxiety
over low-tech methods. However, their data supported that clickers incurred benefits for some
students at different times during the semester.
Researchers cautioned that the students who attended all reviews might not have been
representative of those that did not. Those who attend review sessions perform better on tests.
Each review session was small, just 35 students. Therefore, these findings may not be
representative for larger classes that did use clickers throughout the semester. Despite the
limitations, researchers concluded students overwhelmingly preferred clickers to response cards
because of the anonymity. They concluded that clickers might benefit certain students at
29
different times during the semester.
Reading comprehension. While there was a lack of research involving the use of clickers
in reading comprehension, there is literature which supports the use of technology as an
intervention to help increase reading achievement at a high school level. One of the studies
examined the use of technology in an independent silent reading program in a public high school
while the other studied the effectiveness of a technology-supported strategy for Chinese reading
at a high school in Taiwan.
Cuevas, Russell and Irving (2012) conducted a study to examine the effect of customized
reading modules on the reading comprehension and motivation levels of secondary urban
students. Research findings were based on a five-month study of 145 students from nine 10th
grade English classes taught by three different teachers at a large urban public high school of
approximately 2,200 students near Atlanta, Georgia. Students, between 15 and 17 years of age,
reflected the makeup of the school: 76% African American, 21% Caucasian and 3% other.
Females made up 46% of the final sample that did not include special education students or
English language learners. The college-prep students were from randomly selected classes with
an average reading grade level of 5.7 at the beginning of the semester.
Participants were divided into three groups: 70 in the control group, 45 in the first
treatment group, and 30 in the second treatment group. The control group did not have
Independent Silent Reading (ISR), but read the same material in the usual manner with student
read-alouds, teacher readings, and small-group readings. In comparison, both treatment groups
participated in weekly in-class ISR, but with assessment questions to check student learning.
Treatment 1 groups used the standard textbook ISR for one hour each week followed by opened-
ended questions. Treatment Group 2 read the same literary selections on the computer with tools
30
equipped to improve comprehension. Students read the material by clicking through the
slideshows at their individual pace.
While the study showed that the IRS groups showed greater growth in reading
comprehension than the control group, the computer module ISR group demonstrated the
strongest performance on all of the internal reading assessments. Thus, the research found that
the tools that came with the computer reading package appeared to help students better
understand the texts. In regard to student motivation, the greatest increase occurred in the
students who read from the computer modules. Comparisons revealed that there was not a
significant difference between the control group and the textbook group. The authors concluded
that students who read from computer reading modules demonstrated an increase in reading
comprehension and motivation. Their findings are consistent with other research that argues
technology may enhance academic motivation. However, the researchers admit several
limitations of their study. It did not consider the roles of the comprehension questions and an
hour of ISR on the students’ comprehension levels. Also, the study did not measure the impact of
the newness associated with computer modules that may have stimulated interest; nor did it
examine teacher effects, either, although the ISR method is student centered. Sample size of the
computer module group was only 24 students by semester’s end.
A study conducted by Chang, Lan, Chang and Sung (2010) explored how a handheld
system supported individual and cooperative reading activities of students and how these devices
assisted teachers to implement reading strategy instruction in Chinese language classes. Research
asserted that the ability to use a reading strategy was linked to reading comprehension, meaning
that poor readers lacked the sophisticated cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies that facilitated
reading comprehension. For the purpose of the study, the authors determined that reading
31
comprehension begins with character definition, then sentence, then paragraph message and
finally whole text. They asserted that understanding Chinese reading comprehension would
require students to have some knowledge of Chinese characters in words. According to the
researchers, Chinese reading classes encountered two problems: instructors used a teacher-
centered approach and did not understand students’ reading processes and didn't help students
use reading comprehension strategies when reading Chinese. To address these problems,
researchers used cooperative learning and a mobile-assisted Chinese reading program known as a
Wireless Handheld System (WHS) that helped Chinese teachers understand the students’ reading
behaviors. Their research was one of the few mobile-related studies that were found on Chinese
reading.
The WHS had two modules, one for the individual and one cooperative. The individual
model used commonly used reading strategies including setting reading goals, self-interpretation,
guessing strategy, word highlighting, recognizing strategies used, note-taking and summarizing.
The cooperative reading model used group discussion, and individual accountability. Students
logged into the WHS to obtain their reading materials. They identified the target article that
helped them set a reading goal. Students then were asked to adopt a guessing strategy to explain
the meaning of target words that teachers assigned them. To help the students guess
meaningfully, several language learning strategies such as notebook summarizing and
highlighting were embedded in the individual reading module of the WHS. When students
finished guessing at word meanings, they submitted a complete explanation of target words.
After the individual reading segment, students went to cooperative learning activities and still
using the WHS, they attempted to answer student questions and they could share their answers
and strategies with other students. Each individual member had to complete their tasks before the
32
cooperative learning discussions would be able to begin. The WHS also gave teachers real-time
information about the students’ reading performance, both individually and in a group-learning
context. The system collected all the information from the entire learning process and produced a
statistical chart both during individual learning and the cooperative learning phases.
The samples in this study were taken from two classes of grade 10 students who were an
average of 16 years of age in a large public high school in Taiwan. Each group contained 43
students who had just completed the high school entrance exam and had the same percentile rank
in their scores. It was assumed that these two classes had the same level in Chinese reading
proficiency and the same ability to apply Chinese reading comprehension strategies. All
participants were then classified into two categories based on their midterm achievements. They
were classified as those with high or low Chinese reading ability. The top one third or 15
students of each class were assigned to a high subgroup. Researchers also created an attitude
questionnaire to identify students’ attitudes toward using the WHS in Chinese reading.
Over an eight-week period, participants covered nine Chinese reading units. Both the
experimental and control groups read the identical midterm materials with the same target words
and questions. Teachers scored for individual reading and cooperative learning activities;
however, the pre-reading phases differed according to the usage of the WHS. Before the
technology intervention, the class control group used a conventional method to preview activities
such as studying at home, marking questions, and guessing the meaning of target words. The
experimental group, however, used the handheld device to access WHS for both individual
reading activities and cooperative word discussions.
The study found that students with high and low Chinese abilities in the experimental
group did not perform differently based on test scores. However, scores for the total course for
33
students with high or low Chinese language abilities in the control group varied the most
especially because the scores of students with high ability were significantly higher than those
with low ability in the control group. Students in the low experimental Chinese language ability
subgroup had higher scores than those in the control group.
The results of the student survey indicated that 66% agreed that the cooperative learning
activity using a WHS improved their opinion about group discussion. Only two students
disagreed with that statement; 11 students were neutral. Researchers determined that students
believed that using the WHS in cooperative learning activities increased the willingness to
participate in group-reading activities. Overall, 58% of students agreed that WHS helped them
understand reading articles and helped them think deeply about the meaning of the articles. Of
the respondents, 57% agreed that usage of the WHS in Chinese class helped them to think more
about the content of the articles and about 45% of the students agreed that the WHS was easy-to-
use and that the integration of WHS with Chinese teaching activities helped them think about
reading. The most negative attitude regarded the stability of the wireless Internet connection that
was needed to make the system work. More than half, 57% of the participants indicated the
connection was either unstable or very unstable. Overall, 80% of the students liked cooperative
learning activities while 57% students indicated they liked group discussion activity. Some
students preferred the individual reading activities because they considered the system easy to
use and helped them think about context.
The researchers concluded that a WHS reduced problems that were previously experienced
in Chinese reading classes with more than 50 students. In addition to providing learning support
for individual students, it gave language teachers the immediate and specific feedback needed to
understand the students’ reading process. It also benefitted students who had a low Chinese
34
reading ability to improve their ability in applying reading strategies. Authors suggested that
future studies should evaluate the effects of the WHS on student’ Chinese reading
comprehension proficiency. Researchers believe that although this work was conducted in
Taiwan with Chinese reading activities, the same technology could be applied to a reading
process using other languages.
Gender differences. Throughout the research of clickers among college and high school
students, the gender variable often indicated that males preferred usage of a student response
system when compared to females. This review looks at two articles that analyzed these
differences in an interactive communications classroom.
King and Joshi (2008) examined the gender differences associated with the use and
effectiveness of clickers in the classroom. Their research was conducted during two terms of a
large enrollment general chemistry course for engineering students at a research university in the
United States. Because this was not a course required for majors, the study did not have a bias
toward students with strong chemistry aptitude. All students were majoring in some type of
engineering so it was assumed they had a comfort level with math and science. Data was
collected during the winter term 2006 (W06) in three lecture sessions and spring 2006 (S06).
One lecture session was offered when clickers were used in the class with no particular points or
extra credit associated with the use of the clickers. The other two lecture sections did not use
clickers. The clicker use was not graded during W06, but was a component of each student’s
course grade during the spring term of 2006 (S06) when all students used the clickers.
Participation represented 5% of the final grade with full credit earned by answering at least 75%
of the clicker questions over the course of the term, regardless whether the answers were correct.
As a comparison, the previous year’s lecture section was used.
35
The W06 lecture contained 31 females and 141 males. The second winter non-clicker
sections contained 64 females and 297 males. The spring 2006 class contained 11 females and 91
males and the spring 2005 class contained 14 females and 91 males. The gender imbalance was
the same as the gender imbalance observed during the chemistry course that was offered in the
previous term. Radio frequency response cards from Turning Point Technologies were used
during W06 and S06. Each student was assigned a clicker number at the beginning of the term
and picked up the same clicker at the start of class. Any student who answered 75% or more the
clicker questions during lecture was considered to be actively participating. In the W06 clicker
section, 39% of the females were active, compared to 28% of males. The mean percentage of
questions answered was higher for female students, 62% than for the male students at 48%.
Unlike the W06, the percentage of questions answered was not significantly different
between male and female students during S06 when the median percentage of questions
answered was 82% for female and 78% for males. The higher degree of participation for both
genders during the spring term is not surprising since participation was part of the grade during
that term.
Researchers found that both male and female students who actively participated in the
lecture were more likely to have higher final grades in the courses. The average final grades for
the non-clicker sections appeared to be in close agreement with the non-active students. The non-
active students did about the same as students in the sections without clickers. This supported
prior research that active participation correlates with higher academic achievement. The larger
improvement for final grades for male students suggested that males who participated in the class
received a greater benefit from the clickers in the course; however, researchers agreed that with
this limited population, it is not possible to identify the reason for the difference. They suggested
36
that one factor could be that non-active females had higher final grades than the nine active
males. While the average grade improvement was the same during each term, the benefit of
requiring clicker use is that a greater number of students received this benefit when participation
was tied to their course grade.
Overall, data showed there was no difference in course performance between male and
female students during either term. Final course grades were slightly higher for the inactive
female student than any inactive male student during both terms and slightly lower for the active
female students than the active male students during S06. However, none of these differences
were statistically significant. These results correlated with some observations that male and
female students have similar levels of academic success in undergraduate science and
engineering courses.
Researchers also noted they did not know why stronger correlations between classroom
participation and participation-related course components were not observed for female students
during W06 and for male students during both terms. They also noted that while classroom
participation did not appear to be a strong indicator for student learning, there was evidence that
those who answered the question in class performed better on exam questions on related content.
During both terms, students who answered a question in class, whether or not they did so
correctly, were more likely to be correct on a related exam question than students who did not
answer a question. The students who answered incorrectly were able to identify their
misunderstandings and correct them before the exam. Researchers concluded that female
students participated more actively than their male peers when participation was measured by the
use of a personal response device. Their relative difference was the same regardless of whether
participation was voluntary or part of the grade. Students who actively participated by answering
37
75% of the questions over the course of the term generally earned higher grades for the course.
Researchers found a strong correlation between active participation and grade improvement for
male students than for female students, although additional information and a larger data set are
needed to identify the cause of this difference. Researchers observed significant correlations for
male students between classroom participation and the variety of course components. However,
there was no statistical significant correlation observed for female students. The strongest
correlations for female students were observed between basic course components such as
recitation and online homework and participation. They recommended more study to observe if
classroom participation is more highly correlated with recitation, online, homework grades than
other components for female students but not for male students. It was observed that female
students were more likely to use clickers suggesting that technology can be used in the classroom
to encourage and increase engagement of female students in science and engineering classrooms.
This study demonstrated that technology did not create a barrier for female students in such
courses. It also demonstrated that the use of clickers might have raised student achievement on
related exam questions since it was shown that more students actively used clickers when they
were used as part of their course grade.
Kay (2009) conducted a study to examine gender differences in attitudes toward using an
interactive classroom communication system among 659 secondary school students. While
considerable research was done to explore gender differences in technology, no research had
been done on gender differences in the use of interactive classroom communication systems
(ICCS); instead researchers focused on potential benefits, challenges and strategies.
Kay asserted that there were two challenges associated with using such technology: signals
frequently didn’t register on the teacher's computer creating stress for students, and some
38
students reacted negatively to a different approach to learning. In his study, he investigated
gender differences in attitudes toward (ICCS) among secondary students.
Participants were 659 students who included 327 males, 327 females, five missing data, in
grades nine through 12. Subject areas where ICCS was used included computer technology,
social science, business science, and math classes. At the start, 87% of the students claimed they
were comfortable or very competent in using technology. The study also included 23 teachers, 16
male and seven females who had one to 26 years of teaching experience. All reported they were
comfortable with technology.
All teachers used the ICCS for three months with data being collected through an online
anonymous survey in the last month. During the final month when the ICCS was used, 94% of
the students reported using it once or twice; only six percent had used it once a week.
Analysis of the data indicated that male secondary students were significantly more
positive than females in rating the nine survey items asking about attitude toward learning with
ICCS. Male students were more receptive to both formative and summative assessments and said
they were more involved in their class because they felt they learned more when ICCS was used.
However, it was noted that the males in this study had a higher comfort level with computers
than their female counterparts. The differences in computer level comfort had a direct role in
attitudes toward the ICCS. In overall learning, males had significantly a more positive view than
females; however, attitudes about student involvement and formative assessment showed no
differences between genders. Some female students said that using ICCS increased stress levels
when they were used on formal tests. In contrast, a number of male students were more accepting
of ICCS, describing it as a fun way to learn or take tests. Although a small group of male and
female students clearly differed in their attitudes toward the use of ICCS, the majority of students
39
were more similar than different in their comments about using the system.
Researchers were puzzled by the impact of computer comfort level for four reasons: ICCS
remote devices are easy to use; most students had worked with the system for at least three
months so it was assumed they had a certain comfort level with the technology; no student in the
study complained that the devices were complicated. In explaining the impact of comfort level,
researchers suggested that when some students felt uncomfortable with computers, it led to a
level of anxiety that interfered with learning no matter how easy the technology. They thought
another explanation might be that female students found verbal and or written interaction more
satisfying than clicking a device. More research is needed to examine the impact of computer
comfort level toward ICCS use.
With such a large sample size, researchers did not anticipate differences in the use of ICCS
based on gender; however, for an unknown reason, female students experienced more summative
assessment use than male students, and male students experienced formative assessment use
more than female students. When the comparisons between genders were controlled for type of
use, several significant differences disappeared. Male students were no longer first significantly
more positive about participation and formative assessments. In other words, these differences
would not have been observed had each gender experienced the same strategies for using ICCS.
On the other hand, male ratings of ICCS classes being better overall more motivating, generating
more discussion, and increasing the amount learned, continued to be significantly higher than
those in several key areas regardless of the instructional strategy used. Only three strategies,
summative assessment, formative assessment, and mix were examined. Based on the type of
assessment goals dictated by the teachers, different results might occur. Apparently computer
comfort level and type of use had an impact on gender-based attitudes toward ICCS.
40
The study noted that a small number of female students might have felt uncomfortable
using remote devices to answer questions. The researcher recommended instructors must explain
why and how clickers will be used in the classroom to reduce the anxiety of some female
students. Also, instructors should practice problems before using the clickers for formative or
summative assessment. Most students, regardless of gender, reacted positively to using ICCS to
access understanding of formative concepts.
Summary of the Literature Review
Research regarding the use of a student response system has focused on its effect on
student learning, student engagement, student participation and gender preferences. Mostly
confined to experience in large college lecture settings, some studies have examined their use
among secondary students. However, most researchers in both domains tend to report variations
in data that do not conclusively support the idea that the use of SRS will benefit all students.
Studies by Blood (2010), Kay and Knaack (2009b), showed that SRS in secondary
classrooms may increase student participation, but that technology use does not always translate
into greater attention in class. For example, Blood noted that students’ off-task behaviors
continued after they pressed the button to respond on the clicker. Like findings in Kay and
Knaack’s (2009b) research, SRS do not necessarily result in increased gains for all content
questions. Some students in Kay and Knaack’s study in a science class improved in assessments
but whether the gains were due to the clickers or the teaching strategy was not confirmed.
High school students surveyed said they favored the use of SRS over a traditional form of
review using paper or raised hands (Barnes, 2008; Blood, 2010; Conolye, Croom, Moore &
Flowers, 2007; Kay & Knaack, 2009b; Vital, 2011). However, the student preference didn’t
necessarily correlate to increased achievement (Barnes, 2008; Vital, 2011). While Barnes
41
recommended use of SRS and cooperative learning, students using clickers only showed an eight
percent gain. This result is similar to Vital whose students that used SRS demonstrated some
improvement in unit tests, but not in mathematical concepts. Their studies raise questions as to
which variable when using an SRS actually contributes to gains in achievement by some students
and which variable increases student participation.
This same quandary exists following studies of SRS on college campuses. College students
overwhelmingly approved of SRS over a straight lecture (Blood & Neel, 2008; Gok, 2011;
Hoffman & Goodwin, 2006; Kennedy & Cutts, 2005; McCurry & Revell, 2010; Siau, Sheng,
Fui-Noon Nah, 2006; Sternberger, 2012;). Yet, students’ perception that the clickers helped
them retain knowledge and improved their class engagement did not consistently hold up when
compared to statistical evidence (Greer & Heaney, 2004). As seen in studies on a college level,
an SRS may help increase student achievement in the short term, but students may not retain that
knowledge over the long term (Sternberger, 2012). Her study did not clearly show a consistent
link between student achievement and participation rate. Likewise, Martyn, (2007) also tried to
find a link between gains in learning and SRS participation. Although the pre-tests scores were
static, students perceived a benefit but there were no real gains in learning.
Similarly, Gok (2011) noted that SRS appeared to create enhanced learning. Yet, because
the questions were not reflective of higher-level thinking skills, students may have benefited
from the review questions following the use of the clicker rather than the clicker itself. His
research was supported by Blood and Neel (2008) whose graduate students scored higher on
assessments and class engagement with an SRS. They, too, wondered if review questions using
an SRS or the re-teaching of a misunderstood concept increased student achievement. More
research must be done in this area.
42
Learning outcomes appear to be higher for students who are already high achievers
(Kennedy, et al., 2005). While high users and high achievers did well on assessments, the study
was inconclusive because low-usage, high ability students did not perform better on assessments
after using the clickers. It wasn’t until the end of the semester that student frequency and
correction of their response through an SRS was linked to the assessment. Similarly, Fallon and
Forest (2011) found that only students who were motivated and attended the review session saw
an increase in scores after using SRS. In their study, even students who used the hand-held cards
improved, but students preferred the clickers because they provided anonymity.
For the most part, studies on the use of SRS are limited to science, math and business
courses. Research has not been conducted to learn of the effects of SRS on English Language
Arts Skills. However, technology tools have been shown to increase reading skills in secondary
students (Chang, L., Chang, C., & Sung, 2010; Cuevas, Russel, Irving, 2012). Students who read
on a computer module and use the related tools show an increase in reading (Cuevas et al. 2012).
Their research is supported by Chang et al. (2010) whose participants showed gains in reading
Chinese when using a hand-held device. More than half the participants agreed that the
technology tool helped them develop their Chinese language skills. While these researchers
conclude that the computer is a motivational tool, their study did not consider the role of
individual variables such as the review question format, cooperative learning, and teacher
feedback. Further research is necessary to explore these areas.
While research shows a consensus that students support the use of SRS, some studies
indicated that males preferred the system more than females who often stressed at using the
clickers for summative assessments (Kay, 2009). Kay suggested that females may find verbal
responses more satisfying than using a technology tool. In contrast, King and Joshi (2008)
43
examined gender differences in a college chemistry class for engineering students and found that
males and females who actively participated were likely to have higher final grades. Their
gender issue data was not as significant as participation. While non-active females, those who
didn’t use SRS regularly, had higher grades than the males, there was a stronger correlation
between active participation and grade improvement for males. The researchers found that
students who answered more in class tended to be more correct on the exams, a finding that
supports Kay and Knaack (2009a).
The limitations of these studies point to the need for research in the area of how SRS
impact the learning and engagement of secondary students in an English Language Arts (ELA)
class. Prior research has established the effectiveness in raising student achievement in the math,
science and business classes, in large lecture halls, and in a college library. A further study needs
to address whether secondary students can develop their reading comprehension through
properly phrased questions that are part of SRS, as well as increase their interest in the class
because of the clickers and class discussion. Lecture and note taking has long been the pedagogy
for an English class. Clickers may prove to be beneficial to some students if they were able to
review the material in a setting that gives them instant feedback and anonymity. For struggling
readers, who are often embarrassed by their lack of understanding, the clicker might be a most
useful tool.
44
CHAPTER II
Statement of the Problem
America’s long-term trends in adolescent literacy reflect a crisis where more than 60
percent of middle and high school students scored below the “proficient” level in reading
achievement according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) (U.S.
Department of Education, 2009). They can’t understand what they read, provide supporting
details to the main idea or understand inferences in the text. While strong literacy skills are
needed in the 21st century work place, the literacy skills of 17-year-olds on the NAEP have
remained unchanged in the past 40 years (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2009). Statistics are
even more dismal among the urban minorities and English Language Learners who face serious
socio-economic issues. Researchers found that half of incoming freshmen in urban, high-poverty
schools read three years or more below grade level (Balfanz, McPartland, & Shaw, 2002).
Education advocates reported that 18% of eighth grade students who are eligible for free and
reduced-price lunch reached the proficient level in reading in comparison to 44% of their more
affluent peers. They also reported that students with low literacy skills make up a large portion
of the 7,000 high school students who drop out every day (Alliance for Excellent Education,
2011).
The low literacy skills are also a problem for those students who are accepted into college
and need remedial classes. They still struggle to read complex text. For example, a little more
than half of high school graduates who took the 2011 ACT met the reading readiness benchmark
which makes them unprepared for an introductory level college writing course (ACT, 2011).
Therefore, this concern over the low reading skills of America’s youth has led to
nationwide initiatives such as the Common Core State Standards, which establishes literacy
45
standards in all academic subjects, (Common Core Standards, 2012) and Response To
Intervention programs, a framework to differentiate student instruction based on frequent
monitoring of student progress (National Center on Response to Intervention, 2012).
Efforts to close this achievement gap between white and minority students come at a time
when the nation also seeks to infuse 21st century technology skills into the Common Core State
Standards. In its 2012 Adolescent Literacy Position Statement, the International Reading
Association (IRA) points to the changes 21st century technology brought to the world of
adolescent reading and writing, a world with literacy experiences that include the use of
“traditional print materials, the Internet, social media, instant messaging, texting, and video
games, all of which can be used as tools for understanding academic content as well as forming
social relationships” (International Reading Association 2012). While adolescents participate in
all these aforementioned activities, the IRA notes that these activities are often not connected to
the literacy tasks demanded at school. The IRA suggests that this disconnect may contribute to
why adolescents view their English Language Arts classes as “irrelevant” to their lives. Authors
of this position paper reported on the research of Lenhart et al. that found 78% of teens believe
they would be more motivated to engage in writing in school if there were more multimodal
tools available. In its policy statement IRA asserts that adolescents need teachers who are well
trained to use technology to help them think critically and help them understand how to read and
interpret text in a Web 2.0 setting. Its position statement concludes that secondary teachers must
provide a tiered approach to help low-achieving students using the framework of Responsiveness
to Intervention. To assess the learning, IRA recommends that teachers use multiple forms of
assessment, including formative assessments, to monitor student growth (IRA, 2012).
However, urban districts often lack the funding to offer students the tools to provide them
46
access to the technology available to wealthier districts. The U.S. Department of Education’s
program, Enhancing Education through Technology (EET), has made significant contributions to
school districts serving the underprivileged by providing money for technology in the classroom
and professional development for teachers. However, Congress has steadily reduced its budget
and finally merged it with other educational technology grants (National Coalition for
Technology in Education and Training, 2011).
This raises several questions. Would the use of technology raise student achievement in
urban schools? Would adolescents be more engaged in learning if they could use a technology
device to record their responses? How would the use of technology impact reading
comprehension among urban youth?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of using student response systems
to engage ninth graders of varied reading levels and improve their reading comprehension skills.
The study compared the learning of two groups of students, from a regular and advanced class,
who read informational text and analyzed it for author’s purpose, supporting detail, validity and
vocabulary usage. As students participated in a lesson, the teacher-researcher posed questions to
which students responded using the hand-held clickers or hand-held student response cards.
Student response and engagement were analyzed to determine if the use of clickers or response
cards at various points in a lesson impacted student comprehension of the text and increased
student activity in the learning process. The teacher-researcher also documented student reaction
to the use of technology or hand-held cards as well as any difficulties using the clickers.
47
Definition of variables
Struggling urban high school students. Struggling urban high school students in this
study refers to ethnically diverse males and females of a lower socio-economic background,
approximately 14-18 years of age.
Student Response System. Also known as hand-held clickers, a student response
system is a tool for students to use to record their responses to questions projected on an
electronic white board. Clickers help in formative assessments by providing instant feedback to
the teacher and to the students. If each student uses the same clicker for each set of questions, the
software will also record individual student responses. Hand-held cards, using dry erase markers
and an eraser, are a non-technical student response system.
Interactive technology. In this study, interactive technology refers to any technology
tool used by students in a manner that engages them in a learning environment.
Reading comprehension skills. In this study, reading comprehension skills are those
skills necessary to become a proficient reader. These skills include: phonemic awareness or the
ability to distinguish and recognize the sound structure in a word; knowledge of the complete
phonetic code or the understanding of vowel and consonant sounds in words; reading from left to
right; blending individual sounds smoothly and finally, paying attention to all the letters and
sounds in a word without skipping them.
Literacy skills. Literacy skills in this study refer to those skills necessary to read and
write. They include the awareness of language sounds, the printed word and the link between
letters and sounds, comprehension, vocabulary and spelling.
Student engagement. Student engagement, in this study, describes the involvement of
students with their peers, teacher, and digital tools as they work on their classroom tasks.
48
Formative assessment. In this study, formative assessment refers to frequent checks in
the classroom instruction to determine if students understand the material.
Hypotheses
It is generally expected that struggling urban high school students who use student
response systems will demonstrate increased achievement in reading comprehension and
classroom engagement.
Hypothesis 1. It was hypothesized that student engagement among struggling
urban high school students would increase if they used a student response system.
Hypothesis 2. It was hypothesized that the use of a student response system
would increase the reading comprehension skills of struggling urban high school students.
Hypothesis 3. It was hypothesized that the use of a student response system would result
in higher scores in formative assessments for struggling urban high school students rather than
paper and pencil assessments.
Additional Research Questions
In addition to the formal hypotheses of this study, the teacher-researcher was also
interested in some related questions and observations.
How did the students and teachers view the use of a student response system at the end of
the study?
What differences emerged in formative assessment responses among the students of
various reading levels?
How did students view the use of a student response system to handheld boards?
49
CHAPTER III
Methods
Participants
Participants in the study were 30 students who attended an English I and Honors English
I class in a large public urban high school in the Northeastern part of the United States. Ranging
in age from 14 to 16, these students were struggling readers from a lower socio-economic
environment. One girl was a 10th
grader; all other participants were ninth graders. Six of the
females had previously failed English I at least once. Sixteen of the students were reading within
their benchmark, six were on borderline of needing intervention and considered on watch, ten
needed intervention and three were reading so far below grade level they were considered in
need of urgent intervention, according to STAR Renaissance® reading assessment taken in
September, 2012. The ethnically diverse group included 19 Blacks, 13 Hispanics and three
Whites. There were five male and 30 female participants. The teacher-research was a 56-year-old
Caucasian woman who had taught in the school for 14 years.
Materials
A variety of assessment materials were used to measure the participants’ level of class
engagement, as well as academic gains.
Assessment materials. The materials were both technology and paper/pencil based for
comparison.
Pre-and post-tests were given to assess students’ reading levels using STAR
Renaissance® Assessments. (See Appendix A)
50
Pre-and post-tests were given to assess students’ reading comprehension and
writing abilities using the New Jersey English Language Arts Unit Assessments.
(See Appendix B for pre-test and Appendix C for post-test)
Formative assessments- the Turning Point Technology® Student Response
System checked student understanding through an average of three questions a
day using clickers (Appendix D)
Off-task behavior check list – teacher-researcher kept track of off-task behavior
by maintaining a check list (Appendix E)
Student surveys – Students completed anonymous surveys on how they thought
the clickers impacted their learning (See Appendix F)
Intervention materials. The teacher-researcher used Turning Point Technology®
Student Response Cards for participants to record their answers to multiple-choice review
questions. Other items included a computer, projector, SMART Board®, textbook, paper, and
pencils. Students read the district-provided Ebola virus research articles as their informational
text sources.
Procedures
Pre-intervention procedures. Study participants had two practice sessions with the
clickers before using them in the study. By playing games with them in class two days the week
before the study began, students said they felt comfortable using them to review class material.
Pre-intervention assessments. Students took a STAR Renaissance® reading test in
early fall when school began. The second assessment, which measured grade level and reading
comprehension, was administered to each participant in January 2013. Students took the test at a
computer. The computerized assessment asked questions that adjusted to the student’s ability
51
level. Each successive response gave the STAR Reading Enterprise® data to determine the
student’s achievement level. Results were compared to the fall test so see if there was any
improvement in skills. Students who were categorized as “in need of intervention” were retested
after the clicker to measure learning growth.
Intervention procedures. Participants in the study followed the regular English
Language Arts curriculum for ninth grade that included a focus on the reading, interpretation,
and writing of informational text. Students read non-fictional accounts and analyzed text to
determine meaning of vocabulary and author’s viewpoint. During the four-week study, the
teacher-researcher used Turning Point Technology® to record their responses to review
questions to which they responded using the clickers. Three multiple-choice questions were
posed daily via a PowerPoint presentation. Using Turning Point Technologies® Student
Response Cards, students answered the questions by clicking the correct letter on the hand-held
device. Before clicking, there were given 20 seconds to think over their response. Once students
entered their answers, the teacher showed the class their response. This instant feedback was
shown on the SMART Board® so the teacher could re-address any misunderstanding and
students could see if they answered correctly.
Classroom instruction. Each day the teacher presented a 15-minute lesson to the class as
a whole that covered reading informational text, research on the computers, or writing skills.
After the lesson, students worked in their groups on a specific assignment that required a
collaborative effort. Assignments reinforced the reading or research topic.
Student response systems. To determine how well students understood the material, the
teacher-researcher used student response systems to pose three multiple-choice questions on the
subject matter daily as a means of review. On Fridays, students responded to five of the
52
questions asked earlier in the week. Students reviewed content and vocabulary questions based
on their reading.
Post-intervention assessments. Immediately following the completion of the
interventions, participants completed a survey to determine their attitude toward using the
clickers. Additionally, a subgroup of students took a reading assessment through the STAR
Renaissance® program so a comparison could be made to student knowledge before and after
the intervention. Students also took the State Unit 2 assessment to measure growth. Additionally,
the teacher-researcher analyzed the notes from the observation check-list for off-task behavior to
measure how the use of clickers impacted student engagement.
53
CHAPTER 4
Results
Overview
The data collected in this study were used to determine the effect of using an automated
student response system to increase reading comprehension and student engagement. Before the
study began, students took two assessments, The STAR Renaissance® assessment which
measured students’ reading comprehension level, and the New Jersey Unit II English Language
Arts Assessment that measured their skills in reading informational text and writing an
expository essay. Following the four-week study, students took the New Jersey Unit III
assessment to measure growth in reading informational text and argumentative writing.
Additionally, a subset of students who were deemed in need of intervention according to the
STAR Renaissance® assessment, were re-tested at the end of the study to measure growth.
Clickers were used daily as an intervention strategy to see if students would increase learning
when daily review questions were posed in a multiple choice or true/false format. Their
responses were automatically recorded through Turning Technologies® which produces reports
per participants and group. Clickers were used in a regular level 9th
grade English class, Class A,
and a 9th
grade Honors English class, Class B. The teacher-researcher also noted off-task
behavior on a weekly chart, and gave a written survey to participants to complete at the end of
the study. Students were awarded participation points each day for using the clickers. They were
not penalized for wrong answers.
Analysis of Data
It was generally hypothesized that struggling urban high school students who use student
response systems would demonstrate increased achievement in reading comprehension and
54
classroom engagement. It was also hypothesized that the student response systems would reduce
the frequency of off-task behavior as the clickers would stimulate a visual interest in the
feedback charts.
Hypothesis 1 – The effect of a student response system on student engagement.
It was hypothesized that student engagement among struggling urban high school students would
increase if they used a student response system. To test this hypothesis, student behavior was
observed during the lesson and when they used the clickers each day. During the four-week use
of the clickers, students read informational text on the subject of the Ebola virus. The teacher-
researcher noted off-task behavior frequency in a chart. Students who were notably distracted on
a daily basis in the regular ed class, paid attention during the clicker review, but then returned to
their off-task behavior after they clicked their response. On two occasions, two students did not
participate in the review; however, they were also off task the entire time those two days
explaining they wanted only to make up missing assignments and not complete the classroom
reading assignment. In the honors class with six students, only one student had a problem with
off-task behavior. However, she always focused during the clicker session and was frequently
the last responder to the questions.
While there is no statistically significant data to support this hypothesis, the findings of
Figure 1 show the off-task behavior in Class A slightly decreased over the course of the four-
week study. This class had an average weekly off-task behavior rate of around seven occurrences
per student. Figure 1 charts the decrease in such behavior from the start of the study to the end.
55
Figure 1
Off-Task Behavior Chart
8.00
8.15
7.90
7.60
7.30
7.40
7.50
7.60
7.70
7.80
7.90
8.00
8.10
8.20
1 2 3 4
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
Week
Weekly Average Off Task Occurrences Per Student
56
Hypothesis 2 – The effect of a student response system on reading comprehension skills. It
was hypothesized that the use of a student response system would increase the reading
comprehension skills of struggling urban high school students. To test this hypothesis, students
were pre- and post-tested on reading skills using the New Jersey English Language Arts Unit
Assessments and the STAR Renaissance® reading assessments.
After the pre-tests, clickers were brought in as an intervention measure. Students used
clickers to respond to review questions based on the reading of informational text aligned with
the new Common Core Curriculum standards. Students read district-required informational text
concerning the Ebola virus outbreak in Africa. Each article was read multiple times to gain an
understanding of main ideas and make logical inferences. Throughout the four-week unit,
students summarized articles and created vocabulary concept maps in order to increase their
reading comprehension of the required text. As a multiple response strategy, students answered
two to three multiple-choice questions daily regarding the required text. At the end of the week,
students used the clickers to review those same questions.
In the STAR Renaissance® pre-test, a group of students emerged in the “intervention”
category because they are reading below the 25th
percentile. They became a sub-group that was
retested in STAR Renaissance® at the end of the study. All but one increased their scores. Her
results were omitted from the t test as she took the assessment under emotional stress following
an earlier incident during the day.
Each student’s scaled score increased in the post-test. However, the paired t test results as
shown in Table 1 indicated that the difference was considered to be not statistically significant;
therefore, the hypothesis could not be supported by the data.
57
Table 1
Pre and Post-test results of STAR Renaissance ®Assessment for Intervention Group
Pre-Test Post-Test
N M SD M SD t(5) p
Test
Group
7 661 49.93 832 208.21 1.8115 0.1298
*p < .05
**p < .01
58
In another effort to measure the effect of clickers on student reading comprehension, the
teacher-researcher used the results of the New Jersey English Language Arts Assessment. The
pre-test, taken in January, was the New Jersey Unit 2 assessment, which also tested
informational text reading skills. Its scores were compared to the Unit 3 Assessment as a post-
test. Clicker use began immediately after the Unit 2 Assessment and ended at the time of the Unit
3 Assessment. As seen in Table 2, the t test showed a statistically significant difference in Class
A’s pre and post test scores, therefore supporting the hypothesis. Students’ test scores increased
by 13% in Class A and 10% in Class B. In class A, 68% of the students increased their scores in
the Unit 3 Assessment, whereas 57% of the students in Class B scored higher in the Unit 3
Assessment. However, the hypothesis was not supported by the data indicated in the paired t test
for Class B, as seen in Table 2. By conventional criteria, the difference between the pre and post-
tests for that class was considered to be not quite statistically significant.
59
Table 2
Pre and Post Unit Assessments for Class A
Pre-Test Post-Test
N M SD M SD t(17) *p
Test
Group
19 51.95 12.54 64.78 17.69 1.8115 0.01298*
*p < .05
**p < .01
60
Table 3
Pre and Post Unit Assessments for Class B
Pre-Test Post-Test
N M SD M SD t(5) p
Test
Group
7 55.71 18.45 63.33 9.27 2.0369 0.0973
*p < .05
**p < .01
61
Hypothesis 3 – The effect of a student response system on formative assessment
scores. It was hypothesized that the use of a student response system would result in higher
scores in formative assessments for struggling urban high school students as they made use of
the continuous feedback provided by the clickers. To test this hypothesis, each week daily results
provided by the clicker system were compared to end-of-week review results to determine if
students increased their correct guesses in the review.
The regular ed class only showed an increase in correct responses during two of the four
weekly reviews. During the first week, the average went from 70.18% to 72.73%. In the last
week, the scores increased from 33.33% to 81.25%. In contrast, averages in the honors class
improved on all review days. For example, in the first week students steadily improved from
70% to 97.62%. Some weeks had lower scores than others. In week two, the scores increased
from 35% on Monday to 71.43% at the end of the week. However, since the teacher-researcher
also used the daily formative results to reteach concepts when there was less than 100% correct
response, it is not known if students themselves were able to make use of the daily formative
feedback. While support of the hypothesis could not be seen consistently in the data from the
regular ed class, it was supported by the pattern seen in the honors class. Struggling high school
urban readers appeared to be helped minimally by the clickers in regard to reading
comprehension whereas higher level students may have benefitted by becoming more engaged.
In both classes, the immediate feedback recorded by the clickers helped the teacher-researcher
easily identify areas of weakness in the students’ understanding and address them that same class
period.
Additional Research Questions
In addition to the formal hypotheses of this study, the teacher-researcher was also
62
interested in some related questions and observations. She wondered how the students would
view the clickers over the course of usage. At the end of the study, students generally viewed the
clickers favorably. According to student survey responses, the clickers enhanced their learning.
“Clickers made me understand what each part of the text was about. It summarized what I didn’t
know,” one student wrote. Another wrote, “Clickers were helpful in understanding questions on
the test.” One student, who had previously used clickers in her elementary school math class,
wrote “Clickers made class fun and educational at the same time. It motivated me to finish my
work so we could get to the clickers. I would like if my other classes used clickers also.”
However, another student’s comment indicated she liked using the clickers but not as a learning
check. She wrote, “I liked the clickers, the only thing I didn’t like was the three question thing.”
Her statement refers to the use of the clickers in response to two to three multiple choice
questions per day.
As seen in Table 4, 91.3% of the students responded that they liked using clickers to
answer questions during a lesson. More than 80% preferred the clickers to hand-held response
cards that were used earlier in the year. However, while 73.9% agreed they understood the
material more after they used the clickers and discussed responses, only 34.8% agreed it helped
their reading comprehension. Almost half agreed that the clickers motivated them to work.
In addition to the students’ favorable opinion of clickers, the teacher-researcher found
several advantages to using the clickers. For one, it gave her instant feedback as to the general
understanding of the material and what had to be re-taught. Also, the Turning Technology®
reports generated a breakdown of response by individual participants so each student’s
understanding could be measured. The higher percentage of wrong answers correlated with those
students who tended to score in the lower level reading level.
63
Table 4
Student Survey Results
Question Disagree Agree Not Sure
Clickers made the class fun 16.67% 58.33% 25.00%
Clickers motivated me to work 39.13% 47.83% 13.04%
Clickers made me want to participate
in class. 26.09% 52.17% 21.74%
Clickers encouraged more class
discussion 16.67% 50.00% 33.33%
I liked using the clicker to answer
questions during a lesson 8.70% 91.30% 0.00%
I liked clickers more than hand-held
response cards 34.78% 60.87% 4.35%
I liked clickers or hand-held response
cards more than raising my hand 9.09% 86.36% 4.55%
I liked seeing how the class scored on
questions. 26.09% 60.87% 13.04%
My reading comprehension improved
when I used the clickers 30.43% 34.78% 34.78%
I understood the material more after
we used the clickers and discussed
the responses 13.04% 73.91% 13.04%
64
Summary of Results
The results supported several hypotheses concerning the effect of using an automated
student response system to increase reading comprehension and student engagement among
struggling urban high school students in an English Language Arts class. As expected, students
who used the clickers were on task when they clicked their answer, but often returned to their off
task behaviors after responding. Although statistically insignificant, the students’ off task
behaviors decreased slightly while using the clickers.
Not all the data supported the hypothesis that the clickers would increase reading
comprehension and reading skills. When a t test was run on the pre-and post-STAR
Renaissance® scores for a sub group, results showed that difference was considered to be not
quite statistically significant. However, each of the students who were retested did raise their
scaled scores, with the exception of a student who had emotional stress the day of the post-test.
Because of her distraction, her results were removed from the test group. Results were mixed in
the regular and honors English classes in regard to the state assessments. By conventional data,
the t test showed a statistically significant difference in the regular ed class pre-and post-New
Jersey English Language Arts assessments. Students in that class saw a 13% increase in scores.
Although the post-test scores increased by 10% in the honors class, the difference was not
statistically significant according to the t test.
Additionally, data did not support the hypothesis that the clickers would increase scores
in formative assessments. These statistics were mixed with more students in the honors class
showing an increase in scores at the end of the week when a review took place using the clickers.
However, the regular English class only showed improvement in two of the weekly review
sessions.
Overall, student survey results indicated that the study participants liked using the
65
clickers. Almost 75% indicated they understood the material more when using the clickers even
though they did not always do well on the weekly review days. Teacher-researcher observations
indicated that students would still be off task during the lessons but would pay attention to use
the clickers as a means to check understanding. The teacher-instructor liked the clickers because
they gave her instant feedback which revealed any misunderstandings. She was able to
immediately clarify portions of the lesson.
Although statistics did not support all the hypotheses, clickers were generally viewed by
student and teacher-researcher as a tool to help struggling urban readers increase their reading
comprehension. Test score trends, though not statistically significant, were heading in an upward
direction. Students were slightly more engaged in the lesson over time, with a drop in off-task
behavior by the fourth week.
66
CHAPTER V
Discussion
Overall, the statistical evidence gathered in this study did not support the hypothesis that
the use of clickers would raise the reading comprehension scores and engagement level of
struggling urban freshmen readers. While not considered statistically significant for all the
hypotheses, some data did indicate that students liked using the clickers and helped them to
remember what they learned. There were some several unexpected findings that developed
during the course of the study. The following discussion attempts to explore the implications of
the findings that challenge the hypotheses of this study.
Hypothesis 1 - The effect of a student response system on student engagement. While
there is no statistically significant data to support the hypothesis, the off-task behavior in the
regular ed class slightly decreased over the course of the four-week study, whereas the honor’s
class did not have a problem with off task behavior. This increase may have also been affected
by the content of the curriculum. Students had to read informational articles about the Ebola
virus which were above grade level and had to be reread numerous times for understanding.
Considering this freshman class included three repeaters, six students with attendance issues, and
three with serious behavior issues, occurrences of off-task behavior were expected. However,
those who were off-task more frequently would focus long enough to read the question and
record their response on the clicker. Although they would return to their off-task behavior after
using the clicker, their interest in using the clicker was noted. They liked using the technology
which correlated with their high usage of hand-held devices such as cell phones and iPods.
This finding correlates with the results of a study by Blood (2010) and Kay and Knaack
(2009B) who conducted research to determine if a student response system would increase class
participation in high school students with a low participation rate. While Blood’s research
67
concluded that a SRS helps increase student participation, it did not appear to increase on-task
behavior. Similar to this study’s findings, participants in Blood’s study who were off task most
often would keep attention long enough to answer with a clicker, and then return to off-task
activities. Blood’s participants were in a self-contained classroom and therefore, had more
issues than the regular-education students in this study. Yet, the 213 participants of the study by
Kay et al. also demonstrated that a high interest in the clickers didn’t necessarily increase class
attention. Like this study’s findings, students responded quite favorably to using clickers, but
their usage didn’t necessarily make them more attentive during the rest of the class.
However, the teacher-researcher in the present study did observe a slight increase in most
students’ behavior overall during the weeks when clickers were used, even if the evidence was
not statistically significant. Several variables could account for off-task behavior such as the
curriculum topic which did not interest lower-level readers, peer distraction, and attendance
issues among the group. The SRS by itself might be enough to change mildly disruptive and off-
task behaviors in a classroom, but students who are routinely disengaged may need more
intervention.
In contrast, it was interesting to note the lack of off-task behaviors in the honors class of
six. These students, for the most part, were always on-task and looked forward to using the
clickers at the end of class as a means of review. The presence of other variables such as a
smaller class size, higher achieving students and maturity may account for this class’s on-task
behavior.
The findings in the honor class support the studies by Gok (2011), Hoffman and Goodwin
(2006) who found clicker use with college students to be a helpful tool to increase student
engagement. One might conclude, therefore, that clickers are more effective in engaging a more
68
mature student; however, more research must be conducted to determine which variables –
academic standing, emotional maturity, class instruction, and curriculum – most impact a
student’s engagement rate while using clickers.
Hypothesis 2 - The use of a student response system would increase the reading
comprehension skills of struggling urban high school students. To measure this, the teacher
researcher used the pre and post test scores of the STAR Renaissance® reading assessment and
the New Jersey State English Language Arts Assessments. The data from the STAR
Renaissance® reading assessment tests did not statistically support the hypothesis; however,
each student’s scaled score increased in the post-test. The study’s results could have been flawed
by the small sampling which was limited to those students who scored “intervention” in the pre-
test. Although all of those students tested raised their raw scores, it could not be determined that
the clickers were solely responsible for the increase in achievement. During the study students
were also learning to apply several reading strategies including the use of context clues to
determine unknown vocabulary, summarizing and paraphrasing,
When looking at the results of the pre and post unit assessments, however, there was a
significant increase for both the regular ed and honor students.
These increases in scores support the research that the use of technology devices can
improve the reading comprehension of high school students. Cueva et al. (2012) found that
students using customized reading modules showed greater growth in reading comprehension
than the control group. The tools that came with the computer reading package could be likened
to the clickers in that they provided students with an interactive technology device in which they
could respond anonymously to reading comprehension questions. While the instructor knew their
score, other students did not. Chang, et al. (2010) found handheld devices that supported
69
individual and cooperative reading activities helped develop students’ comprehension while
reading Chinese. The technology appeared to most benefit those students who had a low Chinese
reading ability, just as the clickers seem to most help those freshmen who had a lower reading
level. Further study is needed to determine whether the use of technology or type of questions,
curriculum, or instruction influence an increase in reading comprehension. A study of longer
duration with more participants would also be more helpful in determining the impact of these
variables.
Hypothesis 3 – The effect of a student response system on formative assessment. It
was hypothesized that the use of a student response system would result in increasingly higher
scores on formative assessments for struggling high school students as they benefitted from the
continual feedback provided by clickers. While data didn’t support the hypothesis in the regular
ed class, it was supported by the pattern in the honors class. In contrast, Kay and Knaack’s
(2009a) research revealed positive student feedback when clickers were used for formative
assessment among 659 high school students in five different science or mathematics subject
areas. However, they only used clickers once or twice a month, versus daily use in the current
study. The current study also supported the findings of Kay and Knaack (2009b) who found
positive formative assessment results when using clickers in their seven science classrooms of
216 students, but not in the summative assessment.
This study’s mixed findings are similar to the research of Vital (2011) who found an
improvement on some formative assessments when the high school honors chemistry classes
used clickers rather than the usual paper and pencil response. His research showed formative
assessment scores improved when the material regarded conceptual units; however, clickers had
little or no effect on mathematical concepts. Results of student surveys in the current study
70
support his conclusions that clickers provided formative assessment feedback without penalties
so students felt comfortable with the devices even if they didn’t all increase their scores.
The question remains if the discussion of responses given during the formative
assessments were beneficial to the students. Achievement data from the research of Conolye et
al. (2007) indicated that students who received feedback through SRS earned higher scores than
those whose feedback was limited to non-technology methods.
Looking at the formative assessment information from the teacher-researcher perspective,
the clickers provided valuable information which showed the instructor what areas needed to be
clarified and reviewed. Additionally, the individual reports produced by Turning Technologies®
helped drive the lesson plans for differentiating instruction based on the recorded responses of
the class. Since the information was available immediately after students clicked, the teacher-
researcher felt more confident in how to pace the lesson. Other non-technology multiple response
strategies, such as paper and pencil or dry erase boards, cannot offer that immediate feedback
data for each student which is so valuable in formative assessments.
More research is necessary with a larger population to determine what aspect, if any, of
clicker use can result in higher scores in formative assessment. Variables such as class discussion
of student responses, teacher style, and curriculum material must also be considered.
Additional Question 1 - The teacher-researcher wondered whether the students
would consider the clickers a useful educational tool. The study’s data supported that students
favored using the clickers and even believed they helped them to learn, although that finding was
inconclusive.
According to student survey responses, the clickers enhanced their learning and they
liked using them as a means of reviewing material. These findings are consistent with research at
71
both the high school and college level which shows that students consider the clickers fun,
engaging and helpful in their learning (Barnes, 2008; Blood, 2010; Conolye, Croom, Moore &
Flowers, 2007; Fallon and Forest, 2011;Gok, 2011; Greer & Heaney, 2004; Kay & Knaack,
2009a; Kay & Knaack, 2009B; Martyn, 2007; Siau, Sheng, & Fui-Hoon Nah, 2006; Sternberger,
2012; Vital, 2011) .
Additionally, 80% of the study’s participants preferred clickers to hand-held response
cards, a finding supported by the research of Fallon and Forest (2011) conducted with
undergraduate students. In their study, all 70 students said they preferred the clickers over the
handheld cards with over 70% saying they favored the anonymity provided by clickers.
Additional Question 2 - The teacher-researcher also questioned what differences
emerged in formative assessment responses among the students of various reading levels.
Over the course of the study, formative results improved consistently with the higher-level
readers. The inconsistent responses from low-level readers indicated that those who struggled in
reading were only helped minimally by the clickers, despite the fact that both groups of students
liked using them to answer questions. As other studies also found, the use of clickers does not
always correlate with increased learning, although it can help some students, especially those of
a higher achievement level (Barnes, 2008; Blood, 2010; Blood & Neel, 2008; Conolye, Croom,
Moore, & Flowers, 2007; Kennedy & Cutts, 2005; Martyn, 2007 ; McCurry & Revell, 2010;
Vital, 2011).
Conclusions
In general this study indicates that the use of a student response system does not always
result in increased reading comprehension skills among struggling readers in a high school
English Language Arts classroom. While students overwhelming report that they like using the
72
clickers, the activity does not always translate into less off-task behaviors during the remainder
of the lesson. In other words, students do not necessarily pay attention more during the lesson in
anticipation of using the clickers. Academic achievement results were mixed, with the honors
class showing a consistent increase in learning compared to the regular education class that had
students on a third through ninth grade reading level. Based on these findings, one cannot
conclude that clickers will be an effective tool with all high school students.
While the study gave evidence that an SRS increases student participation, it did not show
why there is not a correlation of increased learning as evidenced in other studies conducted on
secondary and higher education campuses. The short duration of the study and small number of
participants may have affected the data. Future research should use participants of all grade
levels in high school for a longer period of time, at least one marking period.
This four-week study had several flaws. For one, it was cut short a week due to school
holidays and state testing. A 10-week study would cover a complete marking period and allow
more time to see how clicker use impacts student understanding of a unit of study. Secondly, the
limited number of 30 students, mostly female, does not present a large enough test sample. The
study would have been more effective if participants included all the English Language Arts
freshmen in the school as a test group, rather than just two classes, perhaps using the honors
classes as a separate test group. In this way, gender differences could be more accurately
measured, as well. However, in this school, where 75% of the students are female, gender
differences are more challenging to measure.
The teacher-researcher also found the 42-minute class period to be a major constraint
when using the clickers. By the time each student was actually participating in the lesson, since
about a third arrive late to class, there was a rush to cover the material, hand out the clickers,
73
conduct the question/answer session, discuss results and have the clickers returned before the
bell rang. Also, since other teachers shared the room, the teacher was rushed to save the reports
from each session before the bell since she had to leave the room for another teacher to begin the
next class. Additionally, between the lesson and the clicker review, students had to finish a
demonstration of learning as required by the school district. Clickers may be more beneficial to
learning if used in a block period where there is sufficient time to complete each activity.
Most of the research involving the use of clickers has been conducted at an undergraduate
and post-graduate college level in mathematics or science classes where class periods are longer.
Or, if conducted in high schools, the studies were conducted in mathematics or science classes.
While two of the studies in the literature review examined reading comprehension using
technology, none could be found which used clickers in this discipline. However, the literature
reviewed supports the study’s finding that the use of clickers at any level is not always
conclusive. Prior studies encountered the same inconsistencies as this one. In addition, this study
supports the results found when Blood (2010) researched clicker usage in an American history
class. Both conclude that a SRS helps increase student participation, but it does not necessarily
increase on- task behavior or achievement. More research must look at all the factors mentioned
earlier, as well as student prior knowledge and attendance.
Educational Implications
The varied results in using clickers indicate the value of using a student response system
to offer students a technology that affords them anonymous responses and instant feedback. In
prior studies and this present one, it must be noted that the use of clickers never resulted in lower
levels of achievement or student engagement. Time after time, results may have shown
statistically insignificant or significant gains in the areas of interest which could lead one to
74
conclude that clickers are an effective tool which will motivate some children to gain a better
understanding of the material. Teachers are challenged to help students become 21st century
learners so that now, more than ever, they need to use technology in the classroom which may be
part of their experience in the real world. Clickers, therefore, are an excellent technology tool
which students may encounter in their adult workplace, as companies worldwide use them in
training sessions.
Based on this study’s findings, there are several steps which teachers must follow when
they want to successfully use clickers in the classroom. Before obtaining the clickers, teachers
must consider a safe storage space. As with any technology device, clickers must be stored in a
secure, convenient location. The teacher-researcher had a locked cabinet in one of her
classrooms which kept the clickers safe for the duration of the study. Depending on whether the
clickers are shared, all participating teachers must have equal access to the clickers from a secure
location. This may be an important issue in some schools where locked facilities or common
secure areas are not available. Also, it is important to account for every clicker before the
students leave the classroom.
Teachers must be prepared to ensure that the technology will run smoothly in the
classroom. The teacher-researcher became familiar Turning Technologies® software following a
one-on-one session with a trainer then following up with tutorials found on the company’s
website. SRS, regardless of the company, have resources which instruct teachers how to create
the questions and use the reports to help frame instruction. It is helpful to practice using the
clickers before giving them to the students. In this study, the teacher-researcher created sample
questions and practiced responding to them with other colleagues. She downloaded the software
to the classroom computer and projected them on to the SMART Board® to make sure the
75
technology was working. She also informed both classes that the clickers would be used for
several weeks as a new multiple response strategy. Previously, the class had used handheld
response cards with enthusiasm, although not daily. On the first day, students practiced with
simple questions, just to get the feel for using the clickers. A handful of students had previously
used clickers in an elementary school math class. They were excited to see the clickers again.
It is important to note that prior to distributing the clickers to each class, the teacher-
researcher assigned a clicker number to each student and created class lists in Turning
Technologies®. If each student is not assigned a specific clicker, his or her responses will not be
recorded and the teacher will not be able to monitor a student’s understanding. In less than a
week of daily clicker usage, students knew the number of their clicker and asked for it
immediately.
Once the teacher-researcher decided what she wanted her classes to learn, she developed
PowerPoint® questions in Turning Technologies®, about three per day, which would cover the
main ideas of each lessons. The multiple-choice questions were framed in a fashion similar to
those of the New Jersey State English Language Arts Assessments. In this way, students were
not only reviewing material learned, but they were becoming familiar with the new format of
state tests. While creating each slide, the teacher-researcher inserted correct answer symbols,
response charts, and a timer. Seeing the countdown timer on the board helped the students focus
to answer in a timely manner. They also looked for the correct answer symbol to see if they
chose the correct answer and responded to the bar chart which indicated the percentages of each
answer chosen by the participants. This instant feedback showed the student whether they
answered correctly, but it also guided the teacher’s instruction. If most students did not get the
correct answer, the teacher-researcher stopped and discussed the response. In surveys, students
76
said they liked seeing the instant answers and response ratios. As found by other researchers,
most students see the interactive response system as a way to help them learn the material.
Almost 75% of the students said they understood the material more after using the
clickers and discussing the responses. Therefore, the research indicated the value of instructors
stopping to discuss each response, explaining why an answer was correct so that even the
students in the 10th
percentile who scored incorrectly could grasp a better understanding of the
concept. Students all participated when the technology worked. Throughout the entire study, the
teacher-researcher did not encounter technology problems. The clickers always recorded the
students’ answers and the SMART Board® functioned correctly each day.
Evidence from the study also points to the benefit of repeating the questions at the end of
the week as a means of review. Keeping in mind that the material for this unit consisted of
articles of a higher reading level regarding the Ebola virus, students encountered new vocabulary
and concepts without prior knowledge. The study showed that repeating the same questions as a
review at the end of the week helped some students remember the material. This was true in
some of the weeks in the regular ed class and in all of the honors class reviews.
Apart from the instant feedback which allowed the instructor to see how well the class
comprehended key points, reports were another data source which helped the teacher- researcher
to differentiate instruction. Turning Technologies® generated reports which indicated how each
student responded by question, type of question, and material covered. The teacher-researcher
then determined which students were not getting the material and those who had a firm
understanding. During the class time, she addressed different concepts with specific students.
These reports gave the instructor information to help plan lessons that met specific gaps in
understanding.
77
As mentioned earlier, teachers must be aware of any time constraints when using
clickers. Time must be allotted to distribute each assigned clicker to the student and to have it
returned. In this study, the teacher-researcher was rushed in completing the activity in a 42-
minute period. While it is quicker to distribute clickers randomly, teachers will not be able to
collect data on individual students, thereby limiting the value of a SRS. It is also easier to
account for numbered clickers when they are assigned to students.
Overall this study documented that students can gain an understanding of informational
text by using clickers as a multiple response strategy. While not all students will make significant
gains in formative assessments, an overwhelming majority will like using the clickers and their
engagement might spark increased learning. While it could not be proven that clicker use
increased the reading comprehension for all students, it did show a pattern of improvement for
students of lower and higher reading levels. Clickers provided significant data which helped the
teacher differentiate and determine instruction to meet a variety of student needs. Although best
used in a block schedule, clickers can be beneficial in a regular class period if the lesson is
organized in a time-sensitive manner. Unlike previous research which has focused on clicker use
in science and mathematics classrooms, this study demonstrated that they can be used
successfully in an English Language Arts classroom to check learning. While statistically
significant data were not available to support all the hypotheses, patterns of positive responses
were observed in all areas of question which indicate the need for more study. Future research
could examine other variables which affect reading comprehension when using clickers, such as
curriculum content, student maturity, length of class, and gender.
As mentioned in Chapter II, with the nation’s average of only 40% of all American
adolescents reading at the “proficient” level, it is important for educators to examine ways to
78
increase literacy. Technology tools are an area of interest in light of the demands to bring 21st
century practices into the classroom. Today’s students are “technology natives,” using
computers, cell-phones and Mp3s regularly. The International Reading Association recommends
that teachers be trained to use technology in student activities and formative assessments to
monitor student growth. This study shows the potential for clicker use in an English Language
Arts classroom that will positively impact students in a high-needs dis. In the spirit of equal
access, urban youth must have this technology available to them. Although Congress has steadily
reduced technology funds, other sources must be explored to give all students an opportunity to
use technology to enhance their learning. While it may not enhance all student learning, clickers
have the ability to increase engagement and achievement for many students.
79
References
ACT. (2011). The condition of college and career readiness. (Iowa City, IA: Author, 2011),
Retrieved from www.act.org/readiness/2011
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2011). FactSheet. (Washington, DC: Author, 2011). 1-3.
Retrieved from www.all4ed.org
Alliance for Excellent Education analysis of U.S. Department of Education. (2009). National
Center for Education Statistics, The Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2009 (NCES 2010-458)
(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2010)
Balfanz, R., McPartland, M., and Shaw, A. (2002). Re-conceptualizing extra help for high school
students in a high standards era. (Baltimore, MD: Center for Social Organization of Schools,
Johns Hopkins University, 2002). Retrieved from
http://www.csos.jhu.edu/pubs/edweek/Reconceptualizing.pdf
Barnes, J. B. (2008). Lecture-free high school biology using an audience response system. The
American Biology Teacher, 70(9), 531-536.
Blood, E. (2010). Effects of student response systems on participation and learning of students
with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 35(3), 214-228.
Blood, E., & Neel, R. (2008). Using student response systems in lecture-based instruction: Does
it change student engagement and learning? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,
16(3), 375-383.
Chang, K, Lan, Y., Chang, C. & Sung, Y. (2010) Mobile-device-supported strategy for Chinese
reading comprehension. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(1). 69-84.
doi:10.1080/14703290903525853
80
Conoley, J., Croom, D. B, Moore, G.E. & Flowers, J. (2007). Using electronic audience response
systems in high school agriscience courses. Journal of Agricultural Education, 48(3). 67-77.
doi:10.5032/jae.2007.03067
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2012). Common Core State Standards for English
language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects.
Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council
of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from
www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf
Cuevas, J.A., Russell, R.L., & Irving, M.A. (2012). An examination of the effect of
customized reading modules on diverse secondary students’ reading comprehension and
motivation. Education Technology Research Development, 60:445–467.
doi: 10.1007/s11423-012-9244-7
Fallon, M. & Forrest, S. (2011). High-tech versus low-tech instructional strategies: A
comparison of clickers and handheld response cards. Teaching of Psychology, 38(3).194-
198. doi: 10.1177/009862831141896
Gok, T. (2011). An evaluation of student response systems from the viewpoint of
instructors and students. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology. 10(4), 67-83.
Greer, L., & Heaney, P. (2004). Real-time analysis of student comprehension: An assessment of
electronic student response technology in an introductory earth science course. Journal of
Geoscience Education, 52(4), 345-351.
Hoffman, C., & Goodwin, S. (2006). A clicker for your thoughts: Technology for active
learning. New Library World, 107(9), 422-433.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03074800610702606
81
International Reading Association, Adolescent Literacy Committees (2008-2011) and
Adolescent Literacy Task Force (2011-2012). Adolescent Literacy A Statement of the
International Reading Association. Retrieved from www.reading.org
Kay, R. H. (2009). Examining gender differences in attitudes toward interactive classroom
communications systems (ICCS). Computers & Education, 52(4), 730-740.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.11.015
Kay, R., & Knaack, L. (2009a). Exploring Individual Differences in Attitudes toward Audience
Response Systems. Canadian Journal Of Learning And Technology / La Revue Canadienne
De L’Apprentissage Et De La Technologie, 35(1). Retrieved from
http:www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/509/239
Kay, R., & Knaack, L. (2009b). Exploring the use of audience response systems in secondary
school science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 382-392.
doi:10.1007/s10956-009-9153-7
Kennedy, G. E., & Cutts, Q. I. (2005). The association between students' use of an electronic
voting system and their learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(4),
260-268. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00133.x
King, D. & Joshi, S. (2008). Gender differences in the use and effectiveness of personal response
devices. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6) 544-552.
Martyn, M. (2007). Clickers in the classroom: An active learning approach. EDUCAUSE
Quarterly, 30(2), 71-74.
McCurry, M. K., & Hunter Revell, S. M. (2011). Evaluating the effectiveness of personal
response system technology on millennial student learning. Journal of Nursing Education,
50(8), 471-5. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20110531-01
82
National Center on Response to Intervention. (2012). Background. Retrieved from
http://www.rti4success.org/aboutus/background
National Coalition for Technology in Education and Training. (2011). Profiles in innovation, 4-5.
Retrieved from http://www.cosn.org/Portals/7/docs/NCTET_Report.pdf
Siau, D, Sheng, H. & Fui-Hoon Nah, F. (2006). Use of a classroom response system to enhance
classroom interactivity. IEEE Transactions on Education, 49(3), 398-403.
doi:10.1109/TE.2006.879802
Sternberger, C. S. (2012). Interactive learning environment: Engaging students using clickers.
Nursing Education Perspectives, 33(2), 121-4.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Nation’s Report
Card: Reading 2009 (NCES 2010-458) (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 2010); U.S. Department of Education National Center for Educational Statistics, The
Nation’s Report Card: Reading 2011 (NCES 2012-457) (Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 2011
Vital, F. (2012). Creating a positive learning environment with the use of clickers in a high
school chemistry classroom. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(4), 470.
83
Appendix A
Sample STAR Renaissance® questions for Pre and Post Tests
This test item measures: Understand Comparison and Contrast
Grade 6: Draw conclusions based on similarities and differences in a text
(e.g., assess a character based on his/her similarities to another character)
This test item measures: Understand Cause and Effect
Grade 4: Recognize cause-and-effect relationships by comprehending
the meaning of a whole passage rather than by identifying individual cue words
This test item measures: Evaluate Reasoning and Support
Grade 4: Recognize cause-and-effect relationships by comprehending the meaning of a whole
passage rather than by identifying individual cue words
84
Appendix B
Pre-Test Unit 2 State Assessment
New Jersey Department of Education English Language Arts Assessment Unit 2
Unit Number: 2 Grade Level: 9
Passage Name: Whales of Vancouver Island Total Number of Questions: 8
Source: Eye of the Whale by Dick Russell, Simon & Schuster, © 2001
Student Learning Objectives Covered in Questions: 1, 3, 7, 8, 9
Copyright Status: Permission Granted
Word Count: 556 SourceRater: 9.75
In the following passage, a journalist joins scientist Jim Darling as he looks for a gray whale in Grice Bay, Vancouver Island. The next morning finds more clouds on the horizon, but for the moment the rain has ceased. I meet Darling at the harbor, where he keeps the eighteen-foot Boston whaler he’s had since 1989. He’s wearing yellow coveralls and carries his camera gear in a waterproof case. He’s been told the same gray whale keeps showing up day after day in Grice Bay, and he hopes to get its picture. He revs the outboard, and we head out through swift tidal currents and into the narrow Browning Passage, which runs alongside the prehistoric forests of Meares Island. A southeasterly wind sends a chill up my spine. “This sure isn’t Hawaii,” Darling says.
It would take about twenty minutes to reach Grice Bay. Once you knew gray whales returned to the same areas each year, Darling says, “the questions were how many and how often and why. We’re still dealing with those questions.” For years he’d presumed, along with everyone else, that grays were strictly bottom-feeders. Darling recalls surveying in Ahous Bay on a hot midsummer day. Inside breaking waves of maybe two or three feet, he saw a trio of whales lying on their sides, with most of their girth and one pectoral fin out of the water. They were, he later wrote, “wiggling back and forth with the waves breaking along their sides as if they were jetties.” Fearing they were stranded, he was about to put on his wet suit “when, with a couple of casual snakelike slithers, they backed out of the shallows, moved along the beach a short distance and made their way back into the breakers to repeat the activity.” The whales were feeding in the sand of the intertidal zone, in water about five feet deep.
While it remains clear that their predominant food, at least in the northern seas, is also these tiny benthic amphipods, “the more we looked, the more we found that they’re eating a whole variety of things.” Gray whales have been witnessed feeding around the sound not only in shallow sand but in mud bays, eelgrass beds, kelp beds, in the ocean-water column, and at the surface. Besides amphipods, they’re eating herring eggs and larvae, crab larvae, mysids, and ghost shrimp, a whole community of species, and more opportunistically than has ever been observed elsewhere. Food here was abundant, unlike the situation John Calambokidis described where gray whales couldn’t find enough to eat in Puget Sound.
“Yet it appears, when you watch them feeding on plankton, that they’re not real good at it,” Darling is saying. “With a humpback, there’s this giant mouth, sort of set as a net that closes and fills. Gray whales feeding on crab larvae at the surface are biting the water, which seems an extremely inefficient way of doing it. When they’re after these swarms of shrimplike mysids, you see all kinds of weird postures.
85
They stick their noses into crevices and, I guess, suck in. But, I mean, they’ll be standing on their heads with their tails out of the water, flopping around. Maybe this is the best you can do when you’re a generalist and need to have equipment for several different types of food.”
1. Read the following excerpt and then answer both parts of the question below.
It would take about twenty minutes to reach Grice Bay. Once you knew gray whales returned to the same areas each year, Darling says, “the questions were how many and how often and why. We’re still dealing with those questions.” For years he’d presumed, along with everyone else, that grays were strictly bottom-feeders. Darling recalls surveying in Ahous Bay on a hot midsummer day. Inside breaking waves of maybe two or three feet, he saw a trio of whales lying on their sides, with most of their girth and one pectoral fin out of the water. They were, he later wrote, “wiggling back and forth with the waves breaking along their sides as if they were jetties.” Fearing they were stranded, he was about to put on his wet suit “when, with a couple of casual snakelike slithers, they backed out of the shallows, moved along the beach a short distance and made their way back into the breakers to repeat the activity.” The whales were feeding in the sand on the intertidal zone, in water about five feet deep.
In the excerpt above, why did Darling most likely assume that the whales in Ahous Bay were stranded?
A. The whales looked like they were having trouble breathing. B. Most whales do not lie on their sides in shallow water. C. Whales come to shallow water when they are ill. D. Whales only wiggle around when they are stranded.
Which phrase from the excerpt provides evidence that Darling and others were misinformed about the whales?
A. “We’re still dealing with those questions.” B. “he saw a trio of whales lying on their sides, with most of their girth and one pectoral fin out of
the water.” C. “Fearing they were stranded, he was about to put on his wet suit” D. “The whales were feeding in the sand on the intertidal zone, in water about five feet deep. “
. Read the following excerpt and then answer both parts of the question below.
Gray whales have been witnessed feeding around the sound not only in shallow sand but in mud bays, eelgrass beds, kelp beds, in the ocean-water column, and at the surface. Besides amphipods, they’re eating herring eggs and larvae, crab larvae, mysids, and ghost shrimp, a whole community of species, and more opportunistically than has ever been observed elsewhere.
In the excerpt above the word “opportunistically” means
86
A. avoiding difficult obstacles B. taking advantage of a situation C. developing special skills D. using limited resources
Which phrase from the excerpt best clarifies the meaning of “opportunistically”?
A. “have been witnessed” B. “Besides amphipods” C. “whole community” D. “observed elsewhere”
3. Answer both parts of the question below. How is the structure of the first paragraph different from that of the other paragraphs in the passage?
A. The first paragraph narrates an event as it takes place and the other paragraphs provide general information about the topic.
B. The first paragraph explains the event that takes place in the passage and the other paragraphs provide multiple reactions to that event.
C. The first paragraph is written from the narrator’s point of view and the other paragraphs are written from his subject’s point of view.
D. The first paragraph is about a current event and the other paragraphs are about events that happened in the past.
Check two sentences from the list below that together support your answer.
“I meet Darling at the harbor, where he keeps the eighteen-foot Boston whaler he’s had since 1989.” (lines 1-2)
“Darling recalls surveying in Ahous Bay on a hot midsummer day.” (line 11)
“Food here was abundant, unlike the situation John Calambokidis described where gray whales couldn’t find enough to eat in Puget Sound. ” (lines 23-25)
“Gray whales feeding on crab larvae at the surface are biting the water, which seems an extremely inefficient way of doing it.” (lines 27-29) 4. Answer both parts of the question below.
The next morning finds more clouds on the horizon, but for the moment the rain has ceased. I meet Darling at the harbor, where he keeps the eighteen-foot Boston whaler he’s had since 1989. He’s wearing yellow coveralls and carries his camera gear in a waterproof case. He’s been told the same gray whale keeps showing up day after day in Grice Bay, and he hopes to get its picture. He revs the outboard, and we head out through swift tidal currents and into the narrow Browning Passage, which runs alongside the prehistoric forests of Meares Island. A southeasterly wind sends a chill up my spine. “This sure isn’t Hawaii,” Darling says.
It would take about twenty minutes to reach Grice Bay. Once you knew gray whales returned to the
87
same areas each year, Darling says, “the questions were how many and how often and why. We’re still dealing with those questions.” For years he’d presumed, along with everyone else, that grays were strictly bottom-feeders. Darling recalls surveying in Ahous Bay on a hot midsummer day. Inside breaking waves of maybe two or three feet, he saw a trio of whales lying on their sides, with most of their girth and one pectoral fin out of the water. They were, he later wrote, “wiggling back and forth with the waves breaking along their sides as if they were jetties.” Fearing they were stranded, he was about to put on his wet suit “when, with a couple of casual snakelike slithers, they backed out of the shallows, moved along the beach a short distance and made their way back into the breakers to repeat the activity.” The whales were feeding in the sand on the intertidal zone, in water about five feet deep.
While it remains clear that their predominant food, at least in the northern seas, is also these tiny benthic amphipods, “the more we looked, the more we found that they’re eating a whole variety of things.” Gray whales have been witnessed feeding around the sound not only in shallow sand but in mud bays, eelgrass beds, kelp beds, in the ocean-water column, and at the surface. Besides amphipods, they’re eating herring eggs and larvae, crab larvae, mysids, and ghost shrimp, a whole community of species, and more opportunistically than has ever been observed elsewhere. Food here was abundant, unlike the situation John Calambokidis described where gray whales couldn’t find enough to eat in Puget Sound.
“Yet it appears, when you watch them feeding on plankton, that they’re not real good at it,” Darling is saying. “With a humpback, there’s this giant mouth, sort of set as a net that closes and fills. Gray whales feeding on crab larvae at the surface are biting the water, which seems an extremely inefficient way of doing it. When they’re after these swarms of shrimplike mysids, you see all kinds of weird postures. They stick their noses into crevices and, I guess, suck in. But, I mean, they’ll be standing on their heads with their tails out of the water, flopping around. Maybe this is the best you can do when you’re a generalist and need to have equipment for several different types of food.”
Jim Darling was surprised by where the whales he observed found food. What else surprised him about the food of the whales? Write your answer in the box below.
Underline a sentence in the passage above that supports your answer.
88
Appendix C
Post-Test Unit 3 State Assessment
New Jersey Department of Education English Language Arts Assessment Unit 3
Unit Number: 3 Grade Level: 9
Passage Name: “Amazing Nose” Total Number of Questions: 7
Source: Dogs On The Case by Patricia Curtis, E. P. Dutton, © 1989
Student Learning Objectives Covered in Questions: 1, 3, 7, 8, 12
Copyright Status: Fair Use
Word Count: 893 SourceRater: 9.9
The passage below is from a book about the training of dogs to detect certain smells. We all know that dogs have superior hearing and can detect sounds that are inaudible to us. But if we think their hearing ability is pretty great, in truth it’s not nearly as impressive as their remarkable talent for scent detection. Everyone who has a pet dog knows that dogs seem to be continually sniffing—the ground, trees, air, objects, people, other dogs. But it’s not just curiosity or habit that makes them do it; this is how they obtain and process most of their information about the world.
As a species, dogs are equipped with noses that are remarkably well built for scenting. The nasal passages are designed to receive and trap odors; the scent nerves are comparatively large and numerous. The scenting ability of human beings is not highly developed; we have an estimated 5 million olfactory cells—that is, cells used for smelling—concentrated in a relatively small area at the back of the nose. By comparison, dogs’ noses have scent cells spread over a large area; small dogs have an estimated 125 million, medium-sized dogs about 145 million, and big dogs such as German shepherds are thought to have as many as 220 million scent cells!
Long-nosed breeds with wide nostrils are naturally more efficient smellers than short-nosed dogs. Some toy breeds have such little noses that their nasal blood vessels, nerves, bones, and tissues are abnormally cramped, and their nostrils are small or deformed. But even so, their noses are several hundred times more sensitive than ours. Any dog can detect odors that are totally imperceptible to a human being.
Not only do dogs have a marvelous ability to detect scents—they are good at distinguishing one odor from another and remembering it. The part of a dog’s brain that receives messages from the nerves of the nose is highly developed and can store up scent information like a computer. You might notice that sometimes a dog will fail to recognize at a distance people or other dogs that he knows, until he gets within range to identify their scent.
In addition to this scenting ability, dogs are intelligent animals. And what’s just as important, from our point of view, is that they are almost infinitely trainable. They have lived in close association with human beings since prehistoric times, and they are by nature social animals. In the wild, all canine species—wolves, coyotes, and the like—live in packs with clearly defined behavior among themselves. They observe rituals, display greeting behavior, and are sensitive to one another’s emotional states. Each pack has a leader—an adult who, by virtue of strength and dominant personality, is regarded by the others as the alpha, or top dog. The other pack members defer to him and look to him for direction and protection, and for maintaining order. (Because female dogs are often preoccupied with pregnancy
89
and caring for pups, the pack leader among wild canine species is typically male.)
The natural habitat of all domestic dogs, whatever their breed, is the human home. Living with us, as our companions or helpers, under our protection and care, they regard us as their pack leaders. That’s why they can be trained whether it is for work such as rounding up sheep or for play such as fetching a ball or rolling over on command. In the eyes of a pet or helpmate dog, his owner, man, woman, or child—whoever feeds him, walks him, and cares for him—is pack leader. Instinctively, he can be trained to do whatever the leader commands.
Nobody knows how long and in how many ways human beings have made use of the dog’s extraordinary scenting ability. Dogs have been finding lost livestock and tracking down game for their masters probably as long as dogs and humans have lived together.
People have sometimes come to take their dogs’ ability for granted. “I live in an isolated area in the mountains,” says a man in Vermont. “I take my dog hiking with me, and I never worry about getting lost, because I’ve taught him to retrace our steps by tracking. When I’m ready to turn back, I say to him ‘Let’s go home.’ He knows that’s the command for him to follow the scent of our tracks and lead us home the way we came.”
But in spite of the fact that the scenting ability of dogs is well known, in modern times it has become more usual to rely on technology for many of the services that dogs formerly performed. As ingenious machines and devices were invented and refined, the use of dogs declined. It was assumed that a machine is always better at a task than an animal. Trooper Doug Lancelot suggests that perhaps our American faith in machines made authorities reluctant, in the past, to use dogs for important detection work, despite the fact that using dogs could save massive amounts of manpower, money, and time.
However, that is changing. There seems to be a new recognition that dogs are often better at many jobs than machines are. “In some situations, dogs can make the use of machines obsolete,” states Doug.
That is why the training of dogs for many kinds of scent detection work is increasing.
1. Answer both parts of the question below.
Which sentence best states two important ideas of the passage?
A. Dogs benefit from their close association with humans. B. Dogs can hear extremely well. C. Dogs make excellent pets. D. Dogs have a remarkable sense of smell. E. Dogs are social animals that need to be led by an alpha figure. F. Dogs are highly trainable.
Which two sentences , taken together, most clearly demonstrate these two important ideas?
E. “We all know that dogs have superior hearing and can detect sounds that are inaudible to us.” (line 1)
90
F. “Long-nosed breeds with wide nostrils are naturally more efficient smellers than short-nosed dogs.” (line 13)
G. “Any dog can detect odors that are totally imperceptible to a human being. ” (lines 16-17) H. “They observe rituals, display greeting behavior, and are sensitive to one another’s emotional
states.” (line 27) I. “Instinctively, he can be trained to do whatever the leader commands.” (lines 36-37) J. “It was assumed that a machine is always better at a task than an animal.” (lines 48-49)
2. Read the following excerpt and then answer both parts of the question below.
As a species, dogs are equipped with noses that are remarkably well built for scenting. The nasal passages are designed to receive and trap odors; the scent nerves are comparatively large and numerous. The scenting ability of human beings is not highly developed; we have an estimated 5 million olfactory cells—that is, cells used for smelling—concentrated in a relatively small area at the back of the nose. By comparison, dogs’ noses have scent cells spread over a large area; small dogs have an estimated 125 million, medium-sized dogs about 145 million, and big dogs such as German shepherds are thought to have as many as 220 million scent cells!
In the excerpt, the author says that dogs’ olfactory cells differ from those of humans in two important ways. What are these two important differences? Write your answer in the box below. 3. Read the following excerpt and then answer both parts of the question below.
Long-nosed breeds with wide nostrils are naturally more efficient smellers than short-nosed dogs. Some toy breeds have such little noses that their nasal blood vessels, nerves, bones, and tissues are abnormally cramped, and their nostrils are small or deformed. But even so, their noses are several hundred times more sensitive than ours. Any dog can detect odors that are totally imperceptible to a human being.
Which statement describes an organizational technique the author uses in the excerpt?
A. The author explains why the shape of dogs’ noses can affect their scenting ability. B. The author offers an example that shows how superior dogs’ scenting ability is to people’s
scenting ability. C. The author points out an exception to the typical superiority of dogs’ scenting ability over
people’s scenting ability. D. The author acknowledges a disagreement about the origins of dogs’ scenting ability.
Underline the sentence in the excerpt that best supports your answer. 4. Answer both parts of the question below. The author of the passage would most likely agree with which statement about dogs’ scenting ability?
A. It increases with age.
91
B. It will eventually be surpassed by technology. C. It is only used in pack settings. D. It is superior to their visual abilities.
Which sentence from the passage best supports your answer?
A. “Not only do dogs have a marvelous ability to detect scents—they are good at distinguishing one odor from another and remembering it.” (lines 18-19) B. “You might notice that sometimes a dog will fail to recognize at a distance people or other dogs that he knows, until he gets within range to identify their scent.” (lines 20-22) C. “In the wild, all canine species—wolves, coyotes, and the like—live in packs with clearly defined behavior among themselves.” (lines 25-26) D. “That is why the training of dogs for many kinds of scent detection work is increasing.” (line 54)
5. Read the following excerpt and then answer both parts of the question below.
They have lived in close association with human beings since prehistoric times, and they are by nature social animals. In the wild, all canine species—wolves, coyotes, and the like—live in packs with clearly defined behavior among themselves. They observe rituals, display greeting behavior, and are sensitive to one another’s emotional states.
As it is used in the excerpt, “observe” most nearly means
A. watch B. acknowledge C. learn from D. follow
Which phrase from the excerpt best helps you understand the meaning of “observe” in this context?
A. “in close association” B. “since prehistoric times” C. “In the wild” D. “clearly defined behavior”
6. Read the following excerpt and then answer both parts of the question below.
The natural habitat of all domestic dogs, whatever their breed, is the human home. Living with us, as our companions or helpers, under our protection and care, they regard us as their pack leaders. That’s why they can be trained whether it is for work such as rounding up sheep or for play such as fetching a ball or rolling over on command. In the eyes of a pet or helpmate dog, his owner, man, woman, or child—whoever feeds him, walks him, and cares for him—is pack leader. Instinctively, he can be trained to do whatever the leader commands.
Which of the following statements about domestic dogs can be inferred from the excerpt?
92
A. Dogs do not consider physical size or age in identifying people as pack leaders. B. Once they have identified which people are their pack leaders, it is very difficult to get them to
switch allegiances to different pack leaders. C. They can be trained to both work and play only if a different person trains them for each
activity. D. Those of them who are kept indoors tend to be more loyal than are those who are kept
outdoors. Underline the sentence in the excerpt that best supports your answer.
7. Read the following excerpt and then answer both parts of the question below.
But in spite of the fact that the scenting ability of dogs is well known, in modern times it has become more usual to rely on technology for many of the services that dogs formerly performed. As ingenious machines and devices were invented and refined, the use of dogs declined. It was assumed that a machine is always better at a task than an animal. Trooper Doug Lancelot suggests that perhaps our American faith in machines made authorities reluctant, in the past, to use dogs for important detection work, despite the fact that using dogs could save massive amounts of manpower, money, and time.
The excerpt suggests that, compared to machines, dogs can be more
A. accurate B. efficient C. energetic D. affectionate
Underline the sentence in the excerpt that best supports your answer.
8. Police departments have been using dogs for over 100 years to assist officers in their work. Dogs are used to locate people and evidence and to alert police officers to the presence of explosives and illegal substances. Some people have claimed that police dogs are not reliable enough to justify such extensive use. These critics say that police dogs often give false alerts because the dogs want to please their handlers by finding what the handlers are searching for. False alerts waste time and may make innocent people the target of police suspicion. To avoid such problems, critics argue, police should rely less on dogs and more on machines. Explain how you think the author of this passage would respond to these arguments against using dogs to assist law enforcement. Your response should
clearly present the author’s views and the critics’ views
evaluate how the author would respond to the critics
include relevant supporting details from the passage
include a clear introduction and conclusion
use correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar
93
Appendix D
Sample PowerPoint multiple-choice questions
94
95
Appendix E
Incidences of Off Task Behavior Chart
Student 22-Jan 23-Jan 24-Jan 25-Jan 1-Week Total
Student 1
Student 2
Student 3
Student 4
Student 5
Student 6
Student 7
Student 8
Student 9
Student 10
Student 11
Student 12
Student 13
Student 14
Student 15
Student 16
Student 17
Student 18
Student 19
Student 20
96
Appendix F
Student Survey
SRS Student Attitude Survey
Gender M or F Age __________
Respond to the following questions about your experience using SRS in your class
Question Disagree Agree Not Sure
Clickers made the class
fun.
Clickers motivated me to
work.
Clickers made me want to
participate in class.
Clickers encouraged more
class discussion.
I liked using the clicker to
answer questions during a
lesson.
I liked clickers more than
hand-held response cards.
I liked clickers or hand-
held response cards more
than raising my hand.
I liked seeing how the
class scored on questions.
My reading
comprehension improved
when I used the clickers.
I understood the material
more after we used the
clickers and discussed the
responses.
