Abstract
This article focuses on if, and eventually how, feedback clickers (TurningPoint®) can be used to overcome some of the challenges lecturers have in large plenary lectures. The Bologna-process, new standards for national curricula, increasing diversity among university students and the digital revolution have changed some of the underlying premises for teaching and learning in today’s universities. New policy documents, research and experiences from the university field suggest that there is a potential to develop plenary lectures in light of new technology and more updated teaching methods. A new concept, digital didactics, is underpinning this time of upheaval and this explorative case study describes how bachelor students in large plenary lectures experience the use of feedback clickers from their points of view. This explorative case study consist of surveys, “live surveys,” observations and document studies and shows that the students feel quite positively towards several of the areas focused on in the study. In particular, the feedback clickers have the potential to enhance interactivity, attention and reflection, as well as provide feedback, which seem to be of great value for the students in the study. One of the implications of this article is that good planning, the use of feedback clickers and multimodality in plenary lectures seem to overcome some of the well-known challenges in plenary lectures and strengthen the possibility for formative assessment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Didactics in the Nordic countries has long traditions within pedagogy and has a meaning other than the English language definition of this concept.
- 2.
There have been many discussions in Norway concerning this issue because many university teachers think that this development reduces their autonomy and is a step in the wrong direction.
- 3.
A “heuristic” characteristic in case studies can be described as searching for background and cause, trying to explain what went wrong, discussing alternatives that have not been used, and summing up and evaluating the situation.
- 4.
These are: The physical setting, the participants, activities and interactions, conversation, subtle factors, and your own behaviour (Merriam 1998, p. 98).
References
Almås, A. G., & Krumsvik, R. (2007). Digital literate teachers in leading edge schools in Norway. Journal of In- Service Education, 33(4), 479–497.
Almås, A. G., & Krumsvik, R. (2008). Teaching in technology-rich classrooms: Is there a gap between teachers’ intentions and ICT practices? Research in Comparative and International Education, 3(2), 103–121.
Bologna process. (1998). Ministerial declarations and communiqués: Sorbonne joint declaration. Paris. Retrieved from http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/documents/declarations_communiques.htm
Bologna process. (2005). Standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European higher education area. Helsinki: European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/documents/
Bologna process. (2007). A framework for qualifications in the European higher education area: Background report. Copenhagen: Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. Retrieved from http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/documents/
Burns, R. A. (1985, May 22–25). Information impact and factors affecting recall. Presented at the annual National Conference on Teaching Excellence and Conference of Administrators, Austin, TX
Burnstein, R. A., & Lederman, L. M. (2001). Using wireless keypads in lecture classes. The Physics Teacher, 39, 8–11.
Caldwell, J. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9–20.
Caldwell, J., Zelkowski, J., & Butler, M. (2006, April 11). Using personal response systems in the classroom. Presented at WVU Technology Symposium. Morgantown, WV. Retrieved from www.math.wvu.edu/_mbutler/CompAndTechSymp.pdf
Common, E. (2008). The European qualifications framework for lifelong learning (EQF). Luxembourg: European Common.
Cue, N. (1998, December 10–12). A universal learning tool for classrooms? Proceedings of the First Quality in Teaching and Learning Conference, Hong Kong SAR, China. Retrieved from http://celt.ust.hk/ideas/prs/pdf/Nelsoncue.pdf
Cutts, Q., Kennedy, G., Mitchell, C., & Draper, S. (2004, August 16–18). Maximizing dialogue in lectures using group response systems. Presented at 7th IASTED International Conference on Computer and Advanced Technology in Education, Hawaii. Retrieved from www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/_quintin/papers/cate2004.pdf
Geertz, C. (1976). From the native’s point of view: On the nature of anthropological understanding local knowledge. New York: Basic books.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 1(77), 81–112.
Hopmann, S., & Riquarts, K. (2000). Starting a dialogue: A beginning conversation between didaktik and the curriculum traditions. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice: The German didaktikk tradition (pp. 3–11). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jackson, M. H. & Trees, A. R. (2003). Clicker implementation and assessment. Retrieved from www.comm.colorado.edu/mjackson/clickerreport.htm
Knight, J. K., & Wood, W. B. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology Education, 4, 298–310.
Krumsvik, R. (2006a). ICT-initiated school development in lower secondary school. (Doctoral dissertation). The University of Bergen, Bergen: Allkopi.
Krumsvik, R. (2006b). The digital challenges of school and teacher education in Norway: Some urgent questions and the search for answers. Education and Information Technologies, 3–4(11), 239–256.
Krumsvik, R. (2007a). Ein modell for digital kompetanse for lærarar [A model of digital competence for teachers]. (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). Bergen: UoB.
Krumsvik, R. (Ed.). (2007b). Skulen og den digitale læringsrevolusjon [The school and the digital learning revolution; in Norwegian]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Krumsvik, R. (2008a). The emerging digital literacy among teachers in Norway: The story of one digital literate teacher. In R. Kobayashi (Ed.), New educational technology (pp. 105–125). New York: Nova Science.
Krumsvik, R. (2008b). Teach as we preach: Teacher educators professional development in relation to digital competence. PEK-project, University of Bergen.
Krumsvik, R., & Almås, A. G. (2009). The digital didactic. In R. Krumsvik (Ed.), Learning in the network society and digitized school. New York: Nova.
Krumsvik, R. (2011). Digital competence in the Norwegian teacher education and school. Högre Utbildning, 1(1), 39–51.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Laursen, P. F. (1994). Teacher thinking and didactics: A prescriptive, rationalistic and reflective approach. In I. Carlgren, G. Handal, & S. Vaage (Red.), Teachers’ minds and actions: Research on teachers’ thinking and practice (s.125–136). London: Falmer Press.
Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17(3), 13–17.
Mayer, R. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Middendorf, J., & Kalish, A. (1996). The “change-up” in lectures. National Teaching and Learning Forum, 5(2), 1–5.
MOK. (2006). Og ingen sto igjen: Tidlig innsats for livslang læring. Stortingsmelding nr. 16, 2006–2007. Oslo: Statens Forvaltningsteneste.
MOK. (2007). Statusrapport for Kvalitetsreformen i høgre utdanning. Stortingsmelding nr.7(2007–2008). Oslo: Statens forvaltningsteneste.
MOK. (2010). Kvalifikasjonsrammeverket for høgere utdanning. Oslo: Statens Forvaltningsteneste. Retrieved from http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/kd/tema/hoyere_utdanning/nasjonaltkvalifikasjonsrammeverk.html?id=564809
NIFU-Step. (2007). Evaluering av Kvalitetsreformen. Revidert prosjektbeskrivelse. Oslo: NIFU-Step
NOKUT. (2005). Forskrift om akkreditering, evaluering og godkjenning etter lovom universiteter og høyskoler. Oslo: NOKUT. Retrieved from http://www.lovdata.no/for/sf/kd/kd-20050908-1040.html
Norweigion Quality Reform. (2007). The quality reform of higher education in Norway: A national reflection of the Bologna process. Retrieved from http://www.see-educoop.net/education_in/pdf/q-reform-he-in-norway-oth-enl-t02.pdf
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2001). Understanding the digital divide. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/38/57/1888451.pdf
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2003). Education at a glance. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/document/52/0,2340,en_2649_34515_13634484_1_1_1_1,00.html
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2010). Technology use and educational performance in PISA. Paris: OECD.
Pedro, F. (2006). The new millennium learners: Challenging our views on ICT and learning. Paris: OECD-CERI.
Roschelle, J., Penuel, W. R., & Abrahamson, L. (2004a). Classroom response and communication systems: Research review and theory. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Retrieved from www.ubiqcomputing.org/CATAALYST_AERA_Proposal.pdf
Roschelle, J., Penuel, W. R., & Abrahamson, L. (2004b). The networked classroom. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 50–54.
Schnack, K. (Ed.). (2004). Didaktik på kryds og tværs. Copenhagen: Danmarks Pædagogiske, Universitets Forlag.
Simpson, V. & Oliver, M. (2006). Using electronic voting systems in lectures. Retrieved from www.ucl.ac.uk/learningtechnology/examples/ElectronicVotingSystems.pdf
Tuning. (2009). Tuning educational structures in Europe: Universities contribution to the Bologna process. Spain. Retrieved from http://www.tuning.unideusto.org/tuningeu/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=174
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Wood, W. B. (2004). Clickers: a teaching gimmick that works. Developmental Cell, 7(6), 796–798.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Acknowledgement
This article is supported by a PEK grant from the University of Bergen.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science +Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Krumsvik, R. (2012). Feedback Clickers in Plenary Lectures: A New Tool for Formative Assessment?. In: Rowan, L., Bigum, C. (eds) Transformative Approaches to New Technologies and Student Diversity in Futures Oriented Classrooms. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2642-0_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2642-0_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2641-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2642-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)