using einstruction’s® cps™ to support effective instruction

What the Research Says:Using eInstruction’s CPS™ toSupport Effective Instruction

April 2010

A Summary of Independent ResearchPrepared by Interactive Educational Systems Design, Inc. for eInstruction®

IESD WHITE PAPER

What the Research Says: Using eInstruction’s CPS™ to Support Effective Instruction

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION 1

EXECUTIVESUMMARY—KEYFINDINGS 2

RESEARCHONSTUDENTRESPONSESYSTEMS 2

TEACHERQUESTIONING 4

STUDENTENGAGEMENT 6

VALUEOFFEEDBACK 6

STUDENTPRECONCEPTIONSANDMISCONCEPTIONS 7

MODIFYINGTEACHINGINRESPONSETOFORMATIVEASSESSMENTDATA 8

CONCLUSION 9

REFERENCES 10

IESD WHTE PAPER | What the Research Says: Using eInstruction’s CPS™ to Support Effective Instruction

INTRODUCTION

Over thepast fewyears, student response systems—also referred toas classroom response systemsoraudience response systems—have

becomewidelyusedinhighereducationandarenowalsobeingusedinanincreasingnumberofK-12classrooms(Beatty&Gerace,2009,

pp.146-147).Asubstantialbodyofevidencesupportstheuseofsuchsystemsandspecificinstructionalpracticesthatarefacilitatedbyusing

thesesystems.

ThepurposeofthiswhitepaperistosummarizekeypointsinthatevidenceanddescribehoweInstruction’sCPS™studentresponsesystemcan

beusedinresearch-basedwaystosupporteffectiveinstruction.Thispaperdrawsonresearchrelatedto:

•UseofstudentresponsesystemsinK-12andhighereducation

•Effectivequestioningtechniquesusedbyteachers

•Thevalueoffeedbacktostudentsaspartoftheformativeassessmentprocess

•Changingstudentmisconceptions

•Modifyingteachinginresponsetoformativeassessmentdata

COMMON INSTRUCTIONAL USE MODELS FOR CPS™

CommoninstructionalmodelsforusingtheCPS™systemthataligntoresearchdescribedinthispaperincludethefollowing:

•Askquestionspriortoaclassdiscussiontoidentifypriorknowledgeandpossiblemisconceptions

•Askquestionsduringaclassdiscussionoractivitytomonitorstudentunderstandingandadjustinstructionasneeded

•Displayclassresponsesandusethedisplayasabasisfordiscussion

•Intersperseclassdiscussionsandpresentationswithquestionstoemphasizeimportantcontent,addinteractivity,and engagestudentattention

ABOUT THIS WHITE PAPER

Thiswhitepaperincludesthefollowinginformativesections:

•Anexecutivesummarypresentingkeyfindingsfromthebodyofresearch

•Separatesectionspresentingmoredetailedresearchresultsrelatedto:

−Researchonstudentresponsesystems

−Teacherquestioning

−Studentengagement

−Valueoffeedback

−Studentpreconceptionsandmisconceptions

−Modifyingteachinginresponsetoformativeassessmentdata

•Conclusion

1


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY—KEY FINDINGS

Researchpresentedinthesectionsthatfollowsupportsthefollowingfindings:

•Researchonstudentresponsesystemssuggeststhattheypromotelearningwhencoupledwithappropriatepedagogicalmethodologies(Fies

&Marshall,2006;Kay&Knaack,2009;Penueletal.,2007;Roschelleetal.,2004a,2004b).

•StudentresponsesystemssuchasCPS™offereffectivesupportforresearch-basedteacherquestioningstrategies(Black&Wiliam,1998b;

Crooks,1988;Ellis,1993;Gall&Rhody,1987;Wilen,1987).

•UseofstudentresponsesystemssuchasCPS™canmakeclassroomlessonsmoreinteractive,therebyraisingstudentinterestandengagement

(Fies&Marshall,2006;Gall&Rhody,1987;Kay&Knaack,2009;Penueletal.,2007;Roschelleetal., 2004a,2004b).

•StudentresponsesystemssuchasCPS™offereffectivesupportforstudentstoreceivefocused,timelyfeedbackaspartoftheprocessofformative

assessment,ofthetypethathasbeenshowntoimprovelearning(Bangert-Drownsetal.,1991;Barronetal.,1998;Black&Wiliam,1998a,

1998b;Kay&Knaack,2009;NationalResearchCouncil,2000;Tierney&Charland,2007;Vyeetal.,1998).

•StudentresponsesystemssuchasCPS™providepowerfultoolsforaddressingstudentpreconceptionsandmisconceptionsthroughtheuseof

formativeassessment,withimportantresearch-basedimplicationsforstudentlearning(Abrahamson,2006;NationalResearchCouncil,2000).

•StudentresponsesystemssuchasCPS™facilitatefrequent,timelyformativeassessmentthatcanbeusedtoguideadjustmentstoteaching—an

instructionalpracticethathasbeenfoundtohaveapowerfulimpactonstudentlearning(Barootchi&Keshavarz,2002;Black&Wiliam,

1998a,1998b;Dori,2003;Fies&Marshall,2006;NationalResearchCouncil,2000;Nunes,2004;Penueletal.,2007;Roschelleetal.,

2004a,2004b;Tierney&Charland,2007;Vendlinski&Stevens,2002).Thisincludesuseofformativeassessmenttosupportdifferentiated

instruction(Hall,2002;Tomlinson,2000).

RESEARCH ON STUDENT RESPONSE SYSTEMS

Reviewingthebodyofdirectresearchonstudentresponsesystems(SRS)suchasCPS™,mostofitfromhighereducation,FiesandMarshall(2006)

reported,“Thereisgreatagreementthat[studentresponsesystems]promotelearningwhencoupledwithappropriatepedagogicalmethodologies....

Theliteraturealsoindicatesthat[SRS]-supportedenvironmentsleadtogreaterlearninggainsthantraditionallearningenvironments”(p.106).More

specifically,theycitedananalysisof26classroomnetworkstudiesbyRoschelleetal.(2004a,2004b)thatfoundevidenceofthefollowing(see

Fies&Marshall,2006,p.103):

•“[G]reaterstudentengagement”(16studies)

•“[I]ncreasedstudentunderstandingofcomplexsubjectmatter”(11studies)

•“[I]ncreasedstudentinterestandenjoyment”(7studies)

•“[H]eighteneddiscussionandinteractivity”(6studies)

•“[I]ncreasedstudentawarenessofindividuallevelsofcomprehension”(5studies)

•“[I]ncreasedteacherinsightintostudentdifficulties”(4studies)

Additional information provided by Roschelle et al indicates that this body of research should be considered suggestive rather

thanconclusive.

Outof16implementationstudiesexamineddirectlybyFiesandMarshall,themostcommonoutcomeswereasfollows(seeAppendix,p.107):

•“Higherparticipation,moreengagement”(9studies)

2


•“Instructormoreaware,moreresponsiveinstruction”(7studies)

•“Studentsself-monitorunderstanding,understandmore”(7studies)

•“Bettercommunication”(6studies)

•“Moreinterest,moreenjoyment(fun)”(6studies)

•“Moreformativeassessment”(5studies)

Summarizingresultsofprevioushighereducationresearchonstudentresponsesystems,KayandKnaack(2009,p.383)identifiedsimilarbenefits:

•“[S]tudentattitudestoward[studentresponsesystems]areverypositive.”

•“[S]tudentsaremoreengagedinthecontentpresented...,participatemore...,andpaymoreattentiontoconcepts presented.”

•“[U]sing[studentresponsesystems]improvesthefeedbackcyclebetweeninstructorandstudentswiththerapid, anonymous,collectionandpresentationofallstudentresponsestoquestionsasked.”

•“Manyhighereducationstudentsreportthattheylearnmorewhen[studentresponsesystems]areused....[T]hereis substantialqualitativeandquantitativeevidencetosuggestthatlearningperformanceincreasesasadirectresultofusing [studentresponsesystems].”

K-12 RESEARCH

Penuelandcolleagues(2007)surveyed584elementaryandsecondaryeducatorsacrossmultiplegraderangesandsubjectareasontheir

useofeInstruction’sClassroomPerformanceSystem,ofwhichCPS™isthelatestversion.Whenaskedabouttheeffectsofthesystem,teachers

awardedameanscorebetween4(agree)and5(stronglyagree)onascaleof1-5foreachofthefollowingstatements(seeTable2,p.334):

•“TheCPS™helpsmetellifthestudentsunderstandaconcept”(M=4.38,SD=.62)

•“ClassinteractionsresultingfromusingtheCPS™helpstudentlearning”(M=4.24,SD=.71)

•“WiththeCPS™,studentscanquicklytellwhethertheyarerightorwrong”(M=4.51,SD=.83)

•“Ihavebetter-qualityinformationaboutstudents’understandingthroughtheuseoftheCPS™”(M=4.19,SD=.774)

•“ByusingtheCPS™,Ihavemoretimelyinformationaboutwhatstudentsknow”(M=4.46SD=.68)

•“IhavebeenabletoadaptinstructionbettertospecificstudentneedsormisconceptionsbyusingtheCPS”

(M=4.05,SD=.79)

•“DoingactivitieswiththeCPS™inclasshelpsstudentsgetabetterunderstandingofconcepts”(M=4.07,SD=.69)

•“StudentsaremoreactivelyengagedinaCPS™classthaninothers”(M=4.37,SD=.76)

Theresearchersalsofoundthat“[f]requent,broadusersoftheCPS™weremuchmorelikelytoperceivetheCPS™asconferringarangeofben-

efitstothemselvesandtostudents”(p.340).WhilethesubjectsofthisstudydonotconstitutearepresentativesampleofallSRS-usingteachers,

thesefindingssuggestthatK-12teacherswhoareusingtheClassroomPerformanceSystem™perceivebenefitsfromitsusesimilartothoseidenti-

fiedinhighereducationstudies.

KayandKnaack(2009)foundsimilarresultsfromasurveyof213grade10-12studentsinscienceclassestaughtbyseventeacherswhomade

limiteduseoftheeInstructionsystem.Amajorityofthestudentsagreedwiththefollowingstatements(seeTable1,p.385):

•“Usingclickerswasagoodwaytotestmyknowledge”(74%;includesstudentswhoslightlyagreed,agreed,and stronglyagreedwiththestatement)

•“Iwasmoreengagedinthelessonwhenclickerswereused”(70%)

•“Iwasmoremotivatedwhenclickerswereused”(63%)

•“IparticipatedmorethanInormallywouldwhenclickerswereused”(62%)

•“Iwouldprefertouseclickers”(62%)

3


•“Ilikedseeingwhatotherstudentsintheclassselectedforanswers”(56%)

•“Usingclickersgeneratedmoreclassdiscussion”(53%)

Equallynoteworthywasthedifferenceinresponsesfromstudentsinclasseswherethesystemwasbeingusedforformativeassessmentversusthose

whereitwasbeingusedforsummativeassessment.Accordingtotheresearchers:

Using[astudentresponsesystem]forformativeassessmentwasratedsignificantlymorepositivelythanusing[astudent

responsesystem]forsummativeassessmentonall11Likertscaleitemsinthe...attitudescale.Using[astudentresponse

system]forformativeassessmentalsoresultedinsignificantlyhigherscoresonmostsurveyitemswhencomparedtoamixed

approach(formative&summative).(p.388)

IMPORTANCE OF INSTRUCTIONAL APPROACH

Thedifference instudentattitudesreportedbyKayandKnaack(2009) for formativeassessmentversussummativeassessmentusesofstudent

responsesystems(reportedabove)underscoresthefactthatstudentresponsesystemsaretoolsforcarryingoutspecificpedagogicalapproaches,

andthattheimpactofsuchsystemsdependsontheinstructionalstrategiesthatareused.Beatty&Gerace(2009)advised,“[D]on’taskwhatthe

learninggainfrom[studentresponsesystem]useis;askwhatpedagogicalapproachesa[studentresponsesystem]canaidorenableormagnify,

andwhatthelearningimpactsofthosevariousapproachesare”(p.147).

Penuelandcolleagues(2007)similarlynoted:

Researcherswhohavestudiedstudentresponsesystemsinhighereducationshareabeliefthatthetechnologyalone

cannotbringaboutimprovementstostudentparticipationinclassandachievement;rather,thetechnologymustbeusedin

conjunctionwithparticularkindsofteachingstrategies.(p.318)

Inkeepingwiththisperspective,theremainderofthiswhitepaperdescribesspecificinstructionalusesofstudentresponsesystems,includingthe

researchsupportingthoseuses.

TEACHER QUESTIONING

Asynthesisofresearchrelatedtoteacherquestioningfound:

Althoughsomestudieshaveproducedconflictingfindings,researchstronglysupportsteachers’assumptionsthatasking

questionscontributestotheeffectivenessoftheirinstruction.Takenasawhole,studiesconductedatallgradelevelshave

indicatedthatbothwrittenandoralquestionsresultinlearninggains.(Ellis,1993,pp.2-3)

GallandRhody(1987,pp.25-26)identifiedthefollowingreasonsthatresearchershaveofferedastowhyquestioningiseffective:

1.Questionsaremotivating,andsotheykeepstudentsontask.

2.Questionsfocusthestudent’sattentiononwhatislearned.Ateacher’squestionisacuetothestudentthattheinformation

requiredtoanswerthequestionisimportant.

3.Questions,especiallythoughtquestions,elicitdepthofprocessing.Ratherthanreadingthetextpassively,agood

questionrequiresthestudenttoprocessthetextactivelyandtransformitintotermsmeaningfultohimorher.

4.Questionsactivatemetacognitiveprocesses....Thus,studentsbecomeawareofhowwelltheyaremasteringthe

curriculumcontentandwhethertheyneedtostudyitfurther.

4


5.Questionselicitfurtherpracticeandrehearsalofthecurriculumcontent.

6.Ifthestudentanswersaquestioncorrectly,thatisreinforcing,andtheteachermayfurtherreinforcetheanswerby

praisingoracknowledgingit.Ifthestudentanswersincorrectly,thatcanprompttheteacherstoengageinreteaching.

7.Students’masteryofthecurriculumisusuallyassessedbyteststhatconsistofquestions.Therefore,questionsasked

duringinstructionareconsistentwiththetaskrequirementoftests.

Specificfindingsandrecommendationsrelatedtoeffectivequestioningincludethefollowing:

•Differenttypesofquestionsareappropriatefordifferentinstructionalgoals(Ellis,1993,p.3).Forexample,factualrecallquestions

“have been found to be effective in reviewing material, assessing comprehension, and determining student preparedness”

(p.5).High-level“convergent”questionsrequirestudentsto“[look]forevidencetosupport,[give]reasonsforbehaviorsor

outcomes,and[draw]conclusions,”promptingthemto“extendtheirthinkingbysupportingassertions”(pp.6-7).Athirdcategory,

low-level“divergent”questionsaskingstudents“tothinkofalternatewaystodosomething,”aresuitableforuse“asthefirst

stepintheproblem-solvingprocessorinasequenceofquestionswherestudentsbrainstormpossiblesolutions”(p.7).

•Questioningshouldbefrequent.Crooks(1988)summarizedthreeresearchreviewessaysasfindingthat“thefrequencyofteacher

questioninghasgenerallybeenshowntobepositivelyrelatedtostudentachievement”(p.453).

•Questionsshouldbedirectedtoward,andansweredby“asmanystudentsaspossible(toencouragealltowardactivelearning)”

(Crooks,1988,pp.453-454;seealsoEllis,1993,p.12,citingWilen,1987;Black&Wiliam,1998b,pp.143-144).

USE OF CPS™ TO SUPPORT EFFECTIVE TEACHER QUESTIONING STRATEGIES

StudentresponsesystemssuchasCPS™arefundamentallytechnologiestosupportefficientsimultaneousquestioningofstudents.Inthecaseof

CPS™:

•Answerformatsthataresupportedbythesystemincludemultiple-choice,multiple-answer,yes/no,true/false,ranking,and

advanced-numericandtext-entrycapabilities(e.g.,forshort-answerquestions).

•Questionscanbesetinadvanceorcreatedspontaneously.

•Questionscanbeusedtocollectdataofmanydifferenttypes,suchasfactualknowledge,opinions,predictions,evaluations,

andhigher-orderthinking.

•Answerscanberecordedforgradingpurposesornot,attheteacher’sdiscretion.

Student response systems are thus well suited to supporting frequent, unobtrusive questioning, using a variety of question types that can be

answeredsimultaneouslybyallstudents.

5


STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

Asnotedpreviously,questioningisinherentlymotivatingandfocusesstudents’attentiononlearning(Gall&Rhody,1987,pp.25-26).Inlightof

this,itishardlysurprisingthatimprovedstudentinterest,motivation,andengagementareamongthemostcommonoutcomesreportedbystudiesof

studentresponsesystems(Fies&Marshall,2006;Kay&Knaack,2009;Penueletal.,2007;Roschelleetal.,2004a,2004b).

USE OF CPS™ TO INCREASE STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

Student responsesystemssuchasCPS™provideopportunities tomakeclassroom lessonsmore interactive, thereby raisingstudent interestand

engagement.Studentscanbequeried,notjustforassessmentpurposes,butalsotoansweropinionquestionsandprovideanonymousclassroom

surveydataasabasisfordiscussion.

•Questionscanbedirectedtoallstudents,withindividualtrackingtoencourageparticipation.

•Studentresponsesarequick,silent,andlargelyunobtrusive,involvinglittledisruptiontotheflowofclassinstruction.

VALUE OF FEEDBACK

Basedontheirreviewof250researchstudiesaddressingformativeassessmentacrossmultipleagesandsubjectareas,BlackandWiliam(1998b)

stated,“Feedbackhasbeenshowntoimprovelearningwhenitgiveseachpupilspecificguidanceonstrengthsandweaknesses”(1998b,p.144).

Specifically,theycitedameta-analysisof58experimentson“‘test-likeevents’(e.g.,evaluationquestionsinprogrammedlearningmaterials,review

testsattheendofablockofteaching,etc.)”(1998a,p.36,citingBangert-Drowns,Kulik,Kulik,&Morgan,1991),whichfoundthefollowing:

•“Feedbackwasmosteffectivewhenitwasdesignedtostimulatecorrectionoferrorsthroughathoughtfulapproachtothem

inrelationtotheoriginallearningrelevanttothetask”(Black&Wiliam,1998a,p.36).Alongsimilarlines,theauthorsof

HowPeopleLearn,asynthesisofresearchonlearningacrossthesubjectareasthatincorporatesfindingsfrompsychology,child

development,thestudyoflearningtransfer,anthropology,andneuroscience,notedthat“[f]eedbackismostvaluablewhen

studentshavetheopportunitytouseittorevisetheirthinkingastheyareworkingonaunitorproject”—inshort,whenthefeedback

istimely(NationalResearchCouncil,2000,p.141,citingBarronetal.,1998;Black&Wiliam,1998a;Vyeetal.,1998).

•“[F]eedbackwasmoreeffectivewhenthefeedbackgavedetailsofthecorrectanswer,ratherthansimplyindicatingwhetherthe

student’sanswerwascorrectorincorrect”(Black&Wiliam,1998a,p.51).

•“[P]rovidingfeedbackintheformofanswerstothereviewquestionswaseffectiveonlywhenstudentscouldnot‘lookforward’to

theanswersbeforetheyhadattemptedtoanswerthequestionsthemselves”(Black&Wiliam,1998a,p.51).

Controllingforthesecondandthirdbullets“eliminatedalmostallofthenegativeeffectsizesthatBangert-Drownsetal.[1991]found,yieldinga

meaneffectsizeacross30studiesof0.58”(Black&Wiliam,1998a,p.51),whichisgenerallyconsideredamongresearcherstoindicatean

effectofpracticalsignificance.Thisspeakstotheimportanceofteachers’effectivefeedbacktechniquesintheiruseoftheCPS™system.

6


Areviewof30secondary-levelpeer-reviewedempiricalresearcharticlesrelatedtoformativeassessmentpublishedbetween2000and2005

foundsimilarpositiveeffectsforfeedback.AccordingtoTierneyandCharland(2007):

Whilethesestudiesdonotgiveindicationof therelativemeritsof...differentmethodsof feedback,positiveconsequencesaregenerallyseen.

Feedbackisdescribedasaneffectivemeansofscaffoldinglearning...andencouraginggreaterstudentautonomy(pp.12-13).

USE OF CPS™ TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK TO STUDENTS

StudentresponsesystemssuchasCPS™enablestudentstoreceivefocused,timelyfeedback.

•Studentresponsesareaggregatedandreportedtotheteacher,allowingtheteachertofocusdiscussionandinstructionon

incorrectresponsessharedbylargenumbersofstudents.

•Questionscanbedesignedtoprovideimmediate,focusedfeedbacktoindividualstudentsviatheLCDscreenontheirCPS™

clickerinresponsetothespecificanswertheygave.

Asnotedabove,KayandKnaack(2009)identifiedimprovementsto“thefeedbackcyclebetweeninstructorandstudents”asoneofthebenefits

ofstudentresponsesystemsinhighereducation(p.383).

STUDENT PRECONCEPTIONS AND MISCONCEPTIONS

TheimportanceofaddressingstudentpreconceptionsandmisconceptionsisdescribedinHowPeopleLearn.Oneofthe“keyfindings”ofHow

People Learnwas that “[s]tudentscome to theclassroomwithpreconceptionsabouthow theworldworks. If their initial understanding is not

engaged,theymayfailtograspthenewconceptsandinformationthataretaught,ortheymaylearnthemforpurposesofatestbutreverttotheir

preconceptionsoutsidetheclassroom”(NationalResearchCouncil,2000,pp.14-15).

Basedonthisfinding,theauthorsrecommendedformativeassessmentasastrategyfor“[t]eachers[to]drawoutandworkwiththepreexisting

understandings that their students bringwith them,” stating: “The useof frequent formativeassessment helpsmake students’ thinking visible to

themselves,theirpeers,andtheirteachers.Thisprovidesfeedbackthatcanguidemodificationandrefinementinthinking”(p.19).

USE OF CPS™ TO ADDRESS PRECONCEPTIONS AND MISCONCEPTIONS

StudentresponsesystemssuchasCPS™providepowerfultoolsforaddressingstudentpreconceptionsandmisconceptions.Thisisillustratedbythe

exampleofGeorgeWebb,anearlypractitionerwhousedsuchsystemsinauniversityphysicsclass:

[O]nintroducinganewtopic,hewouldoftenverycarefullychooseaquestionthathadanobviousanswerbasedon

everydaynonphysicistthinking,butwhichwasinvalid.Whenover90%oftheclasschosethisanswerandfoundoutthat

theywereallwrong,theysuddenlybecameinterestedandweremorethanreadytolistentothefirstpartofthelecture

(Abrahamson,2006,p.4).

7


StudentresponsesystemssuchasCPS™facilitatetheprocessofaddressingstudentpreconceptionsandmisconceptionsby:

•Providingameanstofrequentlyqueryallstudentsmid-instruction

•Makingresponsessimultaneous,sostudentscan’tbeinfluencedbyotherstudents’responses

•Allowingresponsestoremainanonymous,sostudentsaren’tembarrassedby“wrong”answers

•Presentingtherangeanddistributionofopinionsingraphicformat(e.g.,throughprojectedbargraphsandpiechartsofstudent

responses)

MODIFYING TEACHING IN RESPONSE TO FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT DATA

BlackandWiliamdefinedasformativeassessmentas“allthoseactivitiesundertakenbyteachers,and/orbytheirstudents,whichprovideinformation

tobeusedasfeedbacktomodifytheteachingandlearningactivitiesinwhichtheyareengaged”(1998a,pp.7-8).Intheiraforementionedreview

of250researchstudiesrelatedtoformativeassessment(BlackandWiliam,1998a,1998b),theirgeneralfindingwasthat“innovationsthatinclude

strengtheningthepracticeofformativeassessmentproducesignificantandoftensubstantiallearninggains”(1998b,p.140),withtypicaleffect

sizesrangingfrom0.4to0.7(1998b,p.141)—alevelofgainstheycharacterizeas“quiteconsiderable,and...amongstthelargesteverreported

foreducationalinterventions”(1998a,p.61).

Formativeassessmentwasparticularlyvaluableforlow-achievingstudentsinthestudiesreviewedbyBlackandWiliam.Theyfoundthat“[w]hile

formativeassessmentcanhelpallpupils,ityieldsparticularlygoodresultswithlowachieversbyconcentratingonspecificproblemswiththeirwork

andgivingthemaclearunderstandingofwhatiswrongandhowtoputitright”(pp.142-143).

ThevalueofformativeassessmentasatooltoguideinstructionwassimilarlynotedbytheauthorsofHowPeopleLearn:

Formativeassessments—ongoingassessmentsdesignedtomakestudents’thinkingvisibletobothteachersandstudents—

areessential.Theypermittheteachertograspthestudents’preconceptions,understandwherethestudentsareinthe

“developmentalcorridor”frominformaltoformalthinking,anddesigninstructionaccordingly.Intheassessment-centered

classroomenvironment,formativeassessmentshelpbothteachersandstudentsmonitorprogress(NationalResearch

Council,2000,p.24).

ArecentreviewofempiricalresearchonformativeassessmentendorsedBlackandWiliam’sfindings,stating,“Theteachersinmanyofthesestudies

benefitfromsustainedsupportinlearninghowtouseassessmenttoinformteaching”(Tierney&Charland,2007,pp.13-14).Specificpositives

mentionedbytheseresearchersincluded:

thepossibilityofrespondingtotheneedsofanindividuallearner...,adjustunitplans...orshiftcurriculargoals....Assessment

informationprovidedbystudentscanbe“invaluable”(Nunes,2004,p.333)forteachers,anditcanbeusedintentionally

toimprovetherelevanceandeffectivenessofinstruction(e.g.,Vendlinski&Stevens,2002).Improvementsinstudent

learningarelinkedtogreateruseofassessmentinformationbyteachers(Barootchi&Keshavarz,2002;Dori,2003),and

improvementsinstudentengagementarealsosuggestedasteachersareableto“designfutureinstructionalstrategies,

materialsandactivitiesthataremoremeaningfulandvaluabletothelearners”(Nunes,2004,p.333),(pp.14-15).

8


USE OF CPS™ TO GUIDE ADJUSTMENTS TO TEACHING

AsnotedaboveinthesectiononResearchonStudentResponseSystems,moreinformedinstructiononthepartofteachersisoneofthemost

frequentlycitedresultsofresearchstudies,andisabenefitnotedbyteachersinusingsuchsystems(Fies&Marshall,2006;Penueletal.,2007;

Roschelleetal.,2004a,2004b).

StudentresponsesystemssuchasCPS™facilitatefrequent,timelyformativeassessmentthatcanbeusedtoguideadjustmentstoteaching.In

particular,featuresofthesesystemsmakeitpossibletotakeaquicksnapshotoftheunderstandingofallstudentsintheclass.Thisinformationis

immediatelyavailabletoguideinstruction,withouttheneedtowaitforgradingafterclass.Additionally:

•Informationaboutindividualstudentresponses,availablewithinthemanagementsoftwareandaccessiblethroughsystem

reports,providesinformationtoteachersthatcanbeusedtodifferentiateinstruction.Leadingexpertsondifferentiatinginstruction

recommendincorporatingongoingassessmentbyteachersasakeyelementinimplementingdifferentiatedinstruction(Hall,

2002;Tomlinson,2000).

•ResourcessuchastheExamView®questionbanksthataccompanyallmajortextbooksmakeiteasytoincorporatequestions

thatmatchtheinstructionalfocusofplannedlessons.

CONCLUSION

StudentresponsesystemssuchasCPS™representavaluablepotentialresourceforeducatorsatmanylevels.Researchonsuchsystemssuggests

thattheypromotelearningwhencoupledwithappropriatepedagogicalmethodologies.Inparticular,studentresponsesystemssuchasCPS™

offereffectivesupportforresearch-basedteacherquestioningstrategies.Suchsystemscanalsomakeclassroomlessonsmoreinteractive,thereby

raisingstudentinterestandengagement.Aspartofasystemforfrequentformativeassessment,studentresponsesystemsfacilitatefocused,timely

feedback;providetoolsforteacherstoidentifyandcorrecttheirstudents’preconceptionsandmisconceptions;andhelpguideadjustmentsto

teaching—allpracticesthathavebeenfoundtopositivelyimpactstudentlearning.

9


REFERENCES

Abrahamson,L.(2006).Abriefhistoryofnetworkedclassrooms:Effects,cases,pedagogy,andimplications.InD.A.Banks(Ed.),Audience

responsesystemsinhighereducation:Applicationsandcases(pp.1-25).Hershey,PA:IdeaGroup.

Bangert-Drowns,R.L.,Kulik,C-L.C.,Kulik,J.A.,&Morgan,M.T.(1991).Theinstructionaleffectoffeedbackintest-likeevents.ReviewofEducational

Research,61,213-238.

Barootchi,N.,&Keshavarz,M.H.(2002).Assessmentofachievementthroughportfoliosandteacher-madetests.EducationalResearch,44(3),

279-288.

Barron,B.J.,Schwartz,D.L.,Vye,N.J.,Moore,A.,Petrosino,A.,Zech.,L.,Bransford,J.D.,&CognitionandTechnologyGroupatVanderbilt.(1998).

Doingwithunderstanding:Lessonsfromresearchonproblemandproject-basedlearning.JournalofLearningSciences,7(3and4),271

312.

Beatty,I.D.,&Gerace,W.J.(2009).Technology-enhancedformativeassessment:Aresearch-basedpedagogyforteachingsciencewith

classroomresponsetechnology.JournalofScienceEducation&Technology,18,146-162.

Black,P.,&Wiliam,D.(1998a).Assessmentandclassroomlearning.AssessmentinEducation,5(1),7-74.

Black,P.,&Wiliam,D.(1998b).Insidetheblackbox:Raisingstandardsthroughclassroomassessment.PhiDeltaKappan,80(2),139-148.

Crooks,T.J.(1988).Theimpactofclassroomevaluationpracticesonstudents.ReviewofEducationalResearch,58,438-481.

Dori,Y.J.(2003).Fromnationwidestandardizedtestingtoschool-basedalternativeembeddedassessmentinIsrael:Students’performanceinthe

Matriculation2000project.JournalofResearchinScienceTeaching,40(1),34-52.

Ellis,K.(1993,February).Teacherquestioningbehaviorandstudentlearning:Whatresearchsaystoteachers.PaperpresentedattheAnnual

MeetingoftheWesternStatesCommunicationAssociationAlbuquerque,NM.(ERICDocumentReproductionServiceNo.ED359572)

Fies,C.,&Marshall,J.(2006).Classroomresponsesystems:Areviewoftheliterature.JournalofScienceEducation&Technology,15,101-109.

Gall,M.D.,&Rhody,T.(1987).Reviewofresearchonquestioningtechniques.InW.W.Wilen(Ed.),Questions,questioningtechniques,and

effectiveteaching(pp.23-48).Washington,DC:NationalEducationAssociation.

Hall,T.(2002,June).Differentiatedinstruction:Effectiveclassroompracticesreport.NationalCenteronAccessingtheGeneralCurriculum,Office

ofSpecialEducationPrograms.

Kay,R.,&Knaack,L.(2009).Exploringtheuseofaudienceresponsesystemsinsecondaryschoolscienceclassrooms.JournalofScience

Education&Technology,18,382-392.

NationalResearchCouncil.(2000).Howpeoplelearn:Brain,mind,experience,andschool(expandeded.).CommitteeonDevelopmentsinthe

ScienceofLearningandCommitteeonLearningResearchandEducationalPractice.J.D.Bransford,A.Brown,&R.R.Cocking(Eds.).

CommissiononBehavioralandSocialSciencesandEducation.Washington,D.C.:NationalAcademyPress.

Nunes,A.(2004).PortfoliosintheEFLclassroom:Disclosinganinformedpractice.ELTJournal,58(4),327-335.

Penuel,W.R.,Boscardin,C.K.,Masyn,K.,&Crawford,V.M.(2007).Teachingwithstudentresponsesystemsinelementaryandsecondary

educationsettings:Asurveystudy.EducationalTechnologyResearch&Development,55,315-346.

Roschelle,J.,Abrahamson,L.A.,&Penuel,W.R.(2004a,April16).DRAFTIntegratingclassroomnetworktechnologyandlearningtheoryto

improveclassroomsciencelearning:Aliteraturesynthesis.PaperpresentedattheAnnualMeetingoftheAmericanEducationalResearch

Association,SanDiego,CA.

Roschelle,J.,Penuel,W.R.,&Abrahamson,A.L.(2004b,April).Classroomresponseandcommunicationsystems:Researchreviewandtheory.

PaperpresentedattheAnnualMeetingoftheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,SanDiego,CA.

Tierney,R.D.,&Charland,J.(2007,April).Stocksandprospects:Researchonformativeassessmentinsecondaryclassrooms.Paperpresentedat

theAnnualMeetingoftheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,Chicago,IL.(ERICDocumentReproductionServiceNo.ED496236)

Tomlinson,C.A.(2000).Differentiationofinstructionintheelementarygrades.ERICDigest.(ERICDocumentReproductionServiceNo.ED443572).

RetrievedMarch8,2010fromhttp://www.ericdigests.org/2001-2/elementary.html

10


Vendlinski,T.,&Stevens,R.(2002).Assessingstudentproblem-solvingskillswithcomplexcomputer-basedtasks.TheJournalofTechnology,

Learning,andAssessment,1(3).RetrievedNovember25,2005fromhttp://www.jtla.org

Vye,N.J.,Schwartz,D.L.,Bransford,J.D.,Barron,B.J.,Zech,L.,&CognitionandTechnologyGroupatVanderbilt.(1998).SMARTenvironments

thatsupportmonitoring,reflection,andrevision.InD.Hacker,J.Dunlosky,andA.Graesser(Eds.),Metacognitionineducationaltheoryand

practice.Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.

Wilen,W.W.(1987).Effectivequestionsandquestioning:Aclassroomapplication.InW.W.Wilen(Ed.),Questions,questioningtechniques,and

effectiveteaching(pp.107-134).Washington,DC:NationalEducationAssociation.theorytoimproveclassroomsciencelearning:A

literaturesynthesis.PaperpresentedattheAnnualMeetingoftheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,SanDiego,CA.

11

using einstruction’s® cps™ to support effective instruction

Documents