Clicking Toward an Engaged Algebra I Classroom

A Capstone ProjectSubmitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degreeof Master of Arts in Teaching: Mathematics

Thomas Scott Milbrandt

Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceCollege of Arts and Sciences

Graduate SchoolMinot State UniversityMinot, North Dakota

Summer 2011

ii

This capstone project was submitted by

Tom Milbrandt

Graduate Committee:

Dr. Laurie Geller, Chairperson

Mr. Larry Goodman

Dr. Ryan Winburn

Dean of Graduate School

Dr. Linda Cresap

Date of defense: July 7th, 2011

iii

Abstract

Think of all the ways society has changed. Almost everyone has a cell phone, Internet access,

and other technologies. Seemingly, why hasn’t classroom instruction changed to include more

interaction via use of these technologies? I am as guilty as anyone of using lecture in my

classroom. On a daily basis, I would go to the white board to lecture, write notes, and work

examples. Class seemed stagnant with low interaction. Then, during the summer of 2010 I took a

graduate class with an instructor who used “clickers” on a daily basis. This experience prompted

me to use clickers (personal response system or PRS) in my high school Algebra I class to

determine whether their use increased student participation and engagement. I also wanted to

gauge student response from using the PRS. Would students find using clickers to be a positive

or negative learning experience? I implemented clickers in my Algebra I class for nine weeks to

find out. I used pre- and post-surveys to determine whether or not the students felt the PRS was a

positive addition to the Algebra I classroom. In addition, I kept a daily journal to gauge my

perspective, as the classroom teacher, of the effects of the PRS in class. The results indicate

overall, student engagement and participation increased and students found clickers to be

beneficial learning tools. In fact, student engagement and interaction increased more than I

anticipated. The knowledge I obtained from this study will stay with me the rest of my teaching

career. I know the importance of student interaction and engagement and the power of seeing

these occur first hand; clickers are positive learning tools in my classroom, no questions asked. I

give clicker-use my highest recommendation in the classroom, and other teachers too can see

their students engage and interact with the curriculum in ways they once only imagined.

iv

Acknowledgements

This capstone project would not have been possible without the guidance and the help of

several individuals who in one way or another contributed and extended their assistance to help

me prepare and complete this project.

First and foremost, my advisor Dr. Laurie Geller, Chairperson of the Department of

Mathematics & Computer Science and Associate Professor of Mathematics. I will never forget

your sincerity and unfailing encouragement and support throughout this process. Your

inspiration helped me stay motivated and keep my head up when I wanted to wave the white

flag. Thank you, Dr. Geller.

My fellow colleagues in the MAT program who were there with me side-by-side for so

many summers in Lura Manor. I would like to especially thank my close friend TJ Hansen, who

encouraged and motivated me to get enrolled into the program. Also, Peter Wang, friend and

colleague I met while enrolled in the MAT program. TJ, Peter, and I were always editing each

other’s papers. It sure didn’t hurt having more eyes looking for editing tips!

The faculty and staff at Minot State. They were certainly always very welcoming,

friendly, and made the process a very educational and rewarding experience. The new teaching

methods and instructional ideas I was presented with will make me a better mathematics

instructor in the future. Special thanks to Mr. Larry Goodman, you instructed a mathematics

course in which I was first exposed to the “clickers.” I knew from that point on that my capstone

project topic was chosen.

Last, but not least, my wife, Amy; for being understanding and supportive of me for the

past three years…especially, spending a majority of three summers away from home. She

certainly always seemed to know what I needed when I was feeling overwhelmed. Thank you!

v

Table of Contents

Page

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................iii

Acknowledgements.........................................................................................................................iv

List of Tables.................................................................................................................................vii

List of Figures...............................................................................................................................viii

Chapter One: Introduction...............................................................................................................1

Motivation for the Project....................................................................................................2

Background on the Problem.................................................................................................2

Statement of the Problem.....................................................................................................4

Statement of Purpose...........................................................................................................4

Research Questions/Hypotheses..........................................................................................5

Summary..............................................................................................................................5

Chapter Two: Review of Literature.................................................................................................6

The Personal Response System...........................................................................................6

Checking Students’ Understanding......................................................................................8

Benefits and Drawbacks......................................................................................................8

Typical Characteristics of Questions.................................................................................12

Recommendations..............................................................................................................14

Summary............................................................................................................................15

Chapter Three: Research Design and Method...............................................................................17

Setting ................................................................................................................................17

vi

Intervention/Innovation......................................................................................................17

Design ................................................................................................................................18

Description of Methods......................................................................................................19

Expected Results................................................................................................................20

Timeline for the Study.......................................................................................................21

Summary............................................................................................................................21

Chapter Four: Data Analysis and Interpretation of Results...........................................................22

Data Analysis.....................................................................................................................22

Interpretation of Results.....................................................................................................27

Summary............................................................................................................................30

Chapter Five: Conclusions, Action Plan, Reflections, and Recommendations.............................31

Conclusions........................................................................................................................31

Action Plan.........................................................................................................................33

Reflections and Recommendations for Other Teachers.....................................................34

Summary............................................................................................................................35

References......................................................................................................................................37

Appendices.....................................................................................................................................40

Appendix A: Pre-Survey....................................................................................................41

Appendix B: Post-Survey..................................................................................................43

Appendix C: Parental/Guardian Consent Form.................................................................46

Appendix D: Youth Assent Form......................................................................................48

Appendix E: Principal Permission Letter..........................................................................50

vii

Appendix F: IRB Approval Letter.....................................................................................52

viii

List of Tables

Table Page

1. Classroom Tasks: Traditional vs. Electronic.....................................................................13

2. Pre-survey and Post-Survey Results for Questions 1-7.....................................................23

3. Post-Survey Results for Questions 8-13............................................................................25

4. Post-Survey Results for Questions 14-35..........................................................................26

ix

List of Figures

Figure Page

1. SMART Response PE Clicker from SMART Technologies...............................................7

Chapter One

Introduction

Jimmy is sitting in a classroom and his palms begin to sweat. Jimmy looks up at the

board and notices the math problem seemingly glaring him straight in the eyes. After a few

minutes, he has an answer circled on the paper on his desk. Jimmy begins to ask himself, “Is my

answer correct?” Mr. Jastrom, Jimmy’s math teacher, looks ready to call on someone in the class

for the answer, and Jimmy hopes that it is not him for fear of being wrong in front of his friends,

his classmates.

Many people have been in a similar situation or have seen that scenario play out in a

classroom. The same hands always go up to answer questions. What about the other students?

How can teachers help to engage all students in the mathematics classroom?

With technology showing society that the sky is the limit, there must be a way to utilize

modern elements to make sure the scenario above doesn’t continue to happen in most

mathematics classrooms in America. Teachers know class participation can always be improved.

Their hope is that when they ask a question, all students’ hands go up willing to answer.

However, it seems like the same students answer questions every day. Why does this occur? Are

students scared to answer incorrectly? Do students not know the answer or not want to answer?

Would there be more participation if students could answer anonymously? Welcome to the world

of personal response systems. With personal response systems, students can answer freely

without the fear of giving the wrong answer in front of their classmates. This project determined

whether the use of a personal response system increased student participation and engagement in

a mathematics class.

2

Motivation for the Project

I was very interested in the personal response system or “clickers” as my school recently

bought a set to go along with our SMART BoardsTM. My classroom has always had a handful of

students willing to answer questions in class, and the rest of the class has had low participation

during a typical lecture. In my opinion, the use of a personal response system can improve class

discussion, participation, and enhance student learning immediately.

I was able to witness these improvements first hand at the college level. In the 2010

summer semester, a professor used a personal response system in one of my graduate courses,

Geometry for Secondary School Teachers. I was immediately taken by this technology. The

same students didn’t answer every question; students’ names were withheld on correct/incorrect

responses; and it generated a vast amount of discussion. My experience in the classroom was

such a positive experience because of the constant engagement in the lecture and class

discussions generated. It was also appealing that the professor was able to adjust his lesson plan

immediately if the class needed another example or if the class was ready to move on. I felt

strongly that the personal response system benefited my learning, and I wanted to bring that

positive experience into my classroom.

Background on the Problem

Technology use in the everyday classroom is becoming more of a reality than it was in

the past. According to the market research firm Future Source Consulting, more than 300,000

interactive whiteboards were sold in the United States and 750,000 globally in 2009, an increase

of 34% over 2008 (Eisele-Dyrli, 2010). I teach at a small Midwestern school with approximately

120 students in grades 7-12. By next year, all classrooms will be equipped with a SMART

BoardTM. In conjunction with my SMART BoardTM, I had access to the personal response system

3

the school system recently purchased. With so many technological resources to use in the

classroom, the typical classroom may be going extinct while more and more technology and

interactive materials are becoming readily available.

I noticed a trend that not only affected small town North Dakota, but classrooms

throughout the nation. This problem has affected all instructors across the curriculum. Teachers

all have students who sit back, remain quiet, and wait for the bell to ring. I believe teachers all

strive for student engagement and interaction. What would society be like if students and

teachers didn’t discuss problems with each other? Nothing would ever get accomplished! What

happens when high school students go to college and are assigned a group project, will they

know how to collaborate and work together? Fact is, once most students reach the “real world”

or go to college, they need to interact with each other on a daily basis. That interaction starts in

today’s classrooms! Teachers need to prepare students for the future. As a teacher, I believe

student interaction, participation, and discussion on a daily basis would make my job easier, and

would make teaching more fun! An engaged class is one where students care about learning and

don’t want the bell to ring the second they sit down. The students enjoy the class, and the teacher

enjoys seeing and working with them as well.

Low student interaction and participation began to arise because many teaching styles

became stagnant. Think of all the ways society has changed. Almost everyone has a cell phone,

Internet access, and other technologies. How many people know a teacher who teaches the same

way as 20 years ago? They stand in front of the white board (or chalk board) and lecture the

entire hour, every day, for 180 school days with no discussion amongst students or student-

teacher interaction.

4

Student interaction is significant because it affects everyone. If teachers don’t teach

students how to solve problems, work together, and discuss issues, students may struggle in

college and in the workforce where they will be required to interact with others. I believed it was

important to research this problem because this research would show my students what it is like

to interact with each other, discuss problems, work together, and become more engaged in the

classroom, life skills they can use for the rest of their lives. I cared, as an educator, enough to

find out if the personal response system would benefit my students’ learning as it did mine at

Minot State University.

Statement of the Problem

After five full years of teaching, I began to notice a trend with student interaction in the

math classroom. Seemingly, all students wanted to participate but only a couple of hands went

up, and it was always the same hands, to voluntarily explain their answer or answer my

questions. Are students scared of answering for fear of being incorrect?

As a high school student, undergraduate, and graduate student, I have always believed

student interaction and discussion have a direct relationship to learning. From my experience as a

student, gaining immediate feedback during a lecture affects both the instructor and students in a

positive way. Tradition lecture in the math classroom has typically been devoid of student

interactions and immediate feedback. Can the amount of interaction and speed of feedback be

improved?

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of my action research was to determine whether use of a personal response

system, or PRS, increased student participation and engagement in my high school mathematics

Algebra I class. Further, I described student reactions to the use of personal response systems

5

and determined whether students perceived the personal response system to be a beneficial

mathematics learning tool.

Research Questions/Hypotheses

The following research questions were asked: Will use of the personal response system in

my Algebra I class improve student engagement? What will be the positive and negative

responses from the students? How will students respond to using the personal response system in

Algebra I? Will students find the use of the personal response system to be a positive

mathematics learning tool?

I hypothesized that the students would enjoy using the personal response system. I

believed the entire process would be a positive experience that would keep students engaged

with the lecture. Hopefully, they would be more engaged than they were prior to using clickers.

Summary

I have been in the classroom as a teacher and as a student. Student discussion and

interaction have always been areas I wanted to improve in my classroom. After using the

personal response system firsthand, I knew the positive effect it had on my learning, as well as

the entire class. My personal background as a student and educator led me to focus my research

on the personal response system in the mathematics classroom and answer my research questions

stated above.

Chapter Two

Review of Literature

Traditional classrooms are becoming a thing of the past. The use of technology has

become an everyday essential to education. As an educator, I noticed that student participation,

in the mathematics classroom, did not involve every student. Can the use of technology improve

student participation and engagement? The purpose of my action research project was to

determine whether use of a personal response system, or PRS, increased student participation

and engagement in my high school mathematics Algebra I class. Further, I described student

reactions to the use of personal response systems and determined whether students perceived the

personal response system to be a beneficial mathematics learning tool. The use of the PRS,

background of the PRS, and case studies involving the PRS were analyzed and summarized in

the review of literature.

The Personal Response System

The personal response system (PRS) is a technological tool to use in the classroom. The

idea behind the system is that each student is equipped with a hand-held electronic transmitter,

and the entire class is able to participate in lecture and other classroom activities. The teacher

may pose questions which students consider and answer via the transmitters, providing

interaction and an activity for the students and feedback for the teacher (d’Inverno, Davis, &

White, 2003). The system is often called “clickers” due to the handheld remotes resembling

television remotes.

A common model from SMART Technologies (2010) is shown in Figure 1. According to

SMART Technologies, this brand is ideal for most K-12 classrooms. SMART Response PE

7

includes wireless remotes and powerful assessment software that can deliver formative and

summative assessments using a variety of question types.

Figure 1. SMART Response PE Clicker from SMART Technologies.

Why is there need to increase student participation? Utilizing breaks during lectures

allows students to refocus. It is common knowledge that most people cannot concentrate for

extended periods beyond 20 minutes so a break in the lectures are often helpful (d’Inverno et al.,

2003). Students rarely ask questions in class, though many do not understand much of the

material. Instructors find it difficult to identify where students are having problems without these

questions (Hall, Collier, Thomas, & Hilgers, 2005).

Checking Students’ Understanding

8

The PRS system can also be used to evaluate how well a teacher is presenting their

material. For example, if a majority of the class gets an answer incorrect, the material needs to be

presented again or in an all-out-different approach. On the other hand, if the entire class gets an

answer correct, the next set of practice problems and new material may be covered immediately.

Teachers can immediately decide whether there is a need for further instruction or supplementary

materials (Zhu, 2007). Lesson plans can be changed instantaneously. If students need more

instruction than an instructor has planned, additional problems can be created. Likewise, if more

questions are prepared than the student needs to master the material, the instructor may proceed

with new material.

Using the PRS allows the instructor to permit students to respond anonymously. There

may not be sensitive topics or controversial issues in the mathematics classroom, but students

may be more willing to participate knowing the entire class will not see their answers. When

students recognize their own opinions or answers, they will actively feel like they are part of the

lecture. As a result, students will be more engaged in and responsible for their own learning

(Zhu, 2007).

Benefits and Drawbacks

Benefits and drawbacks of clicker use for instructors and students do exist. One example

of the benefits include lecture became more fun and class became more interesting. Examples of

drawbacks included technical difficulties and the flow of the lecture seemed to be ruined (Zhu,

2007). In the mathematics classroom, the clickers were used to deliver multiple choice questions

which led to improved concentration during lectures and greater enjoyment (d’Inverno et al.,

2003).

9

Some people just do not like change. Most people believe anytime you deal with

technology, there is a chance something will go wrong or something will not work properly.

Wiess (2009) mentioned that technology, too often and too readily, can create a communication

gap between instructors and their students. Some negative reactions in the past have included:

“stop messing around with technology and get back to good basic teaching” (d’Inverno et al.,

2003, p. 166).

According to SMART Technologies, the cost of the SMART Response LE System with

receiver and 18 remotes is $1239 with an additional $2700 to $4000 for an interactive

whiteboard with projector. Zhu (2007) also referenced cost as a big downfall of using the

clickers. At a big college or university, there may be courses where students are required to

purchase their own hand-held remote.

Analyzing different case studies showed that about 88% of students either “frequently” or

“always” enjoyed using the clickers in the classroom (Caldwell, 2007; d’Inverno et al., 2003).

Popelka (2010) stated that 100% of her students thought that the PRS helped them understand

mathematics better and that clickers seemed to be appealing to most students.

At the University of Missouri-Rolla, during the fall of 2004, Hall et al. (2005) integrated

the student response system (SRS), which is just another name for a PRS, into a large chemistry

lecture course. The following were some of the survey results after implementation:

1) The SRS lead to more efficient use of class time and materials.

a. They allow more time because you don’t have to pass out quizzes.

b. They’re a lot more efficient than paper and pencil.

2) The SRS increased student engagement

a. They help to engage the students and keep us awake.

10

b. The clickers helped me pay attention and get involved in problem solving.

3) There were technical issues that hampered the effectiveness of the SRS

a. Better color contrast on the screen. More unobstructed receivers. Battery

checks.

b. The sensor to inquire the infrared signal is weak so that students have to wait

too long to answer using clickers.

4) The SRS facilitate group work

a. The clickers allowed for group discussion

b. Through the use of the clickers you interact more. (Hall et al., 2005, p. 5)

When results are being collected anonymously, students are more apt to participate and

listen. If students participate and listen at a higher level, they are going to have a greater

retention and comprehension. Webking and Valenzuela (2006) analyzed their case study and

found the use of the PRS helped students to engage in the process of analysis and to understand

what they were doing as they did it. The analysis of texts involves reading critically to

understand and embrace the statements and arguments found there, considering those statements

and arguments together to discover apparent contradictions or things that do not seem to be clear

when put together, and learning from those apparent contradictions or difficulties to develop a

conceptual understanding of the problem at hand (Webking & Valenzuela, 2006).

“Rather than the technology being the mode of the education, it was rather the means by

which the education was delivered, albeit a fun and novel means, but it delivered” (Kift, 2006, p.

93). It is apparent the PRS system has the potential to provide a technological advantage without

the compromise of losing educational rigor.

11

An advantage to using a PRS is it makes each student continually active in working with

the material and the instructor (Webking & Valenzuela, 2006). It is sometimes suggested an

advantage of these systems is they encourage participation by students who would not ordinarily

participate readily, because they are unsure of themselves, or perhaps there are other students in

the class who tend to dominate, making participation too difficult for others (Webking &

Valenzuela, 2006).

The PRS can stimulate discussion among students. Students will try to convince one

another of the right answer, and the instructor can encourage such behavior, especially in an

instance where there is great diversity of answers among the students in the room, or even if the

majority of the students answered incorrectly (Webking & Valenzula, 2006). The instructor

becomes vital in this discussion to moderate its level of educational value and keep the students

on the topic at hand. Webking and Valenzula (2006) concluded that the PRS does in fact provide

tools to improve the level and quality of the student’s engagement in different sized classes.

They allow instructors to actively encourage participation in a way that is comfortable for the

students.

Popelka (2010) gave the students’ perspective of getting an incorrect response in the

following statement:

Students know that the purpose of clickers is not to penalize them for getting the wrong

answers; it is to encourage them to learn in an unintimidating and cooperative way, to

help one another so that they make progress individually and as a group. (p. 293)

Students who understand they are not going to be penalized for an incorrect response are

more likely to participate using the PRS. The instructor needs to stress that point on day one of

12

PRS use. If successful, use of the PRS can provide students with immediate ability to expedite

their learning curve, confidence, and understanding of the material.

Typical Characteristics of Questions

By using multiple choice questions, an instructor can sometimes quickly measure student

understanding. According to the Center for Teaching and Learning (1990), writing multiple

choice questions should include the following rules:

-Write the correct answer immediately after writing the question. Make sure it is

“unquestionably” correct.

-Make all responses the same length, style, complexity, and phrasing.

-Avoid composing alternatives that are “close to” the correct answer.

-Avoid using “all of the above” or “both A & B”.

-Avoid using verbal clues that give away the correct response. (p. 3)

Questions are typically well thought-out prior to classroom instruction while preparing

lecture notes or lesson plans. Preparing questions utilizing the PRS is just as simple as inserting a

new slide into PowerPoint. Instructors can also add questions during lecture should concerns

over student understanding or something else needs to be addressed with the class (Caldwell,

2007).

A number of studies have shown that the PRS has value for teaching and learning.

d’Inverno et al. (2003) showed using it to deliver multiple-choice questions in mathematics led

to improved concentration during lectures and greater enjoyment.

Chu (1998) used a table to show the traditional approach versus electronic approach to

questions and answers in the classroom. Analysis of Table 1 shows the electronic method helped

eliminate bias in the classroom and was an effective time saver.

13

Table 1

Classroom Tasks: Traditional vs. Electronic

Task/Issue Traditional Electronic

Question & answer Raise hands to be called Answer in private with a keypad

Collect answers One at a time-tedious Nearly parallel-in minutes

Question type No restriction Alphanumeric strings/multiple choice

Involvement A few students All students

Risk of embarrassment High None

Gender-blind No Yes

Color-blind No Yes

Feedback to lecturer Takes effort Convenient

Feedback/reinforcement Occasional – some Histograms of responses-all

Voting tabulation Manual Automatic

Polling tabulation Manual Automatic

Attendance check Manual Automatic

Monitoring performance Tedious Convenient

Teaching style Lecture Key on concept clarifying questions

Grading answers Manual Software assisted

Note. From A universal learning tool for classrooms? by S. Chu, 1998. Retrieved from The Hong Kong University

Department of Physics Web site: http://celt.ust.hk/ideas/prs/pdf/Nelsoncue.pdf. Reprinted with permission of the

author.

As a teacher, bringing something new into the classroom requires some additional work.

According to the Center for Research on Learning and Teaching (CRLT, 2010), the “Teaching

with Clickers” section of their Web site has tremendous advice. The “Recommendations” section

stated, as with any technological advance, the teacher needs to know how to use the clickers

effectively. If the teacher is not well-prepared, the students realize in a heartbeat, possibly

14

making the class a failure. One should also plan time to practice before actual classroom use so

the teacher is able to work out the wrinkles in the new system.

Kift (2006) studied the PRS system by performing a case study. She noted that the use of

the PRS technology broke up the traditional, passive lecture and got the students to relax and

have some fun, without academic compromise. The future of learning and teaching is engaging

students with these technological learning tools (Kift, 2006).

Recommendations

Pelton and Pelton (2006) stated that the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

identified communication as one of the fundamental processes for learning mathematics. They

discussed the old “chalk and talk” method in which a teacher lectures and the students take notes

with little to no real discussion being promoted. Techniques that promote and support student

participation yield students who pay more attention in class, perform better in the classroom and

have fun learning (Pelton & Pelton, 2006). Based on their observations made during their study,

they made the following recommendations:

-Be clear on objectives and the instructions given to students.

-Pilot questions before using them. A second set of eyes will help find poorly worded or

poorly defined responses.

-Try to encourage thoughtful assumptions. Make some questions purposely ambiguous to

leave room for students to make some decisions.

-Avoid jumping to show the correct answer.

-Have students explain why a particular response might be selected. This may or not be

the response they chose.

15

-When a question yields varied responses, talk about it. “Convince your neighbor” works

well.

-Not all questions need to have a preset correct answer. Let the students know that more

than one answer may be correct or a “best” answer may be an option.

-Avoid using the timer with questions. Students seem to find it stressful. (p. 182)

Summary

Classrooms world-wide have strived for ways to further engage students in the

classroom. Throughout the literature review process, it became almost unanimously apparent that

the PRS is a positive, interactive tool to use in the classroom. The PRS has been used to promote

student participation and engagement. The positive comments from students who witnessed this

first-hand were overwhelming compared to the few negative comments. The negative comments

mostly dealt with technological glitches, not the personal response system itself as an educational

tool.

Using interactive lectures, students gained control over the speed at which they learned as

well as the content being instructed. An interactive lecture using the PRS involves all the

students and returns immediate feedback to the class, as well as the instructor, to help guide the

topic to the point of understanding.

Overall, clickers have the potential to improve student participation and engagement. “I

never liked raising my hand in class. [Clickers] make me participate without having to raise my

hand” (Popelka, 2010, pp. 294-295). Some students are scared to raise their hand and participate.

The use of the PRS allows them to participate while remaining anonymous. Popelka (2010)

shared that student engagement and participation naturally influence learning, increase

engagement, and promote positive attitudes about mathematics. A majority of the research

16

studies mentioned above have shown that the PRS can provide value for teaching and learning.

My hope was that using the new methods presented, all students would become more engaged in

my Algebra I classroom and have fun with the additional technology available. I also believed

that the use of the PRS will make me a better teacher. I would be able to teach at a higher level

because I would be able to immediately assess student learning without spending time reviewing

material they already knew.

Chapter Three

Research Design and Method

This action research project determined whether use of the personal response system

increased student participation and engagement in my high school mathematics Algebra I class.

Further, I described student reactions to the use of personal response systems and determined

whether students perceived the PRS to be a beneficial mathematics learning tool. Chapter Three

includes methodology of how the research was designed and conducted.

Setting

I currently am in my sixth year as a mathematics and chemistry instructor at a small

Midwestern school with approximately 122 students in grades 7-12. In my first year as an

educator, I was able to recognize that the same set of students were participating in classroom

discussions, answering questions and volunteering to go to the board. Lecture became redundant

because the same students were getting involved day after day.

The participants of this study were my Algebra I class which was the only section of this

course in the school. I was the instructor of the class being studied. The participants were

freshmen in high school and consisted of 12 students, seven boys and five girls.

My school recently purchased a set of clickers to go along with the newly installed

SMART BoardTM. I planned to implement the personal response system in my Algebra I

classroom to determine whether the PRS increased student participation and engagement in my

classroom.

Intervention/Innovation

My classroom was a typical mathematics classroom involving lecture and utilizing the

SMART BoardTM. I lectured about new material and then asked volunteers to go to the board to

18

work out examples, or guide me in going through the problem together. I used the NotebookTM

software, which allowed me to create questions before class began and also allowed me the

opportunity to print and save notes should students be unable to partake in lecture (i.e., being

absent). The NotebookTM program is the SMART BoardTM version of a word processing

document.

During my action research project, each student was given an individual “clicker” at the

beginning of class. I required all students to answer using the PRS. A majority of the questions

were multiple-choice, but there were also some listing and fill-in-the-blank questions.

Time was a big factor in this project. An incredible amount of time was needed to make

sure everything was working properly before a “live run” in front of the students. The first thing

I did was make myself familiar with the technology being used. I did not want the first day in

front of the students to be my trial run with the system. Second, all questions needed to be

created prior to the study using a program compatible with the SMART BoardTM. Questions can

easily be made on the fly (i.e., while teaching) if more practice is needed or if questions arise, but

the entire day’s material cannot be typed up during class time or it will waste most of the period.

Writing the questions was, no doubt, time consuming. Once I had the material, I would always

have it to use and revise if saved properly.

Design

The action research project on the PRS was a mixed-methods approach. I kept a daily

journal to document changes in student interaction and engagement in the classroom as well as

observations and thoughts about my teaching methods. This journal also included a comparison

of student interaction and engagement as it began one week prior to the PRS being introduced. A

pre- and post-survey (modified from Joosten, 2004) was also given to determine the students’

19

opinions and personal insight of the clickers being brought into the Algebra I classroom (see

Appendix A and Appendix B). As an action research study, I used the results to learn more about

my teaching and my students’ learning while implementing the PRS. The results were not

generalized to other Algebra I classes.

Description of Methods

Three weeks prior to the start of the research project, the parental/guardian consent form

and youth assent form (see Appendix C and Appendix D, respectively) were sent home with the

students to gain the approval of their child being involved in data collection. The school’s

principal also signed a permission letter approving the study be conducted in the school (see

Appendix E). It was well noted that MSU’s Institutional Review Board (see Appendix F) was in

complete approval of the research and that the report was confidential and the data collected

were to be kept confidential.

Once the consent and assent letters were turned in to me, the data collection process

began with a pre-survey of the students to determine their experience, understanding, and

knowledge of the “clicker” system that was to be utilized (see Appendix A). The system used

was the SMART Response PE Clicker from SMART TechnologiesTM. This PRS was chosen

because it is available to me since the school had purchased a set.

Daily questions and students’ answers were saved and analyzed each day to allow me to

adjust my instruction to meet the needs of the students. Most of the questions were multiple-

choice, but there still were problems which were fill-in-the-blank. A daily journal was kept by

me to chart classroom interaction on a daily basis. Certain items I watched for were the

following: Were the students interacting with me as the teacher? Were students interacting with

fellow students and discussing the answers when shown? Was the interaction positive,

20

productive, and related to the mathematical content? Did the students becoming more engaged in

the mathematics topic? The journal was also used to document my reactions and thoughts about

my teaching. I wrote about the effectiveness of a lesson, changes for future lessons, difficulties

and successes, and my thoughts about the study and students’ responses to the PRS.

At the end of the third nine-weeks, a post-survey was given to determine students’ level

of interaction in my Algebra I class after implementation of PRS, whether they enjoyed their

time utilizing the PRS in the Algebra I classroom, and whether they perceived the PRS to be a

beneficial mathematics learning tool (see Appendix B). The survey asked students for their

opinions on the entire process. Did they feel it was more interactive during lecture? Were they

engaged and having fun at the same time? It was very interesting to see how their opinions

compared to what I witnessed.

Expected Results

My hope was that the students in my Algebra I classroom would be intrigued with the

new technology. I expected my Algebra I students would enjoy the use of the PRS and the

classroom would become much more interactive since everyone would be required to respond to

a given question. I believed the more interactive a student became the more engaged he or she

would be with the material and his or her learning. I hoped to find a positive relationship

between productive discussions with increased engagement and student achievement, but

achievement was not measured as part of this study.

I would like the use of the personal response system to increase in my small school. My

hope was to see it utilized in every classroom regardless of curriculum and discipline. I foresaw

some obstacles that needed to be overcome before class could continue. Those obstacles dealt

with technology and the regular classroom. The technological problems that I was especially

21

weary of included the following: What would happen if the power went out or I had computer

difficulties? The regular classroom problems that may happen included the following: Even

though answers would be confidential, would there be a problem with students making fun of

particular answers that showed up on the board? However, doesn’t that problem arise in the

typical lecture classroom as well? Once the discussions became more and more prevalent in the

everyday classroom, would the students keep their discussions focused on the task at hand or

would there be discussion tangent to another topic?

Timeline for the Study

I began my study the first day of the second semester of class, the start of the third

quarter. The study ran for the entire third quarter, lasting nine weeks.

Summary

As an educator, I believe all teachers can improve classroom participation, which should

go hand-in-hand with making classroom lecture more interactive, more fun, and the students

should learn something by doing it! The nine-week action research project on the personal

response system determined whether the personal response system, in my Algebra I classroom,

increased student participation and engagement. Chapter Four includes the data analysis and the

results of the study.

Chapter Four

Data Analysis and Interpretation of Results

For nine weeks, I incorporated clickers into my everyday lecture. In this chapter, the

results I found through surveys, open-ended questions, and my observations are discussed. The

analysis and results of my research determined whether my action research project met the

aforementioned purpose statement, to determine whether use of a PRS increased student

participation and engagement in my high school mathematics Algebra I class. Student

perception, as measured by a survey, was also summarized and shared to determine whether my

students perceived the PRS to be a beneficial learning tool.

Data Analysis

The PRS system was used exclusively during the third quarter of the 2010-2011 school

year in my Algebra I class. Before the integration of the PRS, students were given a pre-survey

that asked about their current feelings toward Algebra I and their past experiences, if any, using

clickers.

At the end of the study, a post-survey was given to determine whether their feelings

toward mathematics had changed. More questions were asked on the post-survey than the pre-

survey, as I wanted to gauge student perceptions of the process as well as note changes in student

participation and engagement. Table 2 includes the results of the pre- and post-survey questions

that were the same on both surveys. Results are shown rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent.

A higher percentage of students “always listen” at the end of the study compared to the

beginning of the study. A significant increase in the number of students who “always answer

questions” is apparent from Table 2. At the end of the study, there were no “frequent

23

daydreamers” in the class and a higher percentage of “I never daydream.” Comparing the pre-

and the post-surveys, the percentage of students who answered “I do not like math” doubled.

Table 2

Pre-Survey and Post-Survey Results for Questions 1-7

Statement ResponsePre-

SurveyPost-

Survey1. Indicate your opinion of mathematics I hate math 0.0% 0.0%

I do not like math 16.7% 33.3%Math is okay 58.3% 41.7%I love math 25.0% 25.0%

2. Indicate how often you currently daydream in Algebra

I never daydream 16.7% 25.0%I rarely daydream 25.0% 50.0%I occasionally daydream 41.7% 25.0%I frequently daydream 16.7% 0.0%

3. Indicate why you don’t answer question in Algebra I.

I don’t know the answer 33.3% 14.3%I am afraid of giving the wrong answer

40.0% 50.0%

I am shy and don’t like to speak in front of others

0.0% 7.1%

I always answer questions 26.7% 26.7%

4. Indicate how often you listen, on a day-to-day basis, in Algebra I

I always listen 16.7% 41.7%I usually listen 83.3% 58.3%I rarely listen 0.0% 0.0%I never listen 0.0% 0.0%

5. Indicate how often you take notes, on a day-to-day basis, in Algebra I.

I never taken notes 25.0% 16.7%I rarely taken notes 58.3% 66.7%I usually taken notes 16.7% 16.7%I always taken notes 0.0% 0.0%

6. Indicate how often you answer questions, on a day-to-day basis, in Algebra I

I always answer questions 16.7% 41.7%I usually answer questions 33.3% 16.7%I rarely answer questions 50.0% 41.7%I never answer questions 0.0% 0.0%

7. Indicate the frequency with which you have used “clickers” in school.

Never 100% 0.0%A few times 0.0% 0.0%Often 0.0% 0.0%Everyday 0.0% 100%

24

On the pre-survey, students were asked if they had any experiences using the clickers

prior to the research project. None of the students in my class had used clickers before; thus,

after question 7, the pre-survey was stopped as the entire class had never used clickers in the

classroom before. After the nine-week study, the additional six questions were answered on the

post-survey as the students now had clicker exposure. Class results on the post-survey are shown

in Table 3, rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent.

Table 3 shows that all students considered their personal clicker-use ability “expert” by

the end of the study. A vast majority (91.6%) believed the use of clickers had a “positive” or

“very positive” impact on the classroom, as well as made Algebra I “more enjoyable” (83.3%).

Clickers also made all participants more confident while answering questions at the end of the

study.

Table 4 shows the class responses as a whole for questions 14-35 from the post-survey.

Each student response was coded according to the response and whether the question was

positive or negative. For the positive questions, the coding was 5 = Strongly Agree (SA), 4 =

Agree (A), 3 = Neutral, 2 = Disagree (D), 1= Strongly Disagree (SD). For the negative questions,

the coding was 1 = SA, 2 = A, 3 = Neutral, 4 = D, 5 = SD. The sum of the coded class responses

was then divided by the total numbers of responses given, which generated a mean. The larger

the mean, the more positive the students’ perceptions of the experience were.

Student rankings are visible using Table 4. The highest rated results were the ease of

using the clickers in Algebra I and the increased engagement in class. A very high number of

students hoped the instructor would continue to use clickers and were very happy throughout the

study. Students also felt more involved and, in turn, participated more in class. The lowest

ranking, by far, was the clickers increasing the scores of assignments.

25

Table 3

Post-Survey Results for Questions 8-13Statement Response Percentage8. Rate your ability to use clickers None 0.0%

Weak 0.0%Good 0.0%Expert 100.0%

9. Indicate the impact you believe the use of clickers brought to the Algebra I classroom

Very negative 0.0%Negative 8.3%Positive 33.3%Very positive 58.3%

10. The use of the clickers made Algebra I: More enjoyable 83.3%Less enjoyable 0.0%No different 16.7%I don’t know 0.0%

11. In your opinion, what did the use of clickers do to your ability to pay attention in Algebra I?

Clickers won’t help me pay attention

0.0%

I already pay attention 8.3%Clickers will help me pay attention

91.7%

I am not sure 0.0%

12. When clickers are used to answer questions in class, only the instructor can see the results. Indicate how answering questions with clickers might impact your confidence in answering questions

I will be less confident 0.0%I won’t be confident 0.0%I will be a little more confident 66.7%I will be more confident 33.3%

13. What do you like most about using clickers Immediate feedback--I will know if my answer is correct immediately

25.0%

Using technology to learn math 8.3%Confidentiality of my responses--only the instructor, not my classmates, will see my answers

25.0%

All of the above 41.7%

26

Table 4

Post-Survey Results for Questions 14-35

 Question SA A D SD Neu

tral

N/A

Cla

ss

Mea

n

14. Clickers made me feel involved in the course 6 6 0 0 0 0 4.50

15. I had no problems using clickers 7 5 0 0 0 0 4.58

16. I am happy using the clickers 8 3 1 0 0 0 4.50

17. Clickers have been beneficial to my learning 4 5 1 1 1 0 3.83

18. Using clickers helped me to get a better grade in this class 2 4 3 2 1 0 3.08

19. Clickers led me to become engaged in class 7 5 0 0 0 0 4.58

20. Using clickers as a way of interacting is exciting 3 8 1 0 0 0 4.08

21. Clickers had very little impact on my learning 1 0 5 5 1 0 4.08

22. Using clickers helped me to pay attention in class 5 7 0 0 0 0 4.42

23. Clicker use is annoying 1 0 3 8 0 0 4.42

24. I wish more courses would use clickers during lecture 7 4 0 1 0 0 4.33

25. Clickers allow me to better understand concepts 3 8 0 1 0 0 4.00

26. The classroom environment was very lively and active thanks to the clickers

6 5 0 0 1 0 4.42

27. Using my clicker in class was simple 7 5 0 0 0 0 4.58

28. I would recommend that the instructor continue to use clickers

9 2 1 0 0 0 4.58

29. I got higher scores on my assignments because of the clicker

1 5 3 3 0 0 2.83

30. Clickers did not stimulate interaction with my classmates 0 2 7 3 0 0 3.92

31. I would hope the instructor would think twice about using clickers in the future

0 1 3 7 1 0 4.33

32. Clickers helped me get instant feedback on what I knew and didn't know

5 5 1 0 1 0 4.17

33. The clickers motivated me to learn 4 7 1 0 0 0 4.17

34. Clickers increased my participation in class 5 7 0 0 0 0 4.42

35. Clickers helped me think more deeply about course materials

3 5 2 2 0 0 3.42

Two open-ended questions were asked on the post-survey at the end of the nine week

study. The purpose of these questions was to gauge students’ personal experiences with the

27

clickers, and gather suggestions of future clicker-use to improve their use in my classes. Their

answers are summarized below.

What did you like best about your experiences using clickers in this class?

Most students seemed to have a positive outlook on the experience they had. The

responses ranged from being “everything” to “everyone was more involved” and “made

class more enjoyable and fun.” A couple students answered that their favorite part was

their classmates did not know if they got the answer incorrect. They gave responses like

the following: “I got to answer what I thought the answer was and found out if I got it

right or not without the class seeing” and “I didn’t feel weird when I got the answer

wrong.”

If you could fix one thing about the use of clickers, what would it be?

The most common student response was “nothing;” 75% of the 12 students thought they

wouldn’t change a thing. A student mentioned he would like to be able to enter exponents

for answers using the clickers while another student wanted to do more examples

together. The final response was “make it less time consuming.” This response in

particular stands out in my mind.

Interpretation of Results

There is no doubt in my mind that the clickers increased participation and engagement in

the classroom. Looking back at my journal, on days when I would have had a “typical, normal

lecture,” two and maybe three different students would raise their hands when a question was

presented. The first day using the clickers, I remember it very well, the first question was asked,

and every single person had a piece of paper out and was working on the question so they could

answer it using the clickers. I fully expected this novelty to wear off, and kids would become less

28

engaged. To my surprise, journal entry after journal entry, it was the same thing the entire study.

Kids were engaged and they interacted with each other once they saw the answers. I am very

happy with the outcome as I believed clickers would have a positive influence in the classroom; I

learned this first hand when I first used the clickers. According to my students’ responses, it is

quite apparent that there was less daydreaming, more students took notes, and more students

answered questions (see Table 2). They certainly liked the immediate feedback and the

confidentiality of their responses as well (see Table 3).

Fortunately, one problem that I did foresee happening was technological problems. What

happened if the SMART BoardTM bulb burned out, the electricity was out during the class period,

batteries ran low, etc.? Luckily, none of those issues arose.

The engagement of the students can quickly be seen by glancing at Table 2. More

students were always listening and answering questions on a daily basis with less daydreaming

happening in class compared to the “pre-clicker” classroom. In addition, for some reason, more

people “disliked math” after the project was completed. The data in Table 3 indicate all but one

student considered the clicker experience to be either positive or very positive. All but two

students thought that the use of clickers made Algebra I more enjoyable, while those two thought

it didn’t change their enjoyment of Algebra I. This result has led me to believe that the student

who turned to disliking math did so because of the time it took to use them, not because of what

the clickers brought to the classroom as far as interaction and improving engagement. One

student’s response to improving the clicker experience was to make it less time consuming. I can

see their point-of-view. It does take longer using the clickers because the class must wait until all

students have answered before moving on to the next question. That situation is obviously more

time-consuming than waiting for one person to answer, especially if a student gets stuck on a

29

particular step or problem. In turn, more time during clicker lecture meant the students received

their assignments later in the class period. That directly affected their work time and increased

the amount of out-of-class work they needed to complete the assignment.

Regarding the two “no different” responses in question 10 of Table 3, one came from the

above-mentioned negatively-impacted student; the other response is tougher to explain. The

same person thought clickers brought a positive impact to the classroom, which one might

assume makes class more enjoyable. I think that some of the reason for the response could be

due to the time of year. Kids were starting to get spring fever. They were sick of the weather and

waiting for the snow to melt so they could get outside. Then again, their responses could be the

result of kids just being kids. Meaning, kids could just be answering questions to get the survey

completed. However, I did feel that they all took an appropriate amount of time to complete the

post-survey.

The class means in Table 4 show how positive the students, as a whole, believed the

clicker project was. The students clearly felt more involved and more engaged in the Algebra I

classroom. They undoubtedly thought that the clickers made them participate more in the lecture.

Most of them had fun using the clickers as well! I think the enjoyment students had using the

clickers had a lot to do with the positive results. The kids flat out had fun and were happy using

the clickers. After the first day, I no longer needed to tell them to get the clickers out. They

already had them on their desks and were ready to roll. Sometimes I was the one that was a little

tied up getting to class, and they would be trying to logon before I could get my end ready. I

believe, if you can make something fun, students will naturally become more engaged and

interactive. The lowest-rated class response was improving their grades on the assignments (see

question 29 in Table 4). Improving grades through the use of the clickers was not the purpose of

30

the study, but it could be analyzed in future studies. In my opinion, no student had a significant

percentage drop compared to other years. One has to remember that the material gets tougher

throughout the year as well. I think the experience was very positive for the students. They did

not want to stop using the clickers, and most wanted other teachers to begin to integrate clickers

in their lectures as well, regardless of subject area.

Summary

Chapter Four showed the accumulation of results of the 12 students during the nine-week

study and implementation of the clickers into my Algebra I classroom. Each student’s responses

from both the pre- and post-surveys were analyzed, as well as my daily journal observations. My

conclusions from the PRS study are in Chapter Five. Also shared in Chapter Five are my action

plan, my reflections, and my recommendations for future use of the PRS system in the Algebra I

classroom.

Chapter Five

Conclusions, Action Plan, Reflections, and Recommendations

A personal response system was used in my high school Algebra I class to increase

student participation and engagement. Surveys were given to students prior to the introduction of

the PRS as well as at the conclusion of the study. Students responded positively to the personal

response system and found it extremely beneficial to their learning of mathematics.

Conclusions

Before the study, four research questions were asked. These questions and their answers

are summarized below.

Question one: Will use of the personal response system in my Algebra I class improve

student engagement? Throughout the study, I thought students were completely engaged.

Analyzing the surveys, student feedback corroborates my personal thoughts. There is no doubt in

my mind that students were more engaged once the clickers were integrated. This is quite evident

while investigating my journal entries. Seemingly, the same 2-3 students were answering in-

class-lecture questions. Once the PRS was integrated, that immediately ceased and all students

were answering questions. The sense of accomplishment and pride I feel when every one of my

students is working through any and all problems written on the board is indescribable.

Question two: What will be the positive and negative response from the students? A vast

majority of the student responses were positive. They considered the clickers to be fun, easy to

use, and agreed that the clickers made class more interactive and exciting. A very small minority

thought the clickers took too much class time. A bulk of the class said they would change

“nothing” about the project; thus, I consider it a success.

32

Question three: How will students respond to using the personal response system in

Algebra I? Students were very excited to use the clickers. After the first day, “grab your clickers”

never had to be mentioned again. They were very excited to use them and were actually quite

disenchanted when they found out the study would be coming to an end. In fact, a student even

volunteered to make up the presentations so they could keep using them into the fourth quarter.

The excitement level of the students increased dramatically pre-PRS implementation to once

they were used daily. Even now, well after the study was completed, students continue to ask

when they will have the opportunity to use the clickers again.

Question four: Will students find the use of the personal response system to be a positive

mathematics learning tool? Looking at the results in Tables 2-4, of Chapter Four, it is very

evident students considered the PRS to be a positive mathematics learning tool. They all had fun,

were more engaged, were more interactive, and felt confident giving answers in front of their

peers. Knowing that they want other classes to begin to use the clickers implies the PRS is a

positive teaching tool. My observations and journal analysis indicates use of the PRS does not

decrease student learning in my Algebra I class. I didn’t have one negative vibe throughout the

study that showed the students viewed the process in a negative manner.

Throughout this study, I kept a journal and documented items that I thought relevant on a

day-to-day basis. From the first day, I could tell my students in Algebra I were immediately

intrigued. From day one, classroom involvement and engagement increased exponentially. I was

very proud to see my students take an interest in everyday lectures. As I looked back into my

journal entries, prior to the study taking place, a typical day showed two or three students

answering and working on a particular problem. Each day it even seemed to be the same two or

33

three as well. During the study, all students were more engaged. Every single problem was being

worked out on scratch paper so the answer could be submitted using the clickers.

Overall, I thought the entire study was a success. The clickers brought an excitement

level to the classroom that didn’t exist on a day-to-day basis. Kids were able to interact with each

other and even more with me as the instructor. Fortunately, the negative responses were very

nominal. The class thought it was a positive experience overwhelmingly and felt the clickers

were a positive mathematical tool that could even be brought into other classes across the

curriculum. They stated they wished other teachers would be willing to use the clickers in their

classrooms.

Action Plan

Based on my students’ desire to use the clickers and their excitement about using the

PRS, I felt this was a very positive study and a learning process for both my students and me.

This was the students’ first exposure to the clickers and my first time using them as an instructor.

Using clickers while attending graduate school class really piqued my interest as I felt much

more engaged and looked forward to every lecture. It was at that time I decided to rock the boat

of the typical mathematics classroom. It is not that I didn’t feel my classroom was a fun

environment in which a lot of learning transpired, but I am always looking for ways to better

myself as an educator.

One negative aspect of using the clickers from an educator’s perspective is the time it

takes to make the day-to-day interactive lesson plans compared to a typical lesson plan written or

typed out manually. Time is a factor during the school year when it seems like one is being

pulled in many directions. That negative aspect leads to a positive one as well; once I made the

lesson plans, I have them forever and they are very easy to edit. I plan to continue to use clickers

34

in my Algebra I class for the entire year next year. My hope is that I can use the summer months

to make lesson plans for the entire school year and tweak the ones used for this study as needed.

At the end of the subsequent school year, the use of clickers for the entire year in the

Algebra I classroom will be examined. If the PRS continues to increase engagement and

interaction while providing a fun, educational environment, clicker use will be expanded into the

rest of my curriculum.

I believe that a majority of our current staff does not know what the clickers can bring to

their classroom. If possible, I would like to present a workshop to the teachers at my school,

maybe at an in-service before school starts in the fall, to show them how easy the clickers are to

use in their classrooms. They don’t have to use them every day. My goal is to have them give

clickers a try and hopefully student feedback will encourage more frequent use. The fact that my

school has the PRS system throughout it, and it spent the entire second semester in my

classroom, only, is sad. I will also approach the administration and offer suggestions of how to

get other instructors initiated with the PRS.

Reflections and Recommendations for Other Teachers

My immediate feeling is that the entire study went as well as it could have. I came into

the study with no prior knowledge of how to make a lesson for clickers or how all of the

technology would work, and to my amazement, there were no problems at all. The biggest

complaint came from one student out of the entire class; the student felt that the clickers were too

time-consuming and that he had less time to work on his assignment in class. His complaint was

minor since using clickers meant about 10 more minutes of homework each day. I really enjoyed

the entire study. Everything that I hoped the students would get out of this action research project

was accomplished. The highlight of this study came on day one when the first question came up

35

on the board. I was able to look out at my students and see every single one of them working so

diligently to come up with the answer. It blew my mind, and I knew the bar had been raised to

that expectation. Miraculously, they had that same work ethic for the duration of the study.

If I had to change one thing, I would have made the presentations further in advance.

Making presentations for the entire week, on a Saturday or Sunday, really took up a majority of

my weekend. Granted, every presentation can be customized to fit your needs. A positive is that

once you have the presentations, they are easily edited for the succeeding year and much less

time consuming. The only issue I came across was one time the power flickered in town. This

caused my computer to restart, and I had a lull in my lecture of about eight to ten minutes until

my computer and the projector were back online again. This goes to prove it is always good to

have a back-up plan in mind.

My personal recommendation is to give clickers a try in the classroom! There is no doubt

students will find this activity more fun than the typical lecture. Teachers will find their

classrooms much more interactive and engaging immediately. Teachers will find that using the

PRS system will take additional preparation; however, seeing the students all working on the

problems that were placed in front of them is very rewarding. By using the PRS system, teachers

will find that students are more engaged in the subject matter the moment they are introduced to

it. I would recommend staying ahead of the game and have PRS system presentations prepared at

least a week in advance to help prevent the feeling of being overwhelmed on a day-to-day basis.

Summary

The capstone project really made me feel good about using clickers. I really hoped

clickers would improve engagement, interaction, and be a positive addition to my classroom.

This goal definitely was achieved, but I did not expect student engagement and interaction to

36

increase to the extent that they did. Using clickers on a day-to-day basis really excited me as

well. After analyzing my data and results, the knowledge I obtained will stay with me the rest of

my teaching career. I know the importance of student interaction and engagement and the power

of seeing these occur first hand; clickers are positive learning tools in my classroom, no

questions asked. I truly enjoyed using the clickers in my own classroom and will carry this

experience and knowledge with me as I continue to teach mathematics in the future. I give

clicker-use my highest recommendation in the classroom, and other teachers too can see their

students engage and interact with the curriculum in ways they once only imagined.

37

References

Caldwell, J. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. Life

Sciences Education, 6(1), 9-20. doi: 10.1187/cbe.06-12-0205

Center for Research on Learning and Teaching. (2010). Teaching with clickers. Retrieved from

Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, University of Michigan Web site:

http://www.crlt.umich.edu/inst/responsesystem.php

Center for Teaching and Learning. (1990). Improving multiple choice questions. For Your

Consideration...Suggestions and Reflections on Teaching and Learning, CTL Number 8.

Retrieved August 31, 2010, from http://cfe.unc.edu/pdfs/FYC8.pdf 

Chu, N. (1998). A universal learning tool for classrooms? Retrieved from The Hong Kong

University Department of Physics Web site: http://celt.ust.hk/ideas/prs/

pdf/Nelsoncue.pdf

d’Inverno, R., Davis, H., & White, S. (2003). Using a personal response system for promoting

student interaction. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 22(4), 163-167.

doi:10.1093/teamat/22.4.163

Eisele-Dyrli, K. (2010). Product focus: Interactive whiteboards. Retrieved from

http://www.districtadministration.com/viewarticlepf.aspx?articleid=2447

Hall, R. H., Collier, H. L., Thomas, M. L., & Hilgers, M. G. (2005). A student response system

for increasing engagement, motivation, and learning in high enrollment lectures.

Proceedings of the Eleventh Americas Conference on Information Systems, 1-7. Retrieved

from http://ctel.mst.edu/documents/hall_et_al_srs_amcis_ proceedings.pdf

38

Joosten, T. (2004). Student response system survey. Retrieved from The University of

Wisconsion-Milwaukee Physics Web site: http://www4.uwm.edu/ltc/srs/grant/

docs/uwmclickersurvey.pdf

Kift, S. (2006). Using an audience response system to enhance student engagement in large

group orientation: A law faculty case study. In D. A. Banks (Ed.), Audience response

systems in higher education: Applications and cases (pp. 80-95). Hersey, PA: Idea

Group.

Pelton, L., & Pelton, T. (2006). Selected and constructed response systems in mathematics

classrooms. In D. A. Banks (Ed.), Audience response systems in higher education:

Applications and cases (pp. 175-186). Hersey, PA: Idea Group.

Popelka, S. (2010). Now we’re really clicking! Mathematics Teacher, 104(4), 290-295.

SMART Technologies. (2010). SMART response interactive response systems. Retrieved from

Smart Tech Web site: http://smarttech.com/us/Solutions/Education+Solutions/

Products+for+education/Complementary+hardware+products/SMART+

Response

Webking, R., & Valenzuela, F. (2006). Using audience response systems to develop critical

thinking skills. In D. A. Banks (Ed.), Audience response systems in higher education:

Applications and cases (pp. 127-139). Hersey, PA: Idea Group.

Weiss, K. (2009). Low-no tech teaching: What we lose in the smart classroom. Retrieved from

http://aabss.org/Perspectives2009/AABSS2009LowNoTechTeachingWhatWeLoseInThe

SmartClassroom.pdf

39

Zhu, E. (2007). Teaching with clickers. Center for Research on Learning and Teaching (CRLT)

Occasional Papers, 22. Retrieved from http://www.crlt.umich.edu/publinks/

CRLT_no22.pdf

Appendices

41

Appendix A

Pre-Survey

Personal Response System Pre-Survey Name ________________________

For each question, please mark the one most appropriate response for you based on your feelings, personal experiences, and opinions.

1. Indicate your opinion of mathematics.

___ I hate math. ___ I do not like math.

___ Math is okay. ___ I love math.

2. Indicate how often you currently daydream in Algebra I.

___ I never daydream.

___ I rarely daydream.

___ I occasionally daydream.

___ I frequently daydream.

3. Indicate why you don’t answer questions in Algebra I.

___ I don’t know the answer.

___ I am afraid of giving the wrong answer.

___ I am shy and don’t like to speak in front of others.

___ I always answer questions.

4. Indicate how often you listen, on a day-to-day basis, in Algebra I.

___ I always listen. ___ I usually listen. ___ I rarely listen. ___ I never listen.

5. Indicate how often you take notes, on a day-to-day basis, in Algebra I.

___ I never take notes.

___ I rarely take notes.

___ I usually take notes.

___ I always take notes.

6. Indicate how often you answer questions, on a day-to-day basis, in Algebra I.

___ I always answer questions.

___ I usually answer questions.

___ I rarely answer questions.

___ I never answer questions

7. Indicate the frequency with which you have used “clickers” in school.

___ Never ___ A few times ___ Often ___ Everyday

If you answered “A few times,” or “Often,” or “Everyday” in question 7, please continue the survey below, starting with question 8.

If you answered “Never,” in question 7, STOP. You are finished with the survey.

42

8. Indicate the class(es) in which you used clickers: ______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

9. Rate your ability to use clickers.

___ None ___ Weak ___ Good ___ Expert

10. Indicate the impact you believe the use of clickers brought to the classroom.

___ Very negative ___ Negative ___ Positive ___ Very positive

11. The use of the clickers made class:

___ More enjoyable ___ Less enjoyable ___ No different. ___ I don’t know.

12. In your opinion, what did the use of clickers do to your ability to pay attention in class?

___ Clickers won’t help me pay attention.

___ I already pay attention.

___ Clickers will help me pay attention.

___ I am not sure.

13. When clickers are used to answer questions in class, only the instructor can see the results. Indicate how answering questions with clickers might impact your confidence in answer questions.

___ I will be less confident.

___ I won’t be confident.

___ I will be a little more confident.

___ I will be more confident.

14. What do you like most about using the clickers?

___ Immediate feedback – I will know if my answer is correct immediately.

___ Using technology to learn math.

___ Confidentiality of my responses – Only the instructor, not my classmates, will see my answer.

___ All of the above choices.

43

Appendix B

Post-Survey

Personal Response System Post-Survey Name ________________________

For each question, please mark the one most appropriate response for you based on your feelings, personal experiences, and opinions.

1. Indicate your opinion of mathematics.

___ I hate math. ___ I do not like math.

___ Math is okay. ___ I love math.

2. Indicate how often you currently daydream in Algebra I.

___ I never daydream.

___ I rarely daydream.

___ I occasionally daydream.

___ I frequently daydream.

3. Indicate why you don’t answer questions in Algebra I.

___ I don’t know the answer.

___ I am afraid of giving the wrong answer.

___ I am shy and don’t like to speak in front of others.

___ I always answer questions.

4. Indicate how often you listen, on a day-to-day basis, in Algebra I.

___ I always listen. ___ I usually listen. ___ I rarely listen. ___ I never listen.

5. Indicate how often you take notes, on a day-to-day basis, in Algebra I.

___ I never take notes.

___ I rarely take notes.

___ I usually take notes.

___ I always take notes.

6. Indicate how often you answer questions, on a day-to-day basis, in Algebra I.

___ I always answer questions.

___ I usually answer questions.

___ I rarely answer questions.

___ I never answer questions

7. Indicate the frequency with which you have used clickers in school.

___ Never ___ A few times ___ Often ___ Everyday

8. Rate your ability to use clickers.

___ None ___ Weak ___ Good ___ Expert

9. Indicate the impact you believe the use of clickers brought to the Algebra I classroom.

___ Very negative ___ Negative ___ Positive ___ Very positive

10. The use of the clickers made Algebra I:

___ More enjoyable ___ Less enjoyable ___ No different. ___ I don’t know.

44

11. In your opinion, what did the use of clickers do to your ability to pay attention in Algebra I?

___ Clickers won’t help me pay attention.

___ I already pay attention.

___ Clickers will help me pay attention.

___ I am not sure.

12. When clickers are used to answer questions in class, only the instructor can see the results. Indicate how answering questions with clickers might impact your confidence in answer questions.

___ I will be less confident.

___ I won’t be confident.

___ I will be a little more confident.

___ I will be more confident.

13. What do you like most about using the clickers?

___ Immediate feedback – I will know if my answer is correct immediately.

___ Using technology to learn math.

___ Confiden-tiality of my responses – Only the instructor, not my classmates, will see my answer.

___ All of the above choices.

Please check the corresponding box that best agrees with your personal opinion and experience using the clickers in Algebra I the past nine weeks.

SA = Strongly Agree, A = Agree, N = Neutral, D = Disagree, SD = Strongly Disagree

Question SA A D SD14. Clickers made me feel involved in the course.15. I had no problems using the clickers.16. I am happy using the clickers.17. Clickers have been beneficial to my learning.18. Using the clickers helped me to get a better grade in this class.19. Clickers led me to become engaged in class.20. Using clickers as a way of interacting is exciting.21. Clickers had very little impact on my learning.22. Using clickers helped me to pay attention in class.23. Clickers use is annoying.24. I wish more courses would use clickers during lecture.25. Clickers allow me to better understand concepts.26. The classroom environment was very lively and active thanks to the clickers.27. Using my clicker in class was simple.28. I would recommend that the instructor continue to use clickers.

45

Question SA A D SD29. I got higher scores on my assignments because of the clicker.30. Clickers did not stimulate interaction with my classmates.31. I would hope the instructor would think twice about using clickers in the future.32. Clickers helped me get instant feedback on what I knew and didn’t know.33. The clickers motivated me to learn.34. Clickers increased my participation in class.35. Clickers helped me think more deeply about course materials.

36. What did you like best about your experiences using clickers in this class?

37. If you could fix one thing about the use of clickers, what would it be?

46

Appendix C

Parental/Guardian Consent FormA Research Project by Thomas S. Milbrandt

Invitation to ParticipateYour child is invited to participate in a study of the use of the personal response system, or PRS, in the Algebra I classroom. The study is being conducted by Algebra I instructor, Mr. Thomas Milbrandt, a graduate student a Minot State University.

Basis for Subject SelectionYou child has been selected because the Algebra I class is a very convenient sample due to the fact that I am your child’s instructor, and with approximately 15 students, the class will allow the researcher to gather an appropriate amount of data to analyze.

Purpose of the ResearchI am completing work toward the Master of Arts in Teaching: Mathematics degree through Minot State University. As a degree requirement, I will be conducting a nine-week capstone research project in my Algebra I classroom this spring. I am going to analyze whether the use of a personal response system (PRS), or hand-held clickers, increases student participation and engagement. I will also describe whether students perceive the PRS to be a beneficial mathematics learning tool.

Specific Procedures to be Used/Duration of StudyEach student will be asked to complete a pre-survey regarding their current familiarity of the PRS as well as how they view their participation, interaction, and engagement in the current lecture-based Algebra I classroom. Research will take place for the entire nine-week period beginning with the start of the third quarter (January 14-March 21, 2011). A post-survey will be completed by the student participants to help gauge their opinions, whether positive or negative, with lecture changing to daily use of the PRS. While conducting the study, I will keep a daily journal to chart classroom interaction on a daily basis and to document my reactions and thoughts about my teaching. This process has been approved by Mr. Gary Milbrandt, Principal at Maple Valley. You may request to see any of the research instruments used in this study at any time.

Benefits to the IndividualThe study may show the benefits of teaching mathematics by using the PRS instead of standard lecture practices. The results may be used to improve instructional practices and therefore student learning in this mathematics classroom as well as others.

ConfidentialityAll data will be treated confidentially by the researcher. Names of participants and the data sets will be kept in a locked filing cabinet next to the researcher’s desk. The researcher agrees to maintain strict confidentiality with regard to names, characteristics and other information on any person whose data may be seen as part of this research project so as not to conflict with State and Federal laws and regulations. Strict confidentiality means your student’s name and any

47

identifying information or characteristics, survey responses, question responses, comments, or other information about him or her will not be discussed or divulged in any manner with anyone outside of this research project. Furthermore, confidential information will not be discussed in a place where such a discussion might be overheard, nor will confidential information by discussed in a way that would allow an unauthorized person to associate or identify the student with such information.

Voluntary Nature of ParticipationDuring this study, the survey responses from your student do not have to be included. However, I hope you approve of your student being involved in this study because a large sample size improves the accuracy of the results of my study. If you decide to participate, you are free to withdraw your consent at any time. If you do not consent or withdraw your consent, your student will still use the PRS in class and will still take the survey, but your student’s data will not be included in my results.

Human Subject StatementThe Institutional Review Board of Minot State University has given me permission to conduct this research. If you have questions regarding the right of research subjects please contact the Chairperson of the MSU Institutional Review Board, Brent Askvig, at 701-858-3052 or Brent.Askvig@minotstateu.edu.

Offer to Answer QuestionsYou should feel free to ask questions now or at any time during the study. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me by phone at 749-2570 or by email at tom.s.milbrandt@sendit.nodak.edu or the Principal, Mr. Gary Milbrandt at 749-2570. Thank you for your consideration.

Consent StatementYou are voluntarily making a decision whether or not to participate. Your signature indicates that, having read and understood the information above, you have decided to participate by allowing your student’s survey responses to be used in this study. You will be given a copy of this consent form to keep.

_____________________________________Participant (Please print student name)

_____________________________________ _____________Signature of Parent or Guardian Date

_____________________________________ _____________Researcher’s Signature Date

48

Appendix D

Youth Assent FormA Research Project by Thomas S. Milbrandt

Invitation to ParticipateYou are invited to participate in a study of the use of the personal response system, or PRS, in the Algebra I classroom. The study is being conducted by your Algebra I instructor, Mr. Thomas Milbrandt, a graduate student a Minot State University.

Basis for Subject SelectionYou have been selected because the Algebra I class is a very convenient sample due to the fact that I am your instructor and with approximately 15 students, the class will allow the researcher to gather an appropriate amount of data to analyze.

Purpose of the ResearchI am completing work toward the Master of Arts in Teaching: Mathematics degree through Minot State University. As a degree requirement, I will be conducting a nine-week capstone research project in my Algebra I classroom this spring. I am going to analyze whether the use of a personal response system (PRS), or hand-held clickers, increase student participation and engagement. I will also describe whether students perceive the PRS to be a beneficial mathematics learning tool.

Specific Procedures to be Used/Duration of StudyEach student will be asked to complete a pre-survey regarding their current familiarity of the PRS as well as how they view their participation, interaction, and engagement in the current lecture-based classroom. Research will take place for the entire nine-week period beginning with the start of the third quarter (January 14-March 21, 2011). A post-survey will be completed by the student participants to help gauge their opinions, whether positive or negative, with lecture changing to daily use of the PRS. While conducting the study, I will keep a daily journal to chart classroom interaction on a daily basis and to document my reactions and thoughts about my teaching. This process has been approved by Mr. Gary Milbrandt, Principal at Maple Valley. You may request to see any of the research instruments used in this study at any time.

Benefits to the IndividualThe study may show the benefits of teaching mathematics by using the PRS instead of standard lecture practices. The results may be used to improve instructional practices and therefore student learning in this mathematics classroom as well as others.

ConfidentialityAll data will be treated confidentially by the researcher. Names of participants and the data sets will be kept in a locked filing cabinet next to the researcher’s desk. The researcher agrees to maintain strict confidentiality with regard to names, characteristics and other information on any person whose data may be seen as part of this research project so as not to conflict with State and Federal laws and regulations. Strict confidentiality means your name and any identifying information or characteristics, survey responses, question responses, comments, or other

49

information about you will not be discussed or divulged in any manner with anyone outside of this research project. Furthermore, confidential information will not be discussed in a place where such a discussion might be overheard, nor will confidential information by discussed in a way that would allow an unauthorized person to associate or identify the student with such information.

Voluntary Nature of ParticipationDuring this study, your survey responses do not have to be included. However, I hope you will participate in this study because a large sample size improves the accuracy of the results of my study. If you decide to participate, you are free to withdraw your consent at any time. If you do not consent or withdraw your consent, you will still use the PRS in class and will still take the survey, but your data will not be included in my results.

Human Subject StatementThe Institutional Review Board of Minot State University has given me permission to conduct this research. If you have questions regarding the right of research subjects please contact the Chairperson of the MSU Institutional Review Board, Brent Askvig, at 701-858-3052 or Brent.Askvig@minotstateu.edu.

Offer to Answer QuestionsYou should feel free to ask questions now or at any time during the study. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me by phone at 749-2570 or by email at tom.s.milbrandt@sendit.nodak.edu or the Principal, Mr. Gary Milbrandt at 749-2570. Thank you for your consideration.

Consent StatementYou are voluntarily making a decision whether or not to participate. Your signature indicates that, having read and understood the information above, you have decided to participate and allow your survey responses to be used in this study. You will be given a copy of this consent form to keep.

________________________________Participant (Please print student name)

________________________________ ________________Signature of Student Date

________________________________ ________________Researcher’s Signature Date

50

Appendix E

Principal Permission Letter

Maple Valley High School206 Broadway Street/Box 168Tower City, ND 58071

Dear Mr. Gary Milbrandt:

I am completing work toward the Master of Arts in Teaching: Mathematics degree through Minot State University. As a degree requirement, I need to conduct a capstone research project in my classroom this spring. The topic for my project involves the use of the personal response system (PRS) in conjunction with the SMART BoardsTM. I will monitor whether the use of the PRS increases student participation and engagement in my high school Algebra I class. Further, I will describe student reactions to the use of personal response systems and determine whether students perceive the PRS to be a beneficial mathematics learning tool. It is my intent that after the completion of the study, all mathematics courses may have the opportunity to reap the benefits of the PRS.

Each student will be asked to complete a pre-survey regarding their current familiarity with the PRS as well as how they view their participation, interaction, and engagement in the current lecture-based classroom. I wish to perform this research for the entire nine-week period beginning with the start of the third quarter (January 14-March 21, 2011). A post-survey will be completed by the student participants to help gauge their opinions, whether positive or negative, with lecture changing to daily use of the PRS. I will also be keeping a journal and report my findings from an instructor’s perspective as well.

Survey responses and my journal entries will be analyzed and the results will be included in my research paper; however, no individual participants will be identified by name. Standard classroom confidentiality will be observed regarding all data collected. I am able to view student responses but their fellow classmates will not have that availability. Students will understand that their responses cannot be held anonymously, but will be kept confidential.

I have prepared a letter to notify parents of this project and am asking for their permission to use the surveys completed by their student in my study. A copy of this letter, as well as the student consent form, is attached for your inspection. I am requesting that you permit me to carry out this research in my classroom and to include your name in my letter to parents. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Thomas S. Milbrandt

51

___ Permission for Thomas Milbrandt to conduct research in his classroom is granted.___ Permission to conduct this study is denied.

Signature ____________________________ Date _____________Mr. Gary MilbrandtMaple Valley High Principal

52

Appendix F

IRB Approval Letter