Systems: A Mode for
Enhancing Student Learning
Colleen F. Visconti, Ph.D., CCC-SLP
ASHA Poster Session #0475
November 16, 2006
The educational environment is forever changing and
technology is a large part of the changes that have
occurred. The Audience Response System is one of
the new technologies available for enhancing student
learning in the classroom. The purpose of this
presentation is to discuss the TurningPoint Audience
Response System, the various uses of this
technology in the fields of communication sciences
and disorders, and its benefits for both the students
and the faculty in the classroom setting.
System Requirements to Support
Windows 98, 2000 or XP
Microsoft Office 2000, XP or 2003, should
include PowerPoint, Excel, Word and Outlook
Pentium 3 Processor with 650MHz, 128 MB
100 MB free disk space
Types of Interaction
Practical application – the intent is to move
from ideas to action.
What would you do if ?
How would you treat X patient?
How would you ?
Testing understanding – measure
What did you learn?
Practice exam questions
Causes for disorders
Opinion surveys – gather data from the
Case management issues
Spark controversy – think hard about an
What would you choose?
Opposing treatment philosophies
Share information – activates interest in a
What do you know about X disorder?
The preferred treatment approach for X
disorder is .
Which factors impact treatment goals?
Statistics about various disorders.
Self-assessment – audience self-analysis
What do you think you know?
Reviews before exams
Introductions to a topic
Application of concepts
Audience Profiling – get audience
Who are you?
Year in school
Areas of interest
Speedometer – Stay in touch with the
How do you feel?
How is this class going?
Pacing of information
Types of activities
Lightening up the pace – humorous interlude
Can you smile?
Are you awake?
I want to go home.
Create a PowerPoint presentation with
Present presentation to class
Students then respond to specific slides
Data is automatically generated and
projected after each slide
Data can be saved for later
Can check specific student performance, if
student is assigned a specific “clicker”
Use at Baldwin-Wallace College
2005-2006 - faculty members began using
Audience Response Systems
Currently 18 faculty members are trained in
12 faculty members responded to a survey
regarding use and the following data is based
on those results.
It is being used in at least 24 different
courses, some with multiple sections
Frequency of Use
Daily 1-2x per week Couple Times Once a month 1-2x per Once a Once a year
per month Semester Semester
Types of Interaction
Reality Knolwedge View Choice Fact Check Self Check Group Pulse Fun
Check Check Check Check Check Check
Greater participation & engagement
Opens up class discussion
Eliminates group induced bias
Makes all students think about the question(s)
Quick assessment of student understanding
Identifies areas of confusion
Teaches students to read simple statistics
Students own the data which leads to ownership of
Less grading time of quizzes
Keeps them engaged
Confirms their understanding of the material
compared to their peers
Participation without speaking
Immediacy of feedback
More interesting for the students
Faculty limitations and downsides
Preparing the PowerPoint
Handing out remotes
Doesn’t fit all courses
Students don’t take notes when using it
Passive tool for students – although it does
Student Response to the Clickers
Positive Response - Neutral Response - Negative Response -
Students like it Students don't really Students don't like it
Impact on Learning
Currently, it is not clear how the use of
clickers impacts learning. It is believed that
since the students are more engaged in the
course content, there should be an increase
in the retention of the material.
One faculty member, Dr. Margie Martyn, is
currently investigating the impact of using
clickers in the classroom on learning
Some Classroom Response Systems
Response Card from TurningTechnologies,
Classroom Performance Systems from
InterWrite Personal Response System from
GTCO CalComp Corp.
Classoom Reponsse System from Hyper-
Interactive Teaching Technology
Uses Outside of the Classroom
Faculty training for grading reliability of
common course papers
Faculty meetings – vote on faculty
Polling faculty on campus issues
“Technology is not the lesson,
but the mode of delivery for the
lesson.” (Baker & Baker, 2004,
Astleitner, H. & Leutner, D. (2000). Designing instructional technology
from an emotional perspective. Journal of research on computing in
education, 32(4), 497-510.
Baker, P. & Baker, P. (2004). Teacher adjustment to technology:
Overcoming cultural mindsets. Journal of Educational Technology
Systems, 33(2), 147-156.
Brewer, C.A. (2004). Near real-time assessment of student learning
and understanding in Biology courses. BioScience, 54(11), 1034-1039.
Draper, S. W., & Brown, M. I. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures
using an electronic voting system. Journal of computer assisted
learning, 20, 81-94.
Fitch, J.L. (2004). Student feedback in the college classroom: A
technology solution. Educational technology research & design, 52(1),
Hines, L. (2005). Interactive learning environment keeps Modesto
students engaged. T H E Journal, 33(2), 40-41. Retrieved January 20,
2006, from Academic Search Premier.
Zemsky, R. (2000). The mission and the medium. Policy Perspecitves,
Special Thanks to -
John DiGennaro, Manager Educational
Technology, Information Technology. Thank
you for training me in the use of the Audience
Response System and for answering all of my
Dr. Susan Oldrieve, Director of the Center for
Transformational Learning. Thank you for all
of your ideas, suggestions and support.
Thanks also goes to the Scholarly Teaching
Program for providing funding to attend and
present at the ASHA convention.
For a copy of the handout for this poster
session, please visit the ASHA convention
website or email me at firstname.lastname@example.org