Interactivity in Library Presentations: With or Without

ClickerEvelyne Corcos

and Vivienne MontyYork UniversityMay 17, 2007

Outline

1. Study using Clicker vs. traditional teaching: Results

2. Survey of students: Results

3. Analysis of the pros and cons of using Clickers

Questions?????

Characteristics of the Study

Participants attended either a traditional presentation, or one that was modified to incorporate the use of the PRS

Both types of sessions were offered by the same librarian

A questionnaire created for the purpose of evaluating various aspects of the library presentation was completed by all students

Expectations Improved attention Increased interaction Greater enjoyment

Procedure

Faculty requested library sessions for their classes Classes were arbitrarily assigned to traditional or

PRS presentations. (English only) Both received similar content PRS groups were asked to respond to various

questions using the clicker that was provided for each student

All students were required to fill out an evaluation form at the end of the session

Uses of Group data Provides instructor with group

demographics Identifies group’s advance

knowledge of concepts Evaluates group’s understanding of

concept just presented Determines the pace of the

presentation

Participants

Two groups: a traditional presentation (N=127) or one that utilized the Personal Response System

technology (N=127) Gender

Of the 254 students, 179 were female, 38 were male, 37 students did not indicate their gender

Year of study 65 students were in first year, 102 in second year, 47 in

third year, 18 in fourth year, and 4 in their fifth year. Eighteen students did not indicate their year of study.

Design Independent variable

Traditional vs. PRS presentation Dependent Variable

Frequency Analysis- Chi Square

Three types of Questions Demographic Background

Knowledge Comprehension

Questions: Demographics (1)

Questions Demographics (2)

Questions: Background Knowledge

Questions: Comprehension

Survey of Groups

Results: Statistical Difference

Two significant findings Enjoyment of the session Organization and clarity of

presentation

Results: No Statistical Difference

No differences Student self-competence Relevance of content Knowledge of instructor Preparation for doing research

Student Feedback Learning curve to

using clickers – first thought it might be a waste of time

Increase in attention, focus, and energy levels as soon as PRS is in use

Enjoy the participation and feedback

StudentComments

Traditional Class

Mentioned learning about specific databases, Boolean, Refworks, searching methods

StudentComments

Clicker Class

Mentioned almost the same but noted more online bells and whistles such as Racer and they loved using the clicker

Faculty Feedback Investment of time to create questions Different ways of thinking how best to

use it Time management

Creating a standardized routine Name of student on their own clicker Use own laptop Student return clickers

More data about student performance – perceived anonymity

Some Further Student Comments

PRS heightened enjoyment of session and organization of presentation

Follow-up Research Subsequent research needs to add

dependent measure such as: Ability of students to carry out a

search Etc.

Using Clicker in Library Classes

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Impatience

Classroom set-up (Permanence)

Technology can interfere with listening

This was a two edged sword

When technology fails! Teaching flow Student frustration Teacher burnout/frustration

Flexibility… or not… Must progress according to questions

Teaching one session or on a continuum Can you build knowledge basis?

The “Einsteinian Paradigm” Teaching with Clicker takes time

Tempus Fugit Going over the same material

numerous times Preparation time for the session

Some Really Good Things

Value of Using Clickers Every student responds to all questions Students participate anonymously Group data provides feedback that can

be used in a variety of ways

Student’ Reactions “Hey, Mikey likes

it!!!”

Attention span

Librarians’ Reactions

Ability to discuss what students understood or did not Useful repetition Useful data for teacher Crammed in a whole lost less

Data from Sessions Helps Build Knowledge in Many Ways Use resulting data with faculty In information literacy Back to basics Supporting data obtained More that can and should be done

THE END