Paper ID #33491

Student Response System Best Practices for Engineering as Implemented inPlickers

Dr. Timothy Aaron Wood, The Citadel

Timothy A Wood is an Assistant Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at The Citadel. Heacquired a Bachelor’s in Engineering Physics Summa Cum Laude with Honors followed by Civil Engi-neering Master’s and Doctoral degrees from Texas Tech University. His technical research focuses on theintersection of soil-structure interaction and structural/geotechnical data. He encourages students pushingthem toward self-directed learning through reading, and inspiring enthusiasm for the fields of structuraland geotechnical engineering. Dr. Wood aims to recover the benefits of classical-model, literature-basedlearning in civil engineering education.

Dr. Dan D. Nale P.E., The Citadel

Dan D. Nale is Professor of Practice in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at TheCitadel. Dan received a BS in Civil Engineering from The Citadel and both a MS and PhD in CivilEngineering from The University of South Carolina. Dan also earned a MBA from Mercer University.Dan worked in the aerospace industry for Grumman on the Space Shuttle before working for GulfstreamAerospace for 35 years in Savannah, Georgia. At Gulfstream, Dan was responsible for Research andDevelopment, Program Management, Engineering, Flight Operations and Flight Test. Dan Nale retiredfrom Gulfstream in April of 2019 as the Senior VP of Programs, Engineering & Test. Dr. Nale has serveas an FAA Designated Engineer Representative for the FAA, is a professional engineering in the state ofGeorgia and holds a private pilot’s license.

Dr. Kweku Tekyi Brown P.E., The Citadel

Dr. Kweku Brown is an Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at The Citadel.He received his Civil Engineering Master’s degree from the University of Connecticut and his Doctoraldegree at Clemson University. He is active in the transportation engineering communities including theSouth Carolina Department of Transportation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, and TransportationResearch Board. His research focuses on transportation safety utilizing geographic and spatial analysismethods.

c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2021

Student Response System Best Practices for Engineering as

Implemented in Plickers

Abstract

SRSs facilitate engagement in contingent teaching, knowledge scaffolding, formative

assessment, and collaborative learning strategies, but in ways that encourage student motivation,

interaction, and engagement in learning. Plickers, an innovative Student Response System (SRS)

consisting of student response cards and an instructor website and instructor app, combines the

many of the features of pre-technological, clicker, bring-your-own-device, and gamification

SRSs. This paper presents a brief history of SRSs and an evaluation of the benefits and

challenges of SRSs from the literature. The literature provides a context for the description and

discussion of how SRSs in general and Plickers' unique features in particular might augment a

range of pedagogical frameworks and instructor practices. Perspective surveys illustrate student

satisfaction with Plickers as a specific SRS.

Keywords

Student Response System (SRS), Audience Response System (ARS), Classroom Response

System (CRS), Plickers, Peer Instruction

Introduction

Instructors, particularly in the classroom environment, often struggle to assess what their

students do and do not understand about the current topic while teaching. A breadth of

engagement strategies including catechizing, choral response, intentional questioning, flipped

classrooms, Socratic dialogue, and guided lecture notes and discussion have been developed to

address this very issue. However, these methods can unintentionally exclude certain students

while more dominant personalities actively engage in the classroom. In an effort to increase the

accessibility of the student-to-instructor interaction, researchers and instructors have developed

various student response systems (SRS), sometimes called audience response systems (ARS) or

classroom response systems (CRS), that allow all students to respond to an instructor planned

question. SRSs facilitate engagement in contingent teaching, knowledge scaffolding, formative

assessment, and collaborative learning strategies, but in ways that encourage student motivation,

interaction, and engagement in learning. Plickers [1], an innovative SRS consisting of student

response cards and an instructor website and instructor app, combines many of the features of

pre-technological, clicker, bring-your-own-device, and gamification SRSs. Instructors should

carefully implement any SRSs with full awareness of the benefits, limitations, and best practices.

New instructors might find Plickers to be an easy to implement SRS to meet their students’

learning needs.

This paper presents a brief history of SRSs and an evaluation of the benefits and challenges of

SRSs identified in the literature. The literature provides a context for the description and

discussion of how SRSs in general and Plickers' unique features in particular might augment a

range of pedagogical frameworks and instructor practices. Perspective surveys illustrate student

satisfaction with Plickers as a particular SRS.

History

Though tempting to jump straight to technological developments, sometimes the simplest, even

pre-technological, solutions are the best. Instructors have long used a question followed by a

show of hands to effectively evaluate engagement from a body of students. So long as questions

are true/false or agree/disagree, this method can simultaneously and effortless assess a whole

classroom. Though straightforward, instructors would do well to remember this method, as it

requires no preparation (besides a well-formed question) and no additional technology in the

classroom [2]. However, with a little planning and forethought, student response cards (a set of

symbolic or color-coded index cards) can provide additional granularity and open up various

multiple-choice questions [3], [4]. These pre-technological SRS approaches have very low

cognitive demands on instructors and students alike. Both methods predate the development of

electronic SRSs.

The modern electronic SRS began in the 1960s as hardwired audience response systems

developed for the movie industry. As early as 1966, Stanford University introduced an SRS to

the classroom, followed by a hardwired system at Christopher Newport University in 1985. SRSs

began to gain greater presence in academia with the introduction of the wireless clicker in 1999

[5]. Throughout the early 2000s, many universities and engineering programs experimented and

published work on clicker-based systems and established many SRS norms and best practices

[2], [3], [6]–[10]. The vast majority of these systems were based on some form of multiple-

choice response structure.

As personal computing evolved and laptops became more common on the university campus,

academia began to explore and develop various web-based SRSs [11], [12]. The release of the

first iPhone in 2007 set the stage for another giant leap forward for SRSs. The eventual ubiquity

of the smartphone made various Bring-Your-Own-Device (BYOD) SRSs available in the

classroom including general audience response and survey systems (PollEverywhere.com [13]–

[16], SurveyMonkey [17], Slido [18]) and education specific SRSs (LectureTools [12], Mobile

Participation System [19], TopHat [8], [15], [20]–[22], Monocle [15]). Many of these SRSs

allowed for more complex questions, open-ended questions, text student responses and grade

integration with learning management systems. Research into gamification in the classroom lead

to the development of SRSs that incorporated game aspects (Quizlet [23], Kahoot! [15], [17],

[23], [24]).

Plickers builds on what has come before, bringing together the ease of use of student response

cards, multiple choice responses of clickers, the flexibility of BYOD SRS and subtle inclusion of

gamification elements [23], [25].

Benefits and Challenges

SRS usage requires a thoughtful balance of the benefits and the challenges. Narayan, Heward,

and Gardner established an excellent threshold for any SRS:

There is a need to develop tactics for providing every student in the class with

many opportunities to respond during teacher-led class wide instruction. Ideally,

such methods for increasing active student response should be relatively low in

cost (both in dollars and in teacher time), be easy to implement, be enjoyable for

both students and teachers, be adaptable to various content areas, and produce

better learning outcomes than the instructional procedures they are to replace."

([4] emphasis added)

The literature describes a range of benefits and challenges to achieving this ideal.

Benefits

The benefit most frequently discussed in the literature is the increase in student participation.

The consistent use of an SRS drives increased engagement and attentiveness during lectures.

With increased engagement and perceived value from lectures, SRSs can also increase class

attendance, particularly when SRSs quizzes are graded. Most SRSs keep track of student grades

and attendance automatically; this reason alone makes SRSs attractive to instructors, particularly

of large classrooms [3], [8]–[10], [15]–[17], [26]–[28]. Yet these systems provide more

meaningful educational benefits as well.

SRSs can provide the instructor with meaningful feedback. In this way every student, even shy

or passive students, can respond to questions [3], [5], [8], [9], [15], [27], [29]. Furthermore,

unlike direct questions, instructor-student dialogue, and even student response cards, SRSs

provide a level of anonymity to the students. Because the student’s response is not immediately

obvious to peers, a student can feel great freedom to respond with a lower risk of embarrassment.

This anonymity is a favorite feature among students [18], and can give the instructor better

perspective on student learning without the confounding influence of peer-pressure [2], [26],

[28]–[30].

With a little thoughtfulness, instructors can also use an SRS to facilitate classroom discussion. A

number of pedagogical approaches rely on student-student interaction and collaboration; SRSs

provide an obvious context for such interaction [3], [5], [7], [17], [31]. Such collaboration

increases active learning and student satisfaction in classroom activities [16], [26], [30].

SRSs also set the stage for increased content mastery [5]. By sharing histograms of responses,

students can learn from their own mistakes and the mistakes of others [7], [8], [23], [31].

Instructors can also respond to student understanding and set an appropriate pace in the

classroom [26], [28]. With care, the instructor can increase student critical thinking [16] and

performance [3].

While these benefits apply to all SRSs, BYOD SRSs have additional benefits. A major benefit is

reduced cost to the student. To the extent that students already have smartphones, tablets, or

laptops, BYOD SRSs require no additional startup cost and often no continuing or subscription

cost [11], [13]. Many of these SRSs also provide LMS integration, grade books, and distance

learning integration. BYOD SRSs also make more response types an option, including text-based

responses and student questions [8], [11], [21].

Finally, SRSs make the classroom fun. Active interactions between the instructor and other

students create a positive learning environment [7], [17], [32]. The incorporation of gamification

factors increases student motivation, enjoyment, and encouragement in the classroom [17], [24].

These many benefits make the application of any SRS attractive to the intentional instructor.

Challenges

However, the use of an SRS is not without its challenges. The largest challenge recorded in the

literature is simply ease of use. The technological sophistication and integration required to

implement many clicker and BYOD SRSs creates too much resistance for many instructors [5],

[9], [13], [14], [28], [31]. Most SRSs rely on a number of components including instructor

technology (computers, and/or receivers), student technology (clickers, computers, and/or

smartphones), and cloud-based technology (servers and websites). This triad of components

creates many potential failure points [16], [28]. No instructor wants to lose precious class time

fighting technology, and students do not want to miss a potential graded activity due to an

inability to trouble-shoot their own devices.

Instructor implementation of an SRS can also be a challenge. There are more ways to poorly

implement an SRS than ways to do it well. Many SRSs are limited to multiple-choice responses.

Writing meaningful multiple-choice questions that deeply engage critical thinking without

introducing instructor bias is incredibly difficult [7]–[9], [26], [33]. Furthermore, many studies

have shown poor correlation between SRS responses and summative assessments (graded

quizzes, exams, etc.). These findings often appear confounded with other factors. The depth of

critical thinking that a multiple-choice question can engage is often far less than what might be

achieved through open-ended or written response questions [8], [16], [34]. Considering an SRS

as primarily an aid to classroom interaction and rapport, both instructor-to-student and student-

to-student, might better manage student and instructor expectations related to summative

assessment outcomes.

From an instructor’s perspective, particularly well-established instructors, adopting an SRS can

feel like a difficult trade off. Requesting and collecting student responses does cost valuable

class time. Adding anything to a class requires that other classroom activities take less time. For

some classes, an SRS may lead to an unacceptable reduction in content coverage [3], [8], [9],

[14], [28]. Additionally, SRSs require significant time commitments before class. Both the

administrative setup and the creation of meaningful questions takes additional prep time, a

valuable commodity for any instructor [3], [5], [35]. The post processing of the student scores

and incorporation into an overall grade also requires additional administrative time that must be

considered with an SRS.

From a student's perspective, SRSs can be challenging as well. The initial and continuing cost of

a clicker can contribute to a negative attitude in many students [5], [13], [16], [31]. This irritation

can be further exacerbated when clickers are poorly or infrequently implemented in the

classroom [13], [31]. Maintaining a clicker can be inconvenient as well; students must remember

to bring the device to class and keep it charged, connected and ready [5], [7], [9]. Few students

(or university administrators) are excited about upgrades to clicker systems and eventual

obsolescence [16], [27].

Even if instructors choose a BYOD SRS, students may encounter various hurdles including

security and privacy issues, as well as potential subscription costs [13], [21]. Registration and

connecting a student’s account to a particular class can be cumbersome [5]. Most of these

systems require some sort of personal device. This can create accessibility concerns for students

that might not have or cannot afford a compatible device [13].

Students can also struggle in various conceptual ways when interacting with an SRS. Many

students are prone to testing anxiety and grade concerns, particularly when SRSs are used for

summative assessment [7], [14]. On the other hand, if SRSs are given no grade value, many

students might revert to a multiple-guess approach and short-circuit the learning process [10].

Encouraging student-to-student interactions also has the potential to increase confusion where

more expressive students create misdirection [3]. Finally, the presence of another technological

device brings a potential distraction and increased cognitive load to the classroom. Using these

response devices requires a transition from interaction with the class content in the classroom to

formulating a response and exercising fine motor control in inputting a correct answer [31].

BYOD SRSs mean that students have an internet capable device out in the classroom; many

students will succumb to the temptations of the internet browser or social media and disengage

with the classroom, the very thing that SRSs are intended to combat [8], [35].

Plickers Functionality

Plickers is an SRS that achieves most of the benefits of any SRS system while alleviating many

of the challenges. Plickers consist of three components: student cards, a website, and an

instructor application (app). [1]

The student component is simultaneously the simplest and most innovative part of the Plickers

SRS. Each student uses a paper card containing a large square QR-style symbol, a card number

and the letter A, B, C and D on each side of the QR symbol as seen in Figure 1. Cards are

typically printed two to a standard letter-sized page. When the instructor creates a class roster on

the webpage, each student is assigned one of the 64 cards.

Figure 1. Example Plickers card – QR Style Symbol

When the instructor asks a question, the students hold up their cards with their intended response

(A, B, C or D) at the top of their symbol. The instructor then views the classroom through a

phone camera and screen. The Plickers app on the instructor’s phone will identify student cards

and orientations in real time, recording their responses. If the student can make eye contact with

the instructor, the instructor will be able to view their card through the app and capture the

student response.

The Plickers website is much like any other web-based BYOD SRS. Instructors can setup classes

including student rosters, develop question sets (the free service allows for up to 5 questions per

set), explore question sets from other instructors, retrieve grades, view question statistics, and

queue questions for playback during class. Questions can be individual, grouped in sets and

organized by folders and packs. Question design allows for text and image prompts and up to

four multiple-choice text responses. The website also has a "Now Playing" view that shows the

question the instructor is currently asking students. The website is straight-forward, cleanly

designed and easy to use. See Figure 2 for example website screenshots.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 2. Plickers website [1] screenshots: (a) Question pack explorer, (b) Class queue,

(c) Question set editor, (d) "Now Playing" page.

Though the Plickers instructor app has many of the question creation and organizational features

of the website, the instructor app (available on iOS and Android) is primarily used to administer

Plickers quizzes. The main screen allows the instructor to select a class (Figure 3.a). The next

screen shows the questions and/or question sets queued for the class (Figure 3.b). The instructor

can then select a question to "play" for the class. The "Now Playing" webpage will show any

currently playing question selected in the app Figure 2.d. Typically, the instructor will show the

"Now Playing" page on the classroom projector from any device with a web browser. From the

app’s question screen, the instructor can toggle back and forth between questions in the set, or

recorded responses (Figure 3.d).

When the instructor chooses to record responses, the app switches to a view of the rear facing

camera to scan the students’ cards Figure 3.c. The app provides real time video scanning,

identify Plickers cards and responses in the instructor’s view. Video images are processed on the

instructor’s phone and immediately discarded, protecting student privacy [36]. The Plickers app

will identify student cards and orientations in real time, recording their responses. When the app

recognizes a symbol on a card, it will show the student's name over the symbol in either green

(correct response) or red (incorrect response). The instructor can move the rear facing camera

across the room and capture all student responses in a few moments. The instructor can also view

individual student responses or a histogram. The "Now Playing" webpage can also be set to

reveal whether or not individual students have successfully responded to a question. When the

instructor is done recording responses, the app allows the instructor to share a histogram and

reveal the correct answer. If the instructor shows both, the "Now Playing" page will show the

percentage of correct answers, with a puff of confetti when 100% answer correctly.

Lastly, since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Plickers developers have added hybrid and

synchronous online modalities. Remote students are each assigned a unique hyperlink for each

class they attend. When they follow this link, they are taken to a personal "Now Playing" page,

identical to the instructor view, that allows them to respond to questions by clicks or taps. The

hybrid mode works seamlessly and synchronously with the typical in-person card scanning

modality. Alternatively, instructors can scan cards through video teleconferencing platforms in

gallery mode as seen in the instructor app screenshot in Figure 3.e.

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e)

Figure 3. Instructor app screenshots: (a) Class section, (b) Class queue,

(c) Scanning view, (d) real-time feedback, (e) smartphone view of recording responses in gallery

mode of a video teleconferencing platform.

Plickers Benefits and Challenges

Plickers implements many of the benefits of SRSs generally. The only benefits not available on

the Plickers platform are LMS integration, question types beyond true/false and multiple choice,

and class sizes larger than 64 students; the selection of an SRS will always include tradeoffs, and

instructors must determine if these limitations meet their students’ needs. However, Plickers’

design overcomes a number of typical SRS challenges.

First, the student experience is easy and fun. Students no longer need a distracting physical

device in class. Selecting their correct answer is more kinesthetic than selecting an answer on a

personal device and more akin to the pre-technological approach of raising a hand or student

response card. Student attention is undivided, almost always directed toward the question and

instructor. When answering, students have their heads up and are actively looking for non-verbal

confirmation from the instructor, and visual confirmation of a recorded answer from the "Now

Playing" screen. The nature of the system fosters a low-stakes, low-stress feel. Instructors often

encourage "open notes, open book, open friend" when answering questions, and the way students

answer questions put their bodies in better position to engage with one another rather than a

personal device. Plickers has even incorporated subtle gamification elements; instructor and

students alike share in the joy of confetti when everyone comes to a common and correct

understanding. To quote one author, "we live for the confetti!"

Plickers is also accessible. Each student needs to do nothing to register for the class, and they do

not need to provide their own device. They need only have a copy of their cards. From the

student perspectives, complaints about cost, inconvenience, obsolescence, registration, or

providing their own device disappears. Even as Plickers shares many of the benefits of the

student response cards, it has the added benefit shared with various technological SRSs of

capturing student responses for real-time assessment, increased anonymity (Plickers cards are

designed to make it difficult to interpret the student response without the instructor app) and

post-class grading. Student response cards are an excellent, easy-to-use SRS; Plickers builds on

those features by providing response tracking.

From the instructor perspective, Plickers has a very shallow learning curve. The website and app

are intelligently designed; the presentation of questions is clean and professional. Creating class

rosters is as easy as copying and pasting student names. Question organization is straight forward

and separate from class organization. Hence, instructors can develop question sets for a

particular course and then queue questions to different sections in the same semester or from

semester to semester. Instructors can even share questions, question sets, and/or full question

packs via hyperlink (or optional instructor subscription service) alleviating some of the difficulty

of content creation.

Finally, Plickers removes one technological component of the triad, namely a student device.

Rather than requiring the students to purchase a clicker or use a personal device, each student has

a simple card. The authors typically print and provide cards at the beginning of the semester at

no cost to the student. There are no batteries to keep charged, and students can easily store their

card in their class textbook or notebook. If students lose their cards, they can print their own for

free from the Plickers website, and since there are only 64 cards, the instructor can keep a

backup deck of cards for students to use if they forget their own copy. Assuming that Plickers

continues to maintain the website, instructors are left in complete control over all the

technological components of the SRS substantially reducing the degree of technological

sophistication and number of failure points.

Finally, like many other SRSs (Kahoot!, Slido, PollEverywhere, etc.) a base version of Plickers

is free for both the instructor and students. The only mandatory cost come from printing Plicker

cards for the students. Plickers offers instructor and institutional subscription plans that provide

additional features for class, question, and scoresheet organization and sharing between colleges.

However, unlike many other SRSs, all of Plickers primary functionality is available without a

subscription.

SRS Pedagogy

Self-Determination Theory articulates three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence,

and relatedness. To the degree that any SRS can meet these needs, students can be more

motivated to engage in the classroom [24].

Contingent teaching augmented with an SRS can increase student autonomy [3], [33]. If the

instructor actively receives input on student understanding (whether or not they are shared with

the class, instructors can easily see question histograms in the instructor app) and then adjusts the

teaching accordingly, students sense that the instructor cares (relatedness) and that the student

has a measure of control over what happens in the classroom. The instructor can also encourage

student discussion during SRS quizzes. The Plickers instructor app, specifically, lets the

instructor roam the room and intact with students, creating a context where student questions can

be addressed more directly [10]. The instructor can use adaptive questioning to guide students to

a correct understanding and the right answer to questions, further enabling student autonomy [9].

As mentioned before, Plickers' lack of a distracting student technology and kinesthetic response

mechanism supports a more active engagement in the class compared to other SRSs.

Furthermore, Plickers increases autonomy by granting the student control over a very specific

and ordinary object, the Plickers card. The student side of the SRS does not depend on an

electronic technology. In this way, students feel autonomous control over their responses in a

way that more technologically dependent SRSs might limit. Rather than struggling to get a

clicker or web-based system to work and decreasing motivation, the Plicker card is a concrete

object within the student's control that affects an external outcome, namely seeing his or her

name light up on the "Now Playing" page, increasing motivation.

Instructors can also use an SRS to increase competence through knowledge scaffolding and

formative assessment. The authors regularly begin class with Plickers quizzes. Students

noticeably reposition themselves into a more attentive posture and then demonstrate a measure of

competence as they are held responsible for content from previous lectures, readings, and/or the

context of the class's content. Questions on assigned readings are one of the most common uses

of SRSs in the literature [5], [14], [32]. Asking the same questions in multiple class periods

reinforces content, provides review and increases student awareness of their own competence

[9], [14], [27], [32].

Throughout the lecture, instructors can also use formative assessment techniques to engage the

students and increase self-awareness of student competence [3], [5], [30], [32]. Concept Test

repositories provide a range of established questions within a number of fields intended to

engage critical thinking [32].

An SRS can create a context for collaborative learning and increased student relatedness. Good

SRS questions provide an opportunity for Think-Pair-Share [6], [37], Experimental Learning

Cycle [38], and Initiate-Respond-Evaluate [22] teaching pedagogies. The Plickers experience in

particular provides an excellent catalyst for small group discussion [8], [38]. The most common

teaching pedagogy associated with SRSs in the literature was Mazur's Peer Instruction [7], [8],

[26], [30], [32], [38], [39]. The instructor asks a question and requires all students to commit to

an answer on the SRS. Depending on student response, especially when answers seem evenly

divided, the instructor might reveal a histogram of student responses and encourage students to

explain their reasoning and convince each other of the right answer. After the discussion, the

instructor will ask for responses to the question again. The instructor then has an opportunity to

address any remaining misconceptions. Not only does Peer Instruction increase competence, but

it also provides an important context for relatedness as the students interact meaningfully with

each other and with the instructor. Plickers is uniquely suited to Peer Instruction in that the

system records the last answer shown to the instructor. The instructor can use a single question,

opening and closing response opportunities in keeping with the various phases of Peer

Instruction.

SRSs can also be used to record student calculated answers from in-class problems [32]. The

professor can setup example problems and ask SRS questions to guide students to an appropriate

problem-solving strategy, encouraging discussion and peer instruction. Though some SRSs allow

for direct numerical response, Plickers questions are limited to multiply choice numerical answer

options. Peer Instruction provides an opportunity for stronger students to encourage and guide

others to the correct answer. To the degree the Peer Instruction pedagogy is used, students are

given a great deal of autonomy over a good grade as they experience relatedness and develop

their personal competence.

Student Perspectives

The authors have been collecting student survey data (often using Plickers) from 2016 to 2021.

The following data reflect survey results from over 700 students in 38 course sections taught by

three faculty members across six civil engineering courses (a freshman computer applications

course, sophomore surveying, statics and dynamics courses, a junior engineering economy

course, and a senior geotechnical engineering course) to civil, construction, mechanical, and

electrical engineering majors. Class-sizes ranged from 10 to 35 students. Students were asked to

respond to statements using a modified Likert scale. The neutral option was removed to provide

four answers that Plickers can capture.

Figure 4 shows student responses to statements connecting Plickers quizzes to other learning

activities. Student generally affirmed that Plickers quizzes motivated their preparation for class

by reading the textbook and reviewing the notes. Far more pronounced was the student response

to Plickers as a motivator for involvement in the classroom and classroom activities; 96% of

student responded positively with 72% of students stating they strongly agree. This supports the

expectation of the literature that SRSs increase classroom engagement, motivation, and

enjoyment.

Figure 4. Survey results stating agreement with the statements.

Reading Encouraged: “Plickers quizzes at the beginning of class have encouraged me to read the

textbook before class.”

Review Encouraged: “Plickers quizzes at the beginning of class have encouraged me to review

the previous content before class.”

Involvement Encouraged: “Compared to other classes without Plickers, Plickers has increased

my active involvement in class.”

72%

34%

26%

24%

52%

51%

10%

16% 7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Involvement Encouraged (n=691)

Review Encouraged (n=723)

Reading Encouraged (n=704)

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

Figure 5 shows that an amazing 99% of students feel that Plicker supported their learning with a

full 71% strongly agreeing. Furthermore, 93% of students want to see Plickers in more of their

classes. Students clearly see value in using Plickers.

Figure 5. Survey results stating agreement with the statements.

Supports Learning: “Plickers has been beneficial to my learning in class.”

Wider Implementation: “I hope more professors will use Plickers.”

Finally, students were asked to pick their preferred in-class quiz method. More that 3 out of 4

students preferred Plickers. The survey question is biased given that all students may not have

engaged with every form of quiz method. However, Figure 6 shows that students appreciated and

enjoy Plickers even if it is not an unbiased indication of a preference for Plickers over other

SRSs.

Figure 6. Survey response to “My preferred in class quiz method is...”

67%

71%

26%

28%

5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Wider Implementation (n=682)

Supports Learning (n=720)

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

547

38

81

43

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Plickers Cell-phone based quizzes Clickers Paper Quizzes

nu

mb

er o

f st

ud

ents

(n

=70

9)

Conclusion

Plickers is an innovative SRS that combines many of the features of student response systems

that came before. Students report that Plickers strengthens their classroom engagement and

supports their learning. Instructors find Plickers to be an easy and helpful way to increase active

engagement with their students. When carefully implemented, Plickers is one of many available

SRSs that can strengthen the student classroom experience through the SRS best practices of

contingent teaching, knowledge scaffolding, formative assessment, and collaborative learning

strategies.

Disclaimer

The authors have no share or vested interest in Plickers other than as users. One author has

received a single nominal payment (around $50) for creating question banks used by other

instructors. One author pays for an instructor subscription.

References

[1] “Plickers.” https://get.plickers.com/ (accessed Mar. 01, 2021).

[2] A. Czekanski and D. Roux, “A Revisited Study On The Use Of Clicker Technology To

Evaluate Short Term Concept Retention,” Jun. 2009, p. 14.101.1-14.101.10, Accessed:

Nov. 12, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/a-revisited-study-on-the-use-of-

clicker-technology-to-evaluate-short-term-concept-retention.

[3] R. H. Kay and A. LeSage, “Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience

response systems: A review of the literature,” Computers & Education, vol. 53, no. 3, pp.

819–827, Nov. 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.001.

[4] J. Narayan, W. Heward, and R. Gardner, “Using response cards to increase student

participation in an elementary classroom,” Journal of applied behavior analysis, vol. 23,

pp. 483–90, Feb. 1990, doi: 10.1901/jaba.1990.23-483.

[5] W. P. Hung, “Clicker Clicks It,” Jun. 2011, p. 22.330.1-22.330.12, Accessed: Nov. 12, 2020.

[Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/clicker-clicks-it.

[6] C. Demetry, “Use Of Educational Technology To Transform The 50 Minute Lecture:,” Jun.

2005, p. 10.1385.1-10.1385.11, Accessed: Nov. 12, 2020. [Online]. Available:

https://peer.asee.org/use-of-educational-technology-to-transform-the-50-minute-lecture.

[7] L. V. D. Einde, S. H. Lee, and J. L. Le, “Incorporating Clickers and Peer Instruction into

Large Structural Engineering Classrooms,” Jun. 2012, p. 25.759.1-25.759.19, Accessed:

Nov. 12, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/incorporating-clickers-and-peer-

instruction-into-large-structural-engineering-classrooms.

[8] B. M. Frank, “Web-based audience response system for quality feedback in first year

engineering,” Jun. 2013, p. 23.1364.1-23.1364.15, Accessed: Nov. 12, 2020. [Online].

Available: https://peer.asee.org/web-based-audience-response-system-for-quality-feedback-

in-first-year-engineering.

[9] A. Karimi and R. D. Manteufel, “Use of Adaptive Questions and Electronic Pooling to

Promote Mastery of Fundamental Thermal Science Concepts,” presented at the 2017 ASEE

Annual Conference & Exposition, Jun. 2017, Accessed: Nov. 12, 2020. [Online]. Available:

https://peer.asee.org/use-of-adaptive-questions-and-electronic-pooling-to-promote-mastery-

of-fundamental-thermal-science-concepts.

[10] R. D. Manteufel and A. Karimi, “Active Learning in Thermodynamics by Leaving the Front

of the Classroom,” presented at the 2017 Gulf Southwest Section Conference, Mar. 2020,

Accessed: Nov. 12, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/active-learning-in-

thermodynamics-by-leaving-the-front-of-the-classroom.

[11] M. Lapp, J. Ringenberg, K. J. Summers, A. S. Chivukula, and J. Fleszar, “The Mobile

Participation System: Not Just Another Clicker,” Jun. 2011, p. 22.1481.1-22.1481.10,

Accessed: Nov. 12, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/the-mobile-

participation-system-not-just-another-clicker.

[12] P. Samson, “Effect of Laptops in Large Lecture Classes on Attentiveness and Engagement,”

Jun. 2011, p. 22.532.1-22.532.19, Accessed: Nov. 12, 2020. [Online]. Available:

https://peer.asee.org/effect-of-laptops-in-large-lecture-classes-on-attentiveness-and-

engagement.

[13] W. M. Kappers and S. Cutler, “Poll Everywhere! Even in the Classroom: An Investigation

into the Impact of Using PollEverywhere in a Large-Lecture Classroom,” Jun. 2014, p.

24.988.1-24.988.12, Accessed: Nov. 12, 2020. [Online]. Available:

https://peer.asee.org/poll-everywhere-even-in-the-classroom-an-investigation-into-the-

impact-of-using-polleverywhere-in-a-large-lecture-classroom.

[14] L. D. Nguyen, R. O’Neill, and S. J. Komisar, “Using Poll App to Improve Active Learning

in an Engineering Project Management Course Offered to Civil and Environmental

Engineering Students,” presented at the 2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Jun.

2019, Accessed: Nov. 12, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/using-poll-app-

to-improve-active-learning-in-an-engineering-project-management-course-offered-to-civil-

and-environmental-engineering-students.

[15] L. D. Nguyen, R. O’Neill, and S. J. Komisar, “Learning in Engineering Project

Management Classes: Does Technology Matter?,” presented at the 2020 ASEE Virtual

Annual Conference Content Access, Jun. 2020, Accessed: Nov. 12, 2020. [Online].

Available: https://peer.asee.org/learning-in-engineering-project-management-classes-does-

technology-matter.

[16] L. Sun and Y. Tang, “Work-in-Progress: Enhancing Conceptual Understanding by Using a

Realtime Online Class Response System in Engineering Courses,” Jun. 2015, p. 26.1765.1-

26.1765.10, Accessed: Nov. 12, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/work-in-

progress-enhancing-conceptual-understanding-by-using-a-realtime-online-class-response-

system-in-engineering-courses.

[17] P. M. Tan and J. J. Saucerman, “Enhancing Learning and Engagement through

Gamification of Student Response Systems,” presented at the 2017 ASEE Annual

Conference & Exposition, Jun. 2017, Accessed: Nov. 12, 2020. [Online]. Available:

https://peer.asee.org/enhancing-learning-and-engagement-through-gamification-of-student-

response-systems.

[18] N. H. Shetty and S. Ghanat, “Slido as a student response system in engineering education,”

presented at the 2020 ASEE Southeastern Section Conference, Auburn, AL, 2020.

[19] M. Koretsky et al., “SPECIAL SESSION: Educational Methods and Tools to Encourage

Conceptual Learning,” Jun. 2011, p. 22.1317.1-22.1317.10, Accessed: Nov. 12, 2020.

[Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/special-session-educational-methods-and-tools-to-

encourage-conceptual-learning.

[20] E. Davis, “Improving Student Learning through Classroom Engagement,” presented at the

2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, Jun. 2020, Accessed: Nov. 12,

2020. [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/improving-student-learning-through-

classroom-engagement.

[21] S. Dunning, “Evaluation of an Interactive Classroom Tool Applied in an Introductory

Electric Circuits Course,” Jun. 2014, p. 24.545.1-24.545.5, Accessed: Nov. 12, 2020.

[Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/evaluation-of-an-interactive-classroom-tool-

applied-in-an-introductory-electric-circuits-course.

[22] R. W. G. Pitman, P. E. Post, and L. Ding, “Board 13: The Effects of Frequent, Multimodal

Questioning to Drive Lecture: A Positive Case for IRE Student-Instructor Interactions,”

presented at the 2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Jun. 2019, Accessed: Nov.

12, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/board-13-the-effects-of-frequent-

multimodal-questioning-to-drive-lecture-a-positive-case-for-ire-student-instructor-

interactions.

[23] E. Leung and E. Pluskwik, “Effectiveness of Gamification Activities in a Project-based

Learning Classroom,” presented at the 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Jun.

2018, Accessed: Nov. 12, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/effectiveness-of-

gamification-activities-in-a-project-based-learning-classroom.

[24] C. E. Lopez and C. S. Tucker, “Implementing gamification in engineering bridge programs:

A case study exploring the use of the Kahoot! application,” presented at the 2019 ASEE

Zone I Conference & Workshop, Apr. 2019, Accessed: Nov. 12, 2020. [Online]. Available:

https://peer.asee.org/implementing-gamification-in-engineering-bridge-programs-a-case-

study-exploring-the-use-of-the-kahoot-application.

[25] T. A. Wood, J. M. Grayson, and K. Brown, “Faculty and Student Perceptions of Plickers,”

in ASEE Zone II Conference, San Juan, Peurto Rico, Mar. 2017, p. 7.

[26] K.-Y. D. Fan and C. van den Blink, “A Comparison And Evaluation Of Personal Response

Systems In Introductory Computer Programming,” Jun. 2006, p. 11.24.1-11.24.15,

Accessed: Nov. 12, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/a-comparison-and-

evaluation-of-personal-response-systems-in-introductory-computer-programming.

[27] A. Karimi and R. D. Manteufel, “Use of True-False or Multiple Choice Questions in

Measuring and Improving Student Knowledge of Fundamental Concepts in Thermal

Science Courses,” presented at the 2017 Gulf Southwest Section Conference, 2017,

Accessed: Nov. 12, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/use-of-true-false-or-

multiple-choice-questions-in-measuring-and-improving-student-knowledge-of-

fundamental-concepts-in-thermal-science-courses.

[28] G. M. Nicholls, N. Lewis, P. J. Componation, and T. Eschenbach, “Time to Transition:

Financial Calculators and Clickers in the Classroom,” Jun. 2011, p. 22.1527.1-22.1527.10,

Accessed: Nov. 12, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/time-to-transition-

financial-calculators-and-clickers-in-the-classroom.

[29] S. Bamberg, D. Mascaro, and R. Roemer, “Interactive Learning Using A Spiral Approach

In A Large Required First Year Mechanical Engineering Class,” Jun. 2010, p. 15.789.1-

15.789.25, Accessed: Nov. 12, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/interactive-

learning-using-a-spiral-approach-in-a-large-required-first-year-mechanical-engineering-

class.

[30] J. Everett, J. Chen, S. Farrell, and J. Kadlowec, “Clickers And Freshman Engineering

Clinic,” Jun. 2008, p. 13.297.1-13.297.10, Accessed: Nov. 12, 2020. [Online]. Available:

https://peer.asee.org/clickers-and-freshman-engineering-clinic.

[31] T. Eschenbach, N. Lewis, G. M. Nicholls, and J. M. Pallis, “The Impact of Clickers on

Your Classroom and Your Career,” Jun. 2013, p. 23.1205.1-23.1205.13, Accessed: Nov.

12, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/the-impact-of-clickers-on-your-

classroom-and-your-career.

[32] J. E. Caldwell, “Clickers in the Large Classroom: Current Research and Best-Practice

Tips,” LSE, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 9–20, Mar. 2007, doi: 10.1187/cbe.06-12-0205.

[33] A. W. Johnson and C. J. Finelli, “Responsive Teaching in Undergraduate Engineering

Courses,” presented at the 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Jun. 2017,

Accessed: Nov. 12, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://peer.asee.org/responsive-teaching-in-

undergraduate-engineering-courses.

[34] C. Demetry, “Use Of Formative Assessment To Probe Student Conceptions Of The Lever

Rule,” Jun. 2006, p. 11.1368.1-11.1368.15, Accessed: Nov. 12, 2020. [Online]. Available:

https://peer.asee.org/use-of-formative-assessment-to-probe-student-conceptions-of-the-

lever-rule.

[35] K. Pakala and D. Bose, “Use of Mobile Learning Strategies and Devices for e-Portfolio

Content Creation in Engineering Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics Classes: Student

Perceptions,” Jun. 2015, p. 26.1641.1-26.1641.20, Accessed: Nov. 12, 2020. [Online].

Available: https://peer.asee.org/use-of-mobile-learning-strategies-and-devices-for-e-

portfolio-content-creation-in-engineering-thermodynamics-and-fluid-mechanics-classes-

student-perceptions.

[36] “Privacy Policy,” Plickers. https://help.plickers.com/hc/en-us/articles/360009090833-

Privacy-Policy (accessed Apr. 13, 2021).

[37] M. Andrawis, “Using Active Learning in Teaching Electromagnetics,” Jun. 2011, p.

22.1606.1-22.1606.7, Accessed: Nov. 12, 2020. [Online]. Available:

https://peer.asee.org/using-active-learning-in-teaching-electromagnetics.

[38] C. Fies and J. Marshall, “Classroom Response Systems: A Review of the Literature,”

Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 15, pp. 101–109, Jan. 2006, doi:

10.1007/s10956-006-0360-1.

[39] E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual, 1st edition. Pearson, 2013.