Although relatively few instructors in the humanities use clickers, if there’s one discipline in the humanities where clickers are starting to get some traction, it would be philosophy. I interviewed a couple of philosophy faculty members for my book (including Ron McClamrock of SUNY-Albany), and I’ve recently found a few online resources for using clickers in philosophy, listed below.

Why the particular interest in clickers among philosophy instructors? Perhaps it’s because some teach courses in logic, and these courses are often more like math courses (where clickers are more mainstream) than typical humanities courses. Perhaps it’s because some philosophy instructors teach relatively large classes–larger than is typical in English and language instruction, certainly–and clickers excel in large classes. However, I suspect the primary reason clickers have been adopted in philosophy is because philosophy instructors like to ask what I call “student perspective questions” in my book. These opinion and experience questions work beautifully in ethics courses, and I imagine they work well in other philosophy courses, as well.

On the Teaching Philosophy 101 site, John Immerwahr provides an introduction to teaching with clickers in philosophy courses.  He suggests a few uses of clickers that are of particular use in teaching philosophy.  For instance, he suggests asking students a few opinion questions at the beginning of a unit to surface their perspectives on the topic, helping them have a great stake in the discussion that follows.  He also suggests asking the same questions before and after a topic is discussed as a way to show students that “serious discussion of issues actually matters to how people think (a point which they sometimes don’t get initially).”

Immerwahr also stresses a point about clickers that is sometimes subtle: They can be used to generate “meta-conversations,” as he calls them.

Interestingly, the wording of the questions themselves often creates prompts for discussion. Student like to discuss why the class voted as it did, and people will sometimes make interesting distinctions (e.g., a student might say “If the question has said ‘can’ make a difference instead of ‘will’ make a difference, I would have voted differently,” which can then lead into another interesting discussion).

In my talks on teaching with clickers, I’ll often mention that the results display itself can generate useful discussion.  Asking students why the class voted as it did can often lead to productive discussions of assumptions students make about themselves and each other.

Immerwahr’s example also reminds me of another point I often make, that the wording on clicker questions need not be as precise as the wording on exam questions.  One reason is that if the question isn’t worded exactly right, an instructor can still make it work during the discussion of the question.  Another is that clicker questions can be modified and asked again based on student comments during discussion.  In Immerwahr’s example, for instance, the instructor could easily change “will” to “can” in the question and re-poll the students.

For an expanded version of Immerwahr’s introduction to clickers, read his Teaching Philosophy article, “Engaging the ‘Thumb Generation’ with Clickers.”  The article includes more discussion of the clicker uses mentioned above, as well as other uses, and features several sample questions.

And for even more resources on using clickers in philosophy instruction, visit the Peer Instruction in the Humanities project out of Monash University in Australia.  This site features a step-by-step guide to PI, advice on designing a PI lecture, a description of a sample PI lecture, examples of various types of clicker questions appropriate for this teaching context, and even a question bank organized by topic!  I’m very glad to know that there’s a humanities clicker question bank out there to complement existing question banks in the sciences.

I had hoped that my second podcast episode would follow the first one a little more closely in time, but the spring semester got away from me, particularly with the book coming out in February.  However, I’ve got a great interview for you this time around.

This episode features an interview with Kelly Cline, associate professor of mathematics at Carroll College in Montana.  Kelly and two of his colleagues at Carroll, Holly Zullo and Mark Parker, are principal investigators for a National Science Foundation project called Project Math Quest.  Kelly and his collaborators have written and tested clicker questions for linear algebra and differential equations courses, and they’ve made their question bank–consisting of hundreds of questions–available online.

In this interview, Kelly talks about the ways that he uses clickers and classroom voting, as well as his energy and enthusiasm, to motivate his students to engage meaningfully with mathematical concepts and logical thinking in the classroom.  He also talks about elements of effective clicker questions, as well as how he has modified his approach to teaching to include more active learning elements while still covering all the content he needs to in his courses.

Click the following link to download and listen to the interview:

Podcast #2 – An Interview with Kelly Cline [41:14]

Links:

• Kelly Cline’s home page
• Project Math QUEST

Podcast: Play in new window
| Download

Marty Williams recently asked in a comment here about resources for teachers in K12 settings interested in using clickers.  I am asked this question from time to time, and my usual response is that since I’ve focused my efforts at the college and university level, I’m not as familiar with K12 clicker use.  I suspect that much of good clicker question design and good clicker pedagogy at the college level translate well to high school settings, if not all K12 settings.  I would be glad to hear feedback from K12 teachers on the ideas in my book to see if I’m right about that.

One connection point between college settings and K12 settings is the education of pre-service teachers.  Clicker use in courses for undergraduate education majors have two potential benefits.  One is that clickers can enhance the learning experience for these students in both education courses and in subject courses–math, chemistry, literature, and so on.  (Here’s an example.)  Another is that as clicker use becomes more common in K12 settings, future teachers will benefit from knowing how to use clickers effectively.  I would be interested in hearing from those who prepare future teachers how they have used clickers in these ways.

Given the interest in resources for using clickers in K12 settings, I thought I would share the few resources with which I’m familiar, while encouraging readers to add to this list in the comments below.

Teacher Learning of Technology-Enhanced Formative Assessment is an NSF-sponsored project headed by Ian Beatty and William Leonard of the University of North Carolina-Greensboro studies “how secondary science and mathematics teachers learn to use [clickers] to implement a specific pedagogical approach called Technology-Enhanced Formative Assessment (TEFA).”  I interviewed Ian for my podcast last year, and in the interview he talked about some of the lessons he learned through the project regarding professional development around clickers.  He’s also co-authored a paper on the project:

Beatty, I. D. & Gerace, W. J. (2009). Technology-enhanced formative assessment: A research-based pedagogy for teaching science with classroom response technology. Journal of Science Education & Technology.

Another reference of potential use is this 2007 literature review of classroom response systems in elementary and secondary education:

Penuel, W. R., Boscardin, C. K., Masyn, K., & Crawford, V. M. (2007). Teaching with student response systems in elementary and secondary education settings: A survey study. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 55(4).

Also, in a comment here on this blog, Jeff Stowell pointed out that some classroom response system vendors make available clicker questions aligned with state standards.  He linked to question banks from Turning Technologies and eInstruction.

Now I turn it over to you.  What resources for using clickers in K12 settings have you found?  Please share in the comments.  I know that there are several K12 teachers who read this blog who would be interested in what you have to share.

One of the more challenging aspects of teaching with clickers is coming up with questions that engage students and promote class-wide and small-group discussion.  Fortunately, some instructors have shared online the clicker questions they’ve developed.  Here are a few question banks I’ve found.

• Astronomy ConcepTests, Paul Green, Harvard University – features questions for introductory astronomy courses
• Chemistry ConcepTests, University of Wisconsin – includes questions for general, organic, analytic, inorganic, and physical chemistry, as well as biochemistry
• Earth Science ConcepTests, Science Education Resource Center, Carleton College – features questions on 11 different Earth science topics, including surface processes, solid earth, and time / Earth history
• Physics ConcepTests, University of Colorado-Boulder – includes questions on mechanics, electricity and magnetism, energy and the environment, and the physics of sound and music
• Project Math QUEST, Carroll College – includes questions for precalculus, calculus, linear algebra, and differential equations, as well as links to other mathematics question banks

Do you know of any online question banks, particularly any in the social sciences, humanities, or professional disciplines?