Abstract
The i>clicker student response system is used to answer multiple-choice
questions in university classrooms across North America. We investigated how
existing i>clicker remotes could be used to improve classroom interaction
and collaboration by developing and using custom software applications, each
targeted at a different aspect of classroom interaction, that augment basic
i>clicker capability.
Java-based software was written to replace the vendor-provided driver for the
i>clicker base station that controls initialization, starting voting,
requesting votes, stopping voting, and updating the LCD display on the base
station. WebClicker extends voting to commonly-used digital devices (cell
phone, smart phone, tablet, and laptop) using a cloud-based architecture that
forwards votes to a client application.
Three client applications were developed. Each connects to either the
Java-based driver or WebClicker to obtain votes. These extended the power of
the standard i>clicker software. It supports most existing features, such as
multiple-choice questions, but additionally features per-group visualization of
voting outcomes, state-specific interpretation of individual student’s votes,
and other features not in the vendor-provided software. Clic^in provides
additional pedagogical support so students can practice newly-obtained skills
in the class. It embeds “gamelets” that have content-specific behavior that can
be played individually, or by an entire class, or in parallel by groups to
support concept demonstration, class-wide participation and group
competition. Finally, Selection Tool allows students to control projected
material in the classroom through slide navigation and content
highlighting.
Two usability experiments were conducted. One investigated cognitive load when
using an i>clicker remote to interact with a gamelet that illustrates binary
search tree insertion. The remote was slower and more error-prone than a
mouse-based interface, but the difference is probably acceptable in a classroom
setting. Both interaction time and error-rate decreased as participants gained
practice. A second experiment compared Selection Tool with a mouse for content
highlighting. Again the i>clicker was slower and more error-prone than a
mouse, and it was difficult to correctly highlight smaller targets, but the
ability to use an i>clicker for this task shows promise.
Files
UBC Archive