• Overview
  ...a rough guide to e-learning, for staff
• News and Updates

• Using the Course Materials Repository
• Using Online Coursework Submission
• Using the Plagiarism Detection Service
• Using Moodle
• Using WebCT
• Using Perception
• Using a Personal Response System

• SENDA
• Supporting Online Learning
• IPR and Copyright Guidance
• E-Learning Network (Mailing List)
• Training
• Learning and Teaching

Personal Response Systems

Case Studies

Lancaster University (School of Economics)

• Formative assessment.
• 5 questions over 50 minutes.
• Used multiple choice questions to introduce a subject.
• Used multiple choice questions to determine how much information students had retained from previous lectures, providing a start point for the next lecture.
• Used anonymously.
• Used to stimulate students’ initial concentration levels.
  Enables accurate determination of what should be covered in tutorials.
• Less material can be covered in lectures.
• Stimulated interest and concentration in students.
• Introduced students to different aspects of the handset gradually e.g. only introduced confidence levels after a few lectures where students had used the PRS, and introduced names mode after a few lectures where students were anonymous.
• Found that students were less comfortable used the named mode, so continued use is always in the anonymous mode.
• Lecturer must be willing to revisit material that the PRS results suggest has not been well understood by students whether in lectures or tutorials.
• Continued use after initial trial.

University of Aberdeen

• Piloted PRS in 2003/2004 and now have it available to any member of staff in all lecture theatres.
• Various presentations from guest and inside speakers helped to integrate the system and inform new users of the positive results achieved through the use of PRS already.
• Resulted in a noticeable difference in the standard of understanding demonstrated in coursework.

University of Glasgow

• Used PRS to address the issue of lacking interaction between students and lecturers.
• Advertised to all departments and recruited lecturers to try the system.
• Purchased sufficient equipment for 650 students to use the system simultaneously.
• Found that the interactivity kept students active and focused.
  Instant feedback useful in delivering purposeful material.
• Questions initiated discussions among students, enabling deeper learning.
• Prevents lecturers from having to set homework to test students’ understanding.
• Initially time consuming but results in saved time e.g. due to not having to mark homework.
• Helps close gap between current and desired outcomes.

University of Strathclyde

• Used in first year engineering modules.
• Aim to improve retention and introduce active learning and discussion of concepts.
• Lectures were perceived as being more fun, with increased participation and better use of time.
• Introduction of this system also resulted in improved attendance at lectures and enables lecturers to unveil common student misconceptions.
• Effective means of tracking student progress.
• Facilitates more focused use of lecturers’ time.

University of Birmingham and University of Southampton

• Second year engineering mathematics lectures.
• Use of the system split the class into two groups; those favouring the PRS and those against it.
• Suggested that those against the use of the system are those who typically gave wrong answers. Needs further investigation. It is possible that had it been introduced at first year level, all students would have accepted it as a form of lecturing. 40% of students answered simple questions incorrectly, and 20% answered questions they had already been asked and shown the answers to incorrectly, leading the author to suggest that not all students embraced the new technology and answered the questions incorrectly on purpose.

University of Massachusetts

• Gave one zapper to a small group, which encouraged group discussions and persuaded the students to verbalise their responses to questions posed by the lecturer. This is thought to improve students’ social and communication skills also.
• Identified that students are more likely to speak up in class after having discussed an issue in small groups. Also identified that students seem to be more afraid of being incoherent than incorrect (when stating an answer to a question from the lecturer).
• Identified that students like to see a histogram of results, and find it reassuring to see that they are not the only ones who don’t understand, or who opted for the incorrect answer.
• Used for formative assessment, but students perceive it as they would summative assessment, which may lead to resentment of the new technology – students do not realise they are not necessarily supposed to be able to answer the questions. It is therefore important to direct teaching at learning rather than evaluation when using PRS.
• Discussed the question after students had selected their answers and then gave students the chance to change their selection prior to revealing the correct answer.
• A broadly spread histogram is indicative of a good question, as the options need discussing. The students will not easily opt for one answer but will be persuaded to try and think about each option.

• List of papers published on the use of PRS: http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/ilig/main.html#papers
• List of people currently known to be using PRS: http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/ilig/people.html