Search News


Browse Archives

News

Take Your Fee and Click It!

September 24, 2010

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Anyone who doubts that rising tuition is making students especially thrifty when it comes to the ancillary costs of going to college might consider Johns Hopkins University, where nearly 200 students are protesting a new fee that works out to about the price of two movie tickets and some Chinese carry-out.

The fee is for classroom clickers -- a popular technology that allows professors to gauge student understanding or opinion in real time by giving them handheld voting devices and taking polls throughout a class period. Johns Hopkins began piloting the system six years ago, and since then it has subsidized the cost of the per-student “enrollment codes” in hopes of “focus[ing] the pilot on education, rather than on administrative issues,” according to Candice Dalrymple, director of the university’s Center for Learning Resources.

Now that the pilot has expanded into a broad deployment, affecting about half of the university’s 5,000 undergraduates, the front office is passing those fees on to students. Students can pay $13 per course, per semester to register their clicker, or they can pay a one-time fee of $35 that covers all courses, all semesters. All students taking courses that use clickers are required to buy the enrollment codes. (Students are also required to buy the actual clicker devices, which run between $20 and $30, but this had been true during the pilot phase.)

Given that students spend hundreds of dollars every year on textbooks, it might have seemed unlikely that students would raise a fuss about a new $35 charge covering clickers until graduation. The vendor, eInstruction, says it is “definitely not the norm” for a university to keep paying the enrollment fees for students once the system has been deployed at scale.

But some students were offended by the idea that they should pick up the bill. Naturally, a Facebook page devoted to their dissatisfaction was not far behind.

“This semester, our tuition has increased, BUT we still have to pay for this,” wrote Katherine Weiling Tan, a sophomore, in a manifesto on the Facebook “event" she created to organize her peers against the new fees. “We do NOT want to pay $35 for enrollment codes, which should have been free in the first place." Tan dubbed the event, “Don’t pay for CPS enrollment codes!” Soon, 187 people had agreed to “attend”; another 79 said "maybe."

Several students wrote on the event’s wall. “I don’t mind it, but I'll see what the [student government] can do,” wrote Mike Wu, another sophomore.

Others were more forceful: “It’s a useless service anyway,” wrote Adam Zeldin. “It doesn’t better my education. Yet, I had to buy the device, the school has to buy its devices, etc. Such a waste of money.”

But the university thinks clickers add considerable value to the education of its students. Richard Shingle, a lecturer in biology, has tracked the effects of clickers on student performance in his general biology courses. What Shingle has found is that since he has started using clickers, he has seen class attendance go up about 30 percent -- and grades along with it.

“It goes two ways,” says Dalrymple: based on the real-time feedback, “faculty know how quickly they can move forward on certain concepts. And the students benefit because they don’t have classes that go too fast or too slow.”

Tan says she has not seen any benefit on the student side. “Most students who go to the professor after class don't ask questions about the material, but rather complain about how their clicker didn't work,” she told Inside Higher Ed in a Facebook message. “I just don’t see why some staff and faculty think it is useful.”

Student pushback against clickers is nothing new, according to Derek Bruff, the assistant director of Vanderbilt University’s Center for Teaching, who literally wrote the book on clickers. “It is common to hear students complain about clickers if they are used in ways that do not provide clear learning benefits to the students,” Bruff told Inside Higher Ed in an interview last year.

Often, student buy-in depends on how their professors are using the devices, Bruff said.

“If an instructor uses clickers only to take attendance or give quizzes, students often object to paying for a device just to make the instructor’s job a little easier,” he said. “If, however, an instructor uses the results of a clicker quiz to review the quiz with the students immediately after they take it, focusing on questions most missed by students and exploring popular incorrect answers, students see this as adding value to their learning experience and are more likely to see the clickers as useful.”

Tan originally created the Facebook group as a way to organize a letter-writing campaign, but turnover in the dean’s office has held up that process. In any case, it seems unlikely the group’s efforts will carry the day: while 187 students did join Tan’s Facebook protest, 262 ignored the invitation to join, and another 256 specifically declined.

For the latest technology news from Inside Higher Ed, follow IHEtech on Twitter.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Take Your Fee and Click It!

  • Clicks replaced by tweets?
  • Posted by Gavin Moodie at RMIT, Australia on September 24, 2010 at 6:15am EDT
  • I haven't seen it, but I heard of a lecturer who established a twitter account for their lecturer and invited the audience to tweet comments to which they responded during the lecture. I imagine tweets being shown on part of a screen behind the lecturer during parts of the lecture so that the audience and the lecturer could respond to each other.

  • A low cost alternative
  • Posted by H. , Instructional Designer at Big Research U. on September 24, 2010 at 8:15am EDT
  • For those Universities out there looking for an opportunity to use clickers in the classroom with out the added expense. There are programs online that allow students to use their cell phone as the clicker. They already have them and like to play with them so why not put them to work.

    The fees for this type of clicker system are a fraction of the cost of the systems discussed in this article.

    In my instruction we use a service called Polleverwhere. Google it.

    H.

  • Another Money-making Scheme
  • Posted by B , Parent on September 24, 2010 at 2:49pm EDT
  • My daughter was "compelled", that is required by a faculty member -- as was all of the class -- to purchase the remotes a few weeks into the semester. The class revolted, according to my daughter, but to no avail. The next week, the Psychology instructor checked to ensure that everyone had purchased their remotes. The following week she informed the class that the technology was not yet ready for classroom integration and now, as a junior, my daughter has yet to use the device in any class. Ignorance is bliss--it is also academically inexcusable and this behavior borders on the dishonest.

  • ban clickers!
  • Posted by Norm Matloff , Professor of Computer science at University of California, Davis on September 24, 2010 at 3:00pm EDT
  • I'm appalled that the debate is over who pays the cost of the clickers. In my view, use of clickers is a pedagogical abomination. It's merely a high tech way to force students to pay attention.

    If faculty want regular feedback from students, they should give regular quizzes, preferably with answers that demonstrate more understanding than a click.

  • Expansion on my thoughts...
  • Posted by Adam Zeldin , Student at Johns Hopkins University on September 24, 2010 at 7:15pm EDT
  • Lovely to see I've been quoted in an article that will certainly be read by my professors and deans. Back in the day, Facebook events, and comments therein, were visible only to those in the network. However, this is the 21st century, where journalism can consist of inserting Facebook comments into a blog entry, and I can accept that. Let me elaborate on my brief statement. I'm not "forcefully" upset about paying $35 for the service. I'm upset because I see it as useless. Like my underfunded urban public high school using grant money to buy dozens of SMART Boards™, which ended up doing nothing but exasperate the simple process of using a whiteboard, implementing CPS units simply slows down class and wastes time, and in this case students' and university money. In my experience, it is used entirely as an attendance device. I agree with Prof. Matloff above. My professors aren't using it as a tool to track our progress, and tailor their lectures to better suit us, they're simply trying to get us to come to class. As it was written in the article, attendance improves performance—yet we are men and women in college. We should know to attend class one way or the other. We ought not need be pulled into class by our hands, held by a nanny in this case named E-Instruction.

  • I use clickers
  • Posted by stacyesq at Liberal arts college on September 25, 2010 at 11:30am EDT
  • I use clickers in class, and my students love them! Students are not required to buy them; rather, I carry them to class for the students to pick up, use, and return. Accordingly, I cannot use them for tracking attendance and giving quizzes. Instead, I use them as suggested by people like Derek Bruff: I use them to go over quiz questions to track student understanding. If the class does well on a question, I can move on. If they don't, I know I need to spend more time explaining the material.

    Another popular use for the clickers is to encourage class discussion. I can ask questions about controversial or sensitive subjects, get students to respond anonymously through the clickers, and then they feel more comfortable discussing the topic. Clickers are also great for test reviews.

    I suppose clickers are like any other technological or pedagogical tool, when used correctly, they can be valuable; when used incorrectly, they can be wasteful.

  • Posted by Zeldo on September 25, 2010 at 6:45pm EDT
  • Adam, the university does not pay for the receiver unit or for the software. The manufacturere provides a receiver to the instructor gratis. The students bear all of the costs of clickers -- the school pays nothing.

  • Kudos
  • Posted by Robert W. Gehl , Assistant Professor / Communication at University of Utah on September 26, 2010 at 5:00am EDT
  • Adam -
    Kudos to you for taking the time to thoughtfully add a comment. I'm impressed - you've connected online journalism, clickers, social networking, and Smartboards in a critique that gets at the heart of some of the troubling changes that are occurring in education. You're absolutely right: we are underfunding many of our schools, and yet what little funds they receive are being captured by a ballooning educational technology sector that cares far more about selling gadgets than teaching students. I think some people dream of a day when teachers are gone altogether, replaced by robots and video systems.

  • I disagree -- clickers are the most valuable addition to class!
  • Posted by Stephanie Chasteen , Science Teaching Fellow / Physics at University of Colorado on September 28, 2010 at 5:30am EDT
  • I must echo what stacyesq said: "I suppose clickers are like any other technological or pedagogical tool, when used correctly, they can be valuable; when used incorrectly, they can be wasteful."

    Clickers are a tool, like any other. The value of a tool depends on how it's used. We've used them campuswide at the University of Colorado for close to 10 years now (they're used in 100% of many of our introductory science courses). My subject line is a quote from Douglas Duncan, an astronomy instructor here, who claims that they're the most valuable addition to his teaching he's seen in 20 years. "I could never see inside my students heads before," he said. Dr. Pollock (Physics) has said something similar to me, that now he can respond to what students are actually thinking, instead of what he imagines they might be thinking. And students have similarly waxed poetic about how helpful clickers are for their learning (and that result shows up in quantitative studies too).

    But that kind of benefit is only going to happen if they're being used in a way that promotes student discussion and learning -- by asking challenging questions, encouraging students to talk to one another (called peer instruction), and thus to learn through the question and answer process. Sure, this can be done with some other systems (like polleverywhere, or colored cards), but clickers provide both anonymity (at least, to other students), and accountability. Everyone has to click in to get credit, they are invested in the answer, they get immediate feedback on how they compare to the rest of the class, and the instructor gets feedback on where the class is struggling. Plus, our instructors wander around while students are answering the question, listening in on their conversations -- a real eye-opener!

    There's a ton of research on the value of clickers, when used with peer instruction, to improve learning. One of our studies showed that, after discussion, more students get a similar question right. So, they learn from talking with each other. Another external study has shown that when students answer a question by raising their hands or showing colored cards, they get the answer right more often than when using clickers. Why? They're looking at their neighbors when raising their hands, and the instructor isn't getting real feedback on the class understanding.

    Such a useful tool, which can be used throughout four years, for the fraction of the cost of a textbook, is a valuable addition to the classroom. We use a really simple system at the University of Colorado (i>clicker), and it's been easy for all faculty and students to learn to use it. But it really does have to be used right to be effective. We've got a set of videos, and links to literature, at http://STEMclickers.colorado.edu. I also blog over at http://theactiveclass.com, where we write about ways to use technology to engage students.