STUDENT RESPONSE SYSTEMS OVERVIEW

10/12/04

A new technology is emerging on campus with potential applicability in classrooms. This technology is designed to provide interactive communications between individual students in a class and the teacher. Known by various names such as Student, Personal or Group Response Systems (SRS, PRS, and GRS) this basic technology has exciting potential as an additional pedagogical tool available to the faculty in classrooms.

This provides an overview of this emerging technology, comments on various issues relative to implementation and discusses the current status of these systems in University of Minnesota general purpose classrooms. We choose to use the term "Student Response System - SRS" to describe the family of interactive student-teacher communications systems.

BACKGROUND

A student response system (SRS) or interactive classroom communication system is comprised of individual student transmitter/input devices (via keypad, remote, PDA or laptop), receivers, a master/central/host system with software used to electronically gather and tabulate student responses, and infrastructure (sensors, wire, conduit, etc) to support the system. Additionally, the system requires administration to manage the assignment, registration, inventory and control of the student input devices, as well as resources for operations and maintenance of the system over its life cycle.

Functionally, the system allows students to respond to questions posed by an instructor, and allows instructors to view student feedback in real-time, thus allowing them to modify instruction based on individual student or group responses. Some systems also potentially allow students to send real time questions to the instructor during the presentation.

The use of a student response system can add a higher level of interaction and participation in class and allows comprehension to be assessed in real-time. The immediate feedback provided by the SRS enables the instructor to gauge the effectiveness of his or her training. This allows the instructor to alter the presentation and address problem areas for any topics that the students are having difficulty understanding.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS

The benefit for students is an increase in interactivity and class participation. It is also thought that using a student response system can increase retention when effectively integrated into teaching. The students are able to respond to questions and have their responses evaluated while the content is still the current topic of discussion. With this system, each student keypad (often referred to as a “clicker”) sends a unique identifying signal that is associated with a particular student, and the computer keeps track of each participant's responses. After the responses are recorded, a computer displays a histogram of answers. The instructor is able to see the responses immediately and can comment on the results or make changes to the instruction as needed to ensure that the students fully comprehend the content.

Another potential benefit of these systems is from the reduction in paperwork and labor associated with giving quizzes and/or tests (if the student is individually identified), and the associated potential benefit of automatic attendance taking to encourage increased class attendance. SRS integration into course management systems appears to be developing.

THREE TYPES OF SYSTEMS

There are three main types of response systems available: infrared (IR), radio frequency (RF), and WiFi wireless. System hardware requirements are dependent upon each type of system, and if it is to be installed in a classroom, the infrastructure of the room also impacts hardware requirements. A computer (installed or instructor laptop) must also be available to run the software and collect student responses, and an LCD projector is needed if results are to be displayed to the audience. There are pros and cons associated with each type of system

IR SYSTEMS:

The infrared systems use hand-held transmitters to send a signal to strategically placed receivers, and require unobstructed line-of-sight communication between transmitter and receiver within a specified viewing angle. The maximum ratio of transmitters to receivers is dependent on manufacturer but is typically from 40:1 to 80:1. As the number of receivers increases, the number of potential multiple signal collision/interferences also increases, which may result in reliability problems in accurately collecting and registering all student responses.

Interfacing IR hardware into classroom infrastructure can be costly and problematic, the level of which is dependent upon the specific room. The conduit requirements for installation and wiring of receivers might be relatively simple in a small room if existing conduit runs are available. As the room size increases, most rooms will require extensive conduit and electrical modifications. Costs, code requirements and complexity could be quite extensive.

RF SYSTEMS:

Radio frequency systems are based upon radio transmissions and are therefore not line-of-sight dependant. A single receiver can accommodate 100 input devices. Multiple receivers can be installed in a single classroom but must be set to separate channels. This means that each set of 100 transmitters can only communicate with a single receiver set to 1 of 4 available channels, and that the channel vs. student vs. location dynamic be managed. In large classrooms, each student would be required to address an assigned receiver that corresponded to their input device, and this has been somewhat problematic in large lecture hall pilot system installations (multiple channel receivers to address this are expected soon).

The potential for mutual frequency interference among nearby rooms and adjacent channels exists. Infrastructure issues with RF systems are generally less problematic than IR systems, but they do remain a consideration.

WIRELESS SYSTEMS:

Wireless /WiFi based systems use a recognized wireless standard, such as the existing campus-wide 802.11b wireless network, to communicate with wireless student devices. Wireless student devices range from wireless PDAs, to wireless laptops and tablet PCs. In the future there will likely be further convergence with text messaging capable cell phones. The management software may be hosted on the instructor's computer or on a server somewhere on the network. A sophisticated server based system can authenticate and log on all devices with passwords and support paperless testing applications with security assurance.

The WiFi based applications require no additional infrastructure as the wireless connectivity is already in place and available in all projection capable general purpose/central classrooms on the twin city campus.

ISSUES/OBSERVATIONS

The student response system concept has great potential as an additional pedagogical tool available to faculty in classrooms. The technology to implement this concept is still emerging, and there are rapid changes occurring regarding the technology, hardware, software and vendors involved. The marketplace has not yet settled on a system that is mature enough to implement on a large scale, such as the UMTC campus.

At this time there is not one IR or RF hardware/software solution that can be scaled from small to large classrooms without significant costs, performance, and other inherit limitations. In addition, the University has not yet addressed compatibility issues among multiple vendors and units or the impact and issues involved in standardization of systems on campus.

Both IR and RF systems require installing receivers and conduit in classrooms, involving cost, infrastructure, code and maintenance issues. Wireless student response systems using standard protocols (802.11b) require no additional infrastructure and can be rapidly implemented in central classrooms that already support wireless student networking. However, wireless student response system development lags RF/IR products, and these systems are only now coming on the market.

Keypad transmitters are typically purchased by each student (or by the department and assigned to individual students). The cost for each student transmitter goes beyond the price of the system. Ongoing administration, registration, and maintenance of these devices require resources.

Keypad transmitters/clickers are not universal devices and to date no system has emerged that can securely function in many rooms across campus. It is impractical for students to have to carry around multiple devices for multiple systems. Students may view the cost of the devices as problematic.

The University must be cautious about installing systems that may inadvertently reduce or compromise our standards of affordability, usability, or reliability of its general purpose projection capable classrooms. We also must be mindful that unique and specialized installations in general/central classrooms may reduce functionality or usability for all users. Specialized technology applications may be best suited for departmental classrooms or as a cart-based, modular add-on unit.

OCM is the Provost's agent for managing all aspects of general purpose/central classrooms. Individual departments, staff, faculty or others may not modify the physical environment, technology or cosmetics in central classrooms without prior coordination and approval by OCM. Any unapproved modifications made in central classrooms may result in charges to the department involved.

Textbook vendors are offering low cost bundled SRS systems with their products as incentives. It is worth noting that the SRS acquisition cost is minimal when compared to the cost of installing, administering and maintaining the system over its life cycle. Faculty members contemplating using such a system in a central classroom are asked to contact OCM as far in advance as possible to discuss specific requirements and possibilities.

The success of using a student response system is dependent upon the time invested in administering and managing the system. A department that works through the pedagogical, technical, resource and operational issues usually finds that providing local support staff is essential.

General purpose classrooms are designed to support the requirements of a broad range of departments. The projection capable standard that the University has implemented in general purpose classrooms is a proven, reliable and faculty-friendly system that meets the requirements of faculty and students. This standard includes a fixed data projector, laptop interface, easy-to-operate control system, various input devices, and add-on modules for special requirements. This add-on modular flexibility includes the ability to support future systems such as SRS.

It is important to note that all projection capable general purpose classrooms on the Twin Cities campus currently have wireless networking in place (using the campus-wide 802.11b standard) and are ready to accommodate a wireless networked response system. No additional classroom hardware or infrastructure is needed.

CURRENT STATUS

OCM is currently partnering with several departments who are conducting trials with student response systems. These trials are providing valuable information on different systems, as is the ongoing coordination between OCM's Classroom Tech Services (CTS) unit and SRS vendors.

To date, the OCM assessment is as follows:

1. There are significant pedagogical opportunities in SRS use in classrooms. We see this capability in the future of general purpose classrooms, and we are investigating the value and possible future implementation of such a system.
2. We believe that such a capability can be interfaced into the "projection capable classroom" standard - either as an application resident in instructor and student computing devices, or as an add-on module to the standard system.
3. SRS technology is still not mature, and has not reached a level where installation on the large scale of UMTC classrooms or with the large student population, is feasible.
4. Currently available SRS system usability, reliability, and maintainability do not meet OCM standards for installation in central classrooms.
5. IR and RF based systems have performance and infrastructure downsides.
6. Wireless/WiFi based SRS systems require less infrastructure, and can theoretically be readily implemented because all projection capable general purpose classrooms are currently covered by wireless student networking using the 802.11b campus-wide standard.
7. In the future, it seems preferable (and likely) that student response software will be a resident application on secure ubiquitous wireless student computing devices (laptop/notebook/PDA/super-cell phones) and will be usable throughout the campus. This is the type of future generation student response system that makes perfect sense in general purpose classrooms. In any case, these systems must scale across the campus as standard systems.
8. The campus cannot support different departmental student response systems from the perspective of multiple classroom infrastructure installations, from the standpoint of faculty usability, or from the standpoint of students having to use multiple remotes/clickers for different rooms.
9. SRS changes are rapidly occurring. WiFi SRS will be out soon. While it is useful to partner in some early-adopter testing, the technology is not yet ready for full scale implementation in general classrooms.

SUMMARY

UMTC's 300 general purpose classrooms are designed to support the requirements of a broad range of departments. The projection capable standard that the University has implemented in general purpose classrooms is a proven system that meets the requirements of faculty and students. Before selecting a single SRS system for installation and use on a broad scale, the University must first address compatibility issues among the multiple vendors and units and the impact and issues involved in standardization of systems on campus. We are working toward that end. However, at this time, there have been no commitments made to install or support student response systems in central classrooms.

We are very interested in talking with faculty and/or support staff who are using a response system now, or considering one for use in the near future. Please contact our Classroom Faculty Support Coordinator John Knowles at 612-626-8650 to discuss SRS in greater detail.