Searching for "tophat"

TopHat and textbook publishers

https://www.edsurge.com/news/2020-02-04-top-hat-raises-55-million-to-take-on-big-textbook-publishers

Mike Silagadze isn’t shy about his desire to take market share from the largest college textbook publishers through his classroom software company Top Hat. He believes his company’s brand of digital textbooks beats anything Pearson, McGraw-Hill and their ilk can provide.

Founded in 2009, Top Hat claims that 2.7 million students access its digital course materials, including those at 750 of the top 1,000 higher education institutions in North America.

Silagadze believes younger faculty members and future generations of college students will help drive institutions to adopt digital materials instead of print.

Top Hat has challenged tangible goods for a long time now. Its first offering was a digital version of clickers to measure student responses in the classroom. In 2017, the company launched a marketplace for e-textbooks, working with authors and offering openly licensed content from the likes of OpenStax as well.

Last year, the company ceased sales of individual assessment tools to instead offer a bundle of its products. Students pay $48 for one year of Top Hat’s products. Interactive textbooks on Top Hat cost an average of $35.

++++++++++
more on Top Hat in this IMS blog
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=tophat

polling clickers education

Using a Mobile Solution to Empower Students in and out of the Classroom

Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2016.  Time: 11:00 AM Pacific Standard Time.  Sponsored by: i>clicker

archived webcast here:
http://w.on24.com/r.htm?e=1130110&s=1&k=281F43456B7CB0FF8CFD94D02CBC7DDC&partnerref=theremind
(you need to register. That means, sharing personal data, so fill out cautiously).

REEF polling is a proprietary for i>Clickers.
All other contenstors, TopHat, Turning Technologies etc. have the same scheme

methodology of the chemistry teacher:
flipped classroom active learning

quizzes: may not use external resources, graded on accuracy
questions: may use external sources, graded on participation (chemistry teacher wants students to be active and not penalized for wrong answer).

think: students consider the question. submit an answer individually
pair: instructors shows the results (no answer is given); students form groups to discuss their answers; students must agree on the answer
share: students submit an answer individually; the instructor shows the result (an answer is given)

kate.biberdorf@cm.utexas.edu @FunwithChem

follow up q/s, also standard:
1. what to do, if students don’t have smart phones, 2. CRS integration with CMS 3. data export

More on polling and CRS in the classroom in this blog:

http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/?s=clickers&submit=Search
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/?s=classroom+response+systems&submit=Search
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/?s=crs&submit=Search

More on flipped classroom and active learning in this blog:
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/?s=flipped+classroom&submit=Search
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/?s=active+learning&submit=Search

polls and surveys tools for education

Polls and surveys tools for education

SCSU faculty asked for help with Kahoot.it  Great tool. Especially the reward system, which most likely might engage students in the learning process. However, Kahoot is very “synchronous.” It assumes that the faculty is in a synchronous environment (F2F or online). At least the free version.

In 2012, six SCSU faculty members worked together and recommended “heavy duty” survey/polling options also known as Classroom Response Systems (CRS):
http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/?s=clickers

Among the considered vendors were Turning Technologies, which have both hardware and completely online option and integrate with D2L (http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2013/09/10/crs-clickers-turning-technology-instructions/) and TopHatMonitor (http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2013/04/10/clickers-documentation/), which is completely online, no hardware solution.

Here are additional free resources, as recommended for use in education:

13 Great Free and Easy Survey / Polls Creation Tools for Teachers

http://www.educatorstechnology.com/2012/05/15-great-free-and-easy-survey-polls.html

1- Kwiqpoll (my note: seems out of business)
This is a simple poll making tool. It does not require any registration. Just visit the homepage and start creating  you poll right away. You have the choice to provide multiple choice answers. You will also be provided with a generated URL to use when sharing your polls.

2- Flisti

This is another great simple poll tool. It is very easy to use and resembles Kwiqpoll in that it does not call for any sign up. Just head over to its main page and start working on your poll. You can add as many answers as you want to your poll. Again , you can embed your polls in your blog, wiki or website

3- Urtak (my note: dead – server not found message)

This tool allows users to create polls using yes or no multiple questions.

4- Vorbeo (my note: seems out of business)
This is another free and simple to use poll tool. Teachers can use it to create their own polls and customize them the way they want by adding colours, adjusting width and many more before sharing them on their blogs or websites.

5- Polldaddy
This is another popular polling service that allows users to create free polls and surveys containing up to ten questions.

6- Micropoll
Micropoll allows users to instantly create a poll using a set of questions and answers then one email address. It also provides embed codes to share polls online.

8- Obsurvey

This is a great utility for creating instant surveys. It is dead simple, just visit its main page , type in your questions and answers using their text editor and there you go.

9- Kwik Surveys
This is another great polling service. It allows users to design their own surveys, form, polls and feedback forms. It is free but it does require a sign up.

10- Polleverywhere
This is a great polling tool.  It has different pricing plans and also has a free plan but very limited and allows for just 40 responses per poll.

12- Poll Junkie

This is a simple free service for creating instant polls. It lets users specify an expiry date for their polls and also opt for email notification to be notified each time there is an answer to the poll.

13- Yarp
This is another easy and simple poll creating tool. It basically allows users to create their own surveys or online invitations. It does not require any registration.

 

Academy of distinguished teachers

Academy of distinguished teachers, Innovation

University of Minnesota, McNamara Alumni Center – Twin Cities Campus. April 8, 2015

Full program available here: https://guidebook.com/g/adt/


Randy Bass

Randy Bass

Randy Bass
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/randall-bass/14/94/77

flipping disruption into Design

there are two type of universities: the ones that are in control of change and the ones, which are pressed to change.

what kind of education is needed at this moment of history.
Assumptions: 5-10 years will be for a first time outcompeted in terms of delivering information and degrees. What is that the university can do distinctively well that WWW cannot do: mentored learning and the arc of learning (beyond collection of granular separate learning)

book: The New Division of Labor. http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Division-Labor-Computers/dp/0691124027
External forces of potential disruption: 1. MOOCs, nearly free education, 2. skilled-based learning (Codeacademy, Udacity), 3. data analytic 4. public pressure on access, metrics of impact.

Gartner group (http://www.gartner.com/technology/home.jsp) hype cycle : overvalued in a short term and undervalued in a long term. MOOC is excellent example.
NMC: competing models of education.

learning analytics. adaptive learning, intelligent tutoring etc. Open Learning Initative. http://oli.cmu.edu/

In the 19th century, railroads companies which were in the business of railroad companies went under; the ones which were in the business of transportation survived. Parallel, universities, which are in the business of delivering information will die out; the ones, which will survive must look to a very different picture.

formative wider outcomes

formative wider outcomes

integration and dis-integration

integration and dis-integration

the white light

high impact integrative curriculum

high impact integrative curriculum

what makes high inpact practices high impact

what makes high inpact practices high impact

formal versus informal

formal versus informal

integrative versus disintegrative


Selected sessions:

 

The Value of Assessing Outcomes of Teaching Methodologies to guide instructional design

https://guidebook.com/guide/33541/event/10594685/


game-based learning:

Upping your Game – Best Practices in Using Game-Based Learning

https://guidebook.com/guide/33541/event/10594684/

Implementing Game Dynamics in Moodle

https://guidebook.com/guide/33541/event/10693434/

visuals:

Engaging Students through Video Integration

https://guidebook.com/guide/33541/event/10676389/

Innovative Options for Recording Your Own Course Videos

https://guidebook.com/guide/33541/event/10676375/

Using Flipgrid Video Commentary to Share Student Learning

https://guidebook.com/guide/33541/event/10676361/

————

Enhancing learning with online narrated presentations using VoiceThread

https://guidebook.com/guide/33541/event/10676372/

flipped:

Essential Technology & Tools for Flipping Your Classroom

https://guidebook.com/guide/33541/event/10676385/

Improving Delivery of Technical Course Content through Incremental Use of Classroom “Flipping”

https://guidebook.com/guide/33541/event/10676376/

Flipping our classrooms: Faculty from UMD’s Flipped Classroom Community of Practice sharing their experiences.

https://guidebook.com/guide/33541/event/10594850/

The Pros and Cons of Flipping the Classroom

https://guidebook.com/guide/33541/event/10676323/


Using Google Forms for Student Group Evaluations

https://guidebook.com/guide/33541/event/10734863/


Library:

The University Libraries Partnership for Affordable Content – Enhance Student Learning and Save Them Money!

https://guidebook.com/guide/33541/event/10676358/


CRS Tophat:

Using Classroom Debates as an Interactive Learning Tool in a Course on Companion Animal Ethical Issues

https://guidebook.com/guide/33541/event/10676369/


 

online:

Adapting the Harvard Case Method for Online Courses

https://guidebook.com/guide/33541/event/10595018/

Readiness Assessment for Online Courses

https://guidebook.com/guide/33541/event/10595040/

 

technology showcase

technology showcase general view

5 4 3 2 1

CRS (clickers) presentation

Today,

  • iClickers
    Foster, Steve <Steve.Foster.contractor@macmillan.com> 
  • Top Hat Monocle
    Steve Popovich <steve@tophatmonocle.com>
    and
  • Turning Technologies
    Jordan Ferns <jferns@turningtechnologies.com>

presented their products

Presentation is available online http://media4.stcloudstate.edu/p26841238/

clickers

clickers documentation

Thursday, April 11, 11AM-1PM, Miller Center B-37
and/or
http://media4.stcloudstate.edu/scsu

We invite the campus community to a presentation by three vendors of Classroom Response System (CRS), AKA “clickers”:

11:00-11:30AM          Poll Everywhere,              Mr. Alec Nuñez

11:30-12:00PM          iClikers,                                Mr. Jeff Howard
12:00-12:30PM          Top Hat Monocle             Mr. Steve Popovich

12:30-1PM                  Turning Technologies     Mr. Jordan Ferns

links to documentation from the vendors:

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/informedia/crs/ClickerSummaryReport_NDSU.docx 

 http://web.stcloudstate.edu/informedia/crs/Poll%20Everywhere.docx

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/informedia/crs/tophat1.pdf

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/informedia/crs/tophat2.pdf

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/informedia/crs/turning.pdf

Top Hat Monocle docs:

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/informedia/crs/thm/FERPA.pdf

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/informedia/crs/thm/proposal.pdf

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/informedia/crs/thm/THM_CaseStudy_Eng.pdf

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/informedia/crs/thm/thm_vsCRS.pdf

iCLicker docs:
http://web.stcloudstate.edu/informedia/crs/iclicker/iclicker.pdf

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/informedia/crs/iclicker/iclicker2VPAT.pdf

http://web.stcloudstate.edu/informedia/crs/iclicker/responses.doc

 

Questions to vendor: alec@polleverywhere.com 
  1. 1.     Is your system proprietary as far as the handheld device and the operating system software?

The site and the service are the property of Poll Everywhere. We do not provide handheld devices. Participants use their own device be it a smart phone, cell phone, laptop, tablet, etc.

  1. 2.     Describe the scalability of your system, from small classes (20-30) to large auditorium classes. (500+).

Poll Everywhere is used daily by thousands of users. Audience sizes upwards of 500+ are not uncommon. We’ve been used for events with 30,000 simultaneous participants in the past.

  1. 3.     Is your system receiver/transmitter based, wi-fi based, or other?

N/A

  1. 4.     What is the usual process for students to register a “CRS”(or other device) for a course? List all of the possible ways a student could register their device. Could a campus offer this service rather than through your system? If so, how?

Student participants may register by filling out a form. Or, student information can be uploaded via a CSV.

  1. 5.     Once a “CRS” is purchased  can it be used for as long as the student is enrolled in classes? Could “CRS” purchases be made available through the campus bookstore? Once a student purchases a “clicker” are they able to transfer ownership when finished with it?

N/A. Poll Everywhere sells service licenses the length and number of students supported would be outlined in a services agreement.

  1. 6.     Will your operating software integrate with other standard database formats? If so, list which ones.

Need more information to answer.

  1. 7.     Describe the support levels you provide. If you offer maintenance agreements, describe what is covered.

8am to 8pm EST native English speaking phone support and email support.

  1. 8.     What is your company’s history in providing this type of technology? Provide a list of higher education clients.

Company pioneered and invented the use of this technology for audience and classroom response. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_Everywhere. University of Notre Dame
South Bend, Indiana

University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
Raleigh, North Carolina

University of Southern California
Los Angeles, California

San Diego State University
San Diego, California

Auburn University
Auburn, Alabama

King’s College London
London, United Kingdom

Raffles Institution
Singapore

Fayetteville State University
Fayetteville, North Carolina

Rutgers University
New Brunswick, New Jersey

Pepperdine University
Malibu, California

Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas

University of Illinois
Champaign, Illinois

  1. 9.     What measures does your company take to insure student data privacy? Is your system in compliance with FERPA and the Minnesota Data Practices Act? (https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=13&view=chapter)

Our Privacy Policy can be found here: http://www.polleverywhere.com/privacy-policy. We take privacy very seriously.

  1. 10.  What personal data does your company collect on students and for what purpose? Is it shared or sold to others? How is it protected?

Name. Phone Number. Email. For the purposes of voting and identification (Graded quizzes, attendance, polls, etc.). It is never shared or sold to others.

  1. 11.  Do any of your business partners collect personal information about students that use your technology?

No.

  1. 12.  With what formats can test/quiz questions be imported/exported?

Import via text. Export via CSV.

  1. 13.  List compatible operating systems (e.g., Windows, Macintosh, Palm, Android)?

Works via standard web technology including Safari, Chrome, Firefox, and Internet Explorer. Participant web voting fully supported on Android and IOS devices. Text message participation supported via both shortcode and longcode formats.

  1. 14.  What are the total costs to students including device costs and periodic or one-time operation costs

Depends on negotiated service level agreement. We offer a student pays model at $14 per year or Institutional Licensing.

  1. 15.  Describe your costs to the institution.

Depends on negotiated service level agreement. We offer a student pays model at $14 per year or Institutional Licensing.

  1. 16.  Describe how your software integrates with PowerPoint or other presentation systems.

Downloadable slides from the website for Windows PowerPoint and downloadable app for PowerPoint and Keynote integration on a Mac.

17. State your level of integration with Desire2Learn (D2L)?Does the integration require a server or other additional equipment the campus must purchase?Export results from site via CSV for import into D2L.
  1. 17.  How does your company address disability accommodation for your product?

We follow the latest web standards best practices to make our website widely accessible by all. To make sure we live up to this, we test our website in a text-based browser called Lynx that makes sure we’re structuring our content correctly for screen readers and other assisted technologies.

  1. 18.  Does your software limit the number of answers per question in tests or quizzes? If so, what is the max question limit?

No.

  1. 19.  Does your software provide for integrating multimedia files? If so, list the file format types supported.

Supports image formats (.PNG, .GIF, .JPG).

  1. 20.  What has been your historic schedule for software releases and what pricing mechanism do you make available to your clients for upgrading?

We ship new code daily. New features are released several times a year depending on when we finish them. New features are released to the website for use by all subscribers.

  1. 21.  Describe your “CRS”(s).

Poll Everywhere is a web based classroom response system that allows students to participate from their existing devices. No expensive hardware “clickers” are required. More information can be found at  http://www.polleverywhere.com/classroom-response-system.

  1. 22.  If applicable, what is the average life span of a battery in your device and what battery type does it take?

N/A. Battery manufacturers hate us. Thirty percent of their annual profits can be contributed to their use in clickers (we made that up).

  1. 23.  Does your system automatically save upon shutdown?

Our is a “cloud based” system. User data is stored there even when your computer is not on.

  1. 24.  What is your company’s projection/vision for this technology in the near and far term.

We want to take clicker companies out of business. We think it’s ridiculous to charge students and institutions a premium for outdated technology when existing devices and standard web technology can be used instead for less than a tenth of the price.

  1. 25.  Does any of your software/apps require administrator permission to install?

No.

  1. 26.  If your system is radio frequency based, what frequency spectrum does it operate in? If the system operate in the 2.4-2.5 ghz. spectrum, have you tested to insure that smart phones, wireless tablet’s and laptops and 2.4 ghz. wireless phones do not affect your system? If so, what are the results of those tests?

No.

  1. 27.  What impact to the wireless network does the solution have?

Depends on a variety of factors. Most university wireless networks are capable of supporting Poll Everywhere. Poll Everywhere can also make use of cell phone carrier infrastructure through SMS and data networks on the students phones.

  1. 28.  Can the audience response system be used spontaneously for polling?

Yes.

  1. 29.  Can quiz questions and response distributions be imported and exported from and to plaintext or a portable format? (motivated by assessment & accreditation requirements).

Yes.

  1. 30.  Is there a requirement that a portion of the course grade be based on the audience response system?

No.

Gloria Sheldon
MSU Moorhead

Fall 2011 Student Response System Pilot

Summary Report

 

NDSU has been standardized on a single student response (i.e., “clicker”) system for over a decade, with the intent to provide a reliable system for students and faculty that can be effectively and efficiently supported by ITS. In April 2011, Instructional Services made the decision to explore other response options and to identify a suitable replacement product for the previously used e-Instruction Personal Response System (PRS). At the time, PRS was laden with technical problems that rendered the system ineffective and unsupportable. That system also had a steep learning curve, was difficult to navigate, and was unnecessarily time-consuming to use. In fact, many universities across the U.S. experienced similar problems with PRS and have since then adopted alternative systems.

A pilot to explore alternative response systems was initiated at NDSU in fall 2011. The pilot was aimed at further investigating two systems—Turning Technologies and iClicker—in realistic classroom environments. As part of this pilot program, each company agreed to supply required hardware and software at no cost to faculty or students. Each vendor also visited campus to demonstrate their product to faculty, students and staff.

An open invitation to participate in the pilot was extended to all NDSU faculty on a first come, first serve basis. Of those who indicated interest, 12 were included as participants in this pilot.

 

Pilot Faculty Participants:

  • Angela Hodgson (Biological Sciences)
  • Ed Deckard (AES Plant Science)
  • Mary Wright (Nursing)
  • Larry Peterson (History, Philosophy & Religious Studies)
  • Ronald Degges (Statistics)
  • Julia Bowsher (Biological Sciences)
  • Sanku Mallik (Pharmaceutical Sciences)
  • Adnan Akyuz (AES School of Natural Resource Sciences)
  • Lonnie Hass (Mathematics)
  • Nancy Lilleberg (ITS/Communications)
  • Lisa Montplaisir (Biological Sciences)
  • Lioudmila Kryjevskaia (Physics)

 

Pilot Overview

The pilot included three components: 1) Vendor demonstrations, 2) in-class testing of the two systems, and 3) side-by-side faculty demonstrations of the two systems.

After exploring several systems, Instructional Services narrowed down to two viable options—Turning Technologies and iClicker. Both of these systems met initial criteria that was assembled based on faculty input and previous usage of the existing response system. These criteria included durability, reliability, ease of use, radio frequency transmission, integration with Blackboard LMS, cross-platform compatibility (Mac, PC), stand-alone software (i.e., no longer tied to PowerPoint or other programs), multiple answer formats (including multiple choice, true/false, numeric), potential to migrate to mobile/Web solutions at some point in the future, and cost to students and the university.

In the first stage of the pilot, both vendors were invited to campus to demonstrate their respective technologies. These presentations took place during spring semester 2011 and were attended by faculty, staff and students. The purpose of these presentations was to introduce both systems and provide faculty, staff, and students with an opportunity to take a more hands-on look at the systems and provide their initial feedback.

In the second stage of the pilot, faculty were invited to test the technologies in their classes during fall semester 2011. Both vendors supplied required hardware and software at no cost to faculty and students, and both provided online training to orient faculty to their respective system. Additionally, Instructional Services staff provided follow-up support and training throughout the pilot program. Both vendors were requested to ensure system integration with Blackboard. Both vendors indicated that they would provide the number of clickers necessary to test the systems equally across campus. Both clickers were allocated to courses of varying sizes, ranging from 9 to 400+ students, to test viability in various facilities with differing numbers of users. Participating faculty agreed to offer personal feedback and collect feedback from students regarding experiences with the systems at the end of the pilot.

In the final stage of the pilot, Instructional Services facilitated a side-by-side demonstration led by two faculty members. Each faculty member showcased each product on a function-by-function basis so that attendees were able to easily compare and contrast the two systems. Feedback was collected from attendees.

 

Results of Pilot

In stage one, we established that both systems were viable and appeared to offer similar features, functions, and were compatible with existing IT systems at NDSU. The determination was made to include both products in a larger classroom trial.

In stage two, we discovered that both systems largely functioned as intended; however, several differences between the technologies in terms of advantages and disadvantages were discovered that influenced our final recommendation. (See Appendix A for a list of these advantages, disadvantages, and potential workarounds.) We also encountered two significant issues that altered the course of the pilot. Initially, it was intended that both systems would be tested in equal number in terms of courses and students. Unfortunately, at the time of the pilot, iClicker was not able to provide more than 675 clickers, which was far fewer than anticipated. Turning Technologies was able to provide 1,395 clickers. As a result, Turning Technologies was used by a larger number of faculty and students across campus.

At the beginning of the pilot, Blackboard integration with iClicker at NDSU was not functional. The iClicker vendor provided troubleshooting assistance immediately, but the problem was not resolved until mid-November. As a result, iClicker users had to use alternative solutions for registering clickers and uploading points to Blackboard for student viewing. Turning Technologies was functional and fully integrated with Blackboard throughout the pilot.

During the span of the pilot additional minor issues were discovered with both systems. A faulty iClicker receiver slightly delayed the effective start date of clicker use in one course.  The vendor responded by sending a new receiver, however it was an incorrect model. Instructional Services temporarily exchanged receivers with another member of the pilot group until a functional replacement arrived. Similarly, a Turning Technologies receiver was received with outdated firmware. Turning Technologies support staff identified the problem and assisted in updating the firmware with an update tool located on their website. A faculty participant discovered a software flaw in the iClicker software that hides the software toolbar when disconnecting a laptop from a second monitor. iClicker technical support assisted in identifying the problem and stated the problem would be addressed in a future software update. A workaround was identified that mitigated this problem for the remainder of the pilot. It is important to note that these issues were not widespread and did not widely affect all pilot users, however these issues attest to the need for timely, reliable, and effective vendor support.

Students and faculty reported positive experiences with both technologies throughout the semester. Based on feedback, users of both systems found the new technologies to be much improved over the previous PRS system, indicating that adopting either technology would be perceived as an upgrade among students and faculty. Faculty pilot testers met several times during the semester to discuss their experiences with each system; feedback was sent to each vendor for their comments, suggestions, and solutions.

During the stage three demonstrations, feedback from attendees focused on the inability for iClicker to integrate with Blackboard at that time and the substantial differences between the two systems in terms of entering numeric values (i.e., Turning Technologies has numeric buttons, while iClicker requires the use of a directional key pad to scroll through numeric characters). Feedback indicated that attendees perceived Turning Technologies’ clickers to be much more efficient for submitting numeric responses. Feedback regarding other functionalities indicated relative equality between both systems.

Recommendation

Based on the findings of this pilot, Instructional Services recommends that NDSU IT adopt Turning Technologies as the replacement for the existing PRS system. While both pilot-tested systems are viable solutions, Turning Technologies appears to meet the needs of a larger user base. Additionally, the support offered by Turning Technologies was more timely and effective throughout the pilot. With the limited resources of IT, vendor support is critical and was a major reason for exploring alternative student response technologies.

From Instructional Services’ standpoint, standardizing to one solution is imperative for two major reasons: cost efficiency for students (i.e., preventing students from having to purchase duplicate technologies) and efficient utilization of IT resources (i.e., support and training). It is important to note that this recommendation is based on the opinion of the Instructional Services staff and the majority of pilot testers, but is not based on consensus among all participating faculty and staff. It is possible that individual faculty members may elect to use other options that best meet their individual teaching needs, including (but not limited to) iClicker. As an IT organization, we continue to support technology that serves faculty, student and staff needs across various colleges, disciplines, and courses. We feel that this pilot was effective in determining the student response technology—Turning Technologies—that will best serve NDSU faculty, students and staff for the foreseeable future.

Once a final decision concerning standardization is made, contract negotiations should begin in earnest with the goal of completion by January 1, 2012, in order to accommodate those wishing to use clickers during the spring session.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Appendix A: Clicker Comparisons
Turning Technologies and iClicker

 

Areas where both products have comparable functionality:

  • Setting up the receiver and software
  • Student registration of clickers
  • Software interface floats above other software
    • Can use with anything – PowerPoint, Websites, Word, etc.
    • Asking questions on the fly
    • Can create questions / answers files
    • Managing scores and data
      • Allow participation points, points for correct answer, change correct answer
      • Reporting – Summary and Detailed
      • Uploading scores and data to Blackboard (but there was a big delay with the iClicker product)
      • Durability of the receivers and clickers
      • Free software
      • Offer mobile web device product to go “clickerless”

Areas where the products differ:

Main Shortcomings of Turning Technology Product:

  • Costs $5 more – no workaround
  • Doesn’t have instructor readout window on receiver base –
    • This is a handy function in iClicker that lets the instructor see the %’s of votes as they come in, allowing the instructor to plan how he/she will proceed.
    • Workaround: As the time winds down to answer the question, the question and answers are displayed on the screen. Intermittently, the instructor would push a button to mute the projector, push a button to view graph results quickly, then push a button to hide graph and push a button to unmute the projector. In summary, push four buttons quickly each time you want to see the feedback, and the students will see a black screen momentarily.
    • Processing multiple sessions when uploading grading –
      • Turning Technologies uses their own file structure types, but iClicker uses comma-separated-value text files which work easily with Excel
      • Workaround: When uploading grades into Blackboard, upload them one session at a time, and use a calculated total column in Bb to combine them. Ideally, instructors would upload the grades daily or weekly to avoid backlog of sessions.

 

Main Shortcomings of iClicker Product:

  • Entering numeric answers –
    • Questions that use numeric answers are widely used in Math and the sciences. Instead of choosing a multiple-choice answer, students solve the problem and enter the actual numeric answer, which can include numbers and symbols.
    • Workaround: Students push mode button and use directional pad to scroll up and down through a list of numbers, letters and symbols to choose each character individually from left to right. Then they must submit the answer.
    • Number of multiple choice answers –
      • iClicker has 5 buttons on the transmitter for direct answer choices and Turning Technologies has 10.
      • Workaround: Similar to numeric answer workaround. Once again the simpler transmitter becomes complex for the students.
      • Potential Vendor Support Problems –
        • It took iClicker over 3 months to get their grade upload interface working with NDSU’s Blackboard system. The Turning Technology interface worked right away.  No workaround.

 

 

 

 

Clickers (Classroom Response System)

what kind of clickers are you using?

what kind of clickers are you familiar with?

what qualities in clickers do you find useful, necessary, obligatory for your course[s]?

At the moment SCSU is still considering eInstruction http://www.einstruction.com/ as its default clicker system (clickers sold in the Bookstore)

However, faculty on campus are slowly adopting other systems:

http://iresponseapp.com/features/

http://www.turningtechnologies.com

https://www.tophatmonocle.com/

http://www.polleverywhere.com/

while each of these systems appeal differenetly to different faculty from different disciplines, having a standard, campus-wide clicker system has also strong advantages.