Benefits of Incorporating Audience Response Systems to Improve Student Performance

The majority of the focus on high school accountability models rest solely on the shoulders of the Algebra 1, English 1, and Biology End-of-Test scores.  A school’s overall academic performance is assessed by the government for the proficiency levels of its students in these three classes.

With the passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation in January 2002, testing has become not only more routine, but also increasingly high-stakes and focused more on specific content knowledge.  Test results are regularly used as the measuring stick for student advancement to the next grade and as a gauge for judging the quality of schools and the educators who work in them.  (NCREL, 2005).

When a school is low performing in one or more of these tested areas, it must research and implement strategies in an effort to improve the proficiency levels of its students. 

One of the latest technological advances that have been used as an instructional strategy in the school systems is the Audience Response System (ARS).  The ARS is an electronically handheld device that allows teachers to send questions and receive answers from their students in a matter of seconds.  “The computer instantly tallies and graphically displays student responses on the computer screen” (Stowell and Nelson, 2007, Pg. 253).

            One of the causes of low performance on End-of-Course tests is the teacher’s inability to truly know if a student understands the content of the material on a daily basis.  If there is a gap in time between when an assignment is turned in and when it is graded by the teacher and returned to the student, then the students who did not comprehend the material continue to fall further and further behind.  “The best application of clickers appears to be the immediate feedback assessment provided to the instructor and the students” (Kenwright, 2009, Pg. 74).  The results of this feedback will allow the teacher to see what part of the lecture material continues to be unclear to the students and needs to be allotted more time for review and practice.  The opposite is also true, the feedback may show that all the students in the class have a good understanding of the material thus the teacher is able to save time and move to the next topic.  “Students also know immediately how their level of understanding compares to their classmates” (Kenwright, 2009, Pg. 74).  The instant feedback from the ARS can be used as a motivational tool when a student realizes that he/she in one of the only students that did not understand the material.

            Another possible reason for low performance on End-of-Course tests is the lack of participation of students during class throughout the semester.  Students do not participate in class for a variety of reasons.  Low performing students do not participate for fear of failing in front of their peers.  “Students tend to respond to instructor questions less during lecture by simply raising hands” (Shaffer & Collura, 2009, Pg. 273 as cited in Stowell & Nelson, 2007).  “They often feel anxious about drawing attention, revealing their opinion, or giving the wrong answer,” (Shaffer & Collura, 2009, Pg. 273 as cited in Beatty, 2004; Martyn, 2007).  The anonymity that the Audience Response System provides students is a key factor in its ability to increase student participation.  “For example, students who have tendencies toward introversion might be more willing to participate and might experience less negative emotions (e.g., anxiety, shame) when using an anonymous responding method” (Stowell & Nelson, 2007, Pg. 253). Also, “it gives students courage to express themselves even if they think their opinion differs from the lecturer” (Kenwright, 2009, Pg. 75 as cited in Uhari, Renko, & Soini, 2003).  Another way that the response systems increase the level of participation in the classroom is by giving everyone the opportunity to answer questions simultaneously.  In a typical classroom, a teacher has to monitor and assess twenty-five or more students at the same time.  Only a few number of students are willing and able to answer questions posed by the teacher.  Without clickers, “the same students often answer the questions week after week, but clickers force every student to answer” (Kenwright, 2009, Pg. 75 as cited in Ribben, 2007).

            A portion of a school’s low performing students comes from the students with learning disabilities population.  Students may be classified as having a learning disability for a variety of reasons.  Some students may have an information processing deficiency in their reading skills or math calculation skills, writing skills, or all three.  A strategy that works well with these types of students is providing frequent opportunities for feedback.  The ARS will allow the teacher the opportunity to create multiple choice assessments that can provide instant feedback for math and reading comprehension assignments.  The student and teacher could then discuss the results of the assessment to get a better understanding of what the student really knows and possible remediation solutions to help the student understand the material better.  Some students may have been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and do not have the ability to focus in class for long periods of time.  Students with ADHD may tend to “drift” mentally during class, especially during long lectures.   “Embracing a dynamic approach to teaching can certainly create more interesting and engaging lectures.  A more interactive approach to education helps create an active learning environment and encourages students to understand and consequently gain more from their lecture experience” (Cranston & Lock, 2010, Pg. 23). The clickers allow the teacher to have this dynamic approach in their lessons.  It is a creative way to collect data that also makes the students play a more interactive role in the lesson.  The clickers can bring enjoyment into the lesson because the handheld devices are a lot like video game devices that are very popular to students of all ages.  A recent study was conducted between two classrooms:  one was a lecture class using clickers; the other was a lecture class without using the clickers.  When surveyed, “students thought that using the clickers produced more interaction, made the lecture more interesting and entertaining, enhanced the clarity of the examples, and provided a smoother transition to the results” (Shaffer & Collura, 2009, pg. 276).  Other students may have a physical or speech impairment that affects their ability to participate in class.  The clickers are an easy way for physically impaired students to participate in class and turn in assignments from their seat without their impairment being an issue.  Also, a teacher can assess the knowledge of a student with a speech impairment without having to ask the student respond orally to a question.  This will help to alleviate the student’s fear of embarrassment by not drawing attention to his disability.  “Presenting information in several ways prevents boredom, gives students confidence and success, and strengthens individual areas of weakness for students with and without disabilities” (Lamb, Hodges, Brown, & Foy, 2004, Pg. 1).  For whatever the reason a student may be classified as learning disabled, the Audience Response System can help these students participate and perform classroom activities along with the rest of their peers. 

References

Cranston, G., & Lock, G. (2010). Who wants to be an aerospace engineer?  Use of audience response system to stimulate student learning in engineering lectures. Engineering Education Postman, N., & Powers, S. (2008). How to watch TV news (Rev. ed.). New York: Penguin. (Example)

Kenwright, K. (2009) Clickers in the Classroom.  TechTrends

Lamb, P. Hodges, B., Brown,  M. and Foy, D. (2004). Motivating Youth with Disabilities to Learn in the Science Classroom:  A Guide to Educators.  Information Brief: Addressing Trends and Developments in Secondary Education and Transition

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (2005).   Critical Issue:  Using Technology to Improve Student Achievement, Retrieved from www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te800.htm.

Shaffer, D. and Collura, M. (2009) Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Personal Response System in the Classroom.  Technology and Teaching.

Stowell, J. and Nelson, J. (2007) Benefits of Electronic Audience Response Systems on Student Participation, Learning, and Emotion. Teaching of Psychology.

University of California Berkeley Disabled Students Program. (1999). Teaching Students With Disabilities.   Retrieved from www.dsp.berkeley.edu/TeachStudentsWithDisab.html.

Performance Based Teacher Pay

Performance Based Teacher Pay

  Performance-based pay plans for teachers is defined as extra financial pay that is awarded to teachers based on their performance inside and outside of the classroom.  This pay can be awarded based on several different factors, but for teachers it is awarded based on their impact on test scores and student achievement levels.  There has been a long line of examples of performance-based pay throughout history dating back as early as 1710.  During this time, England based its teacher salaries on test scores in the three main areas of reading, writing, and arithmetic.  In 1862, England incorporated this type of pay plan in its Revised Education Code and it remained a part of its education code for more than thirty years.  Performance-based pay disappeared because of its negative effects on education in the 1890s.  Canada implemented a similar performance-based pay in its education system in 1876, but it also encountered the same negative effects and it dropped the reward system in 1883.  Performance-based pay movement did not make it to the United States until 1969.  The federal government adopted this program to help close the achievement gaps between black and white students.  Different states tried to implement paying teacher bonuses based on state standardized test scores over the past several decades, but some states have retired the idea because the effects on student achievement and teacher bonuses were said to be inconclusive.

           

 The idea of performance-based pay has re-emerged with President Obama’s administration.  “The Obama administration has offered states billions of federal stimulus dollars if they agree to change the way teachers are paid, evaluated, and trained.  Performance pay is a big part of that push, and states including Colorado, Louisiana, and New York have responded by passing laws promising to tie teacher evaluation and pay to how well students perform academically.”(Goldstein, 2010)

        

The impact Performance-based Pay, or Merit Pay, can have on our schools can be as different as the students that teachers teach in their classrooms every day.  The original idea of this incentive program was to encourage teachers to go above and beyond the normal daily duties to make sure that each student grows and achieves academic success.  Teachers that exhibit these good qualities and produce good results receive extra pay for their work.  Education reformers argue that merit pay will give encouragement to good teachers and drive away bad ones, and thus improve under-performing public schools.(Malanga, 2001)  Many government officials and scholars believe that merit pay can have a positive impact on the school system.  They believe that by offering extra pay, schools will be able to fill hard to staff positions at at-risk schools, schools will be able to fill hard to staff subject areas like math and science, and special needs, will allow schools to offer compensation for teachers taking on leadership roles as mentors for other teachers, will encourage teachers to stay in the classroom, and finally this money would be given to teachers who complete professional development programs, attain a degree, or seek additional certification.

              Other educational platforms argue that teacher pay for performance does not work and does more harm to the teaching profession and student learning than good.  Dianne Ravitch, who is an esteemed educator, author, and historian of education said that she believes merit pay bonuses will “have been obtained by paying scant attention to history, geography, civics, the arts, science, literature, foreign languages, and all the other subjects needed to develop smarter individuals, better citizens, and people who are prepared for the knowledge-based economy of the twenty-first century (Ravitch, 2009).     She also believes that merit pay does not take all factors that affect a student’s test score into accountability.  Students do spend a majority of their day inside the walls of the school building; however, students are also affected by their ability and motivation level, their home situations, the way their day began that day, etc.  Merit Pay is based solely on the teacher’s effectiveness in the classroom based on one test given at the end of the course.  There are numerous other ways to assess a teacher’s effectiveness with a student and Merit Pay does not take any of these into consideration but in the meantime, these bonuses are costing taxpayers millions of dollars and there has been no proof of their validity.

            Throughout the many trial runs of performance-based pay, researchers have found both pros and cons for the incentive program.  Beth Lewis from About.com published the following list of pros and cons of merit pay for teachers:

PROS:

·         Americans value hard work and results, and our capitalist system hinges upon rewarding such results.  Most professions offer bonuses and salary increases to exemplary employees, why should teaching be any different?

·         Incentivized teachers will work harder and produce better results.  What motivation do teachers currently have to go above and beyond the job’s basic requirements?

·         Merit Pay programs will help recruit and retain the nation’s brightest minds.  Particularly intelligent and effective teachers might consider leaving the profession if they felt that their extraordinary efforts were being recognized in their paychecks.

·         Teachers are already underpaid.  Merit Pay would help address this injustice.  How better to reflect the esteemed way we feel about educators than through paying them more?

·         We are in the middle of a teaching shortage.  Merit pay would inspire potential teachers to give the profession more consideration as a viable career choice, rather than a personal sacrifice for the higher good.

·         With American schools in crisis, shouldn’t we be open to trying almost anything new in the hopes of making a change?

CONS:

·         Virtually everyone agrees that designing and monitoring a Merit Pay program would be a bureaucratic nightmare of almost epic proportions.

·          Good will and cooperation between teachers will be compromised.  Teachers once worked as a team and shared solutions, Merit Pay can make teachers adopt a more “I’m out for myself only” attitude.

·         Success is difficult, if not impossible, to define and measure.  The various unleveled playing fields in the American education system inherently set up a wide variety of standards and expectations.

·         Opponents to Merit Pay argue that a better solution to the current education crisis is to pay all teachers more.  Why not pay teachers what they are already worth?

·         High-stakes Merit Pay systems would inevitably encourage dishonesty and corruption.  Messy morality issues serve only to distract from the needs of our students who simply need our energies and attentions (Lewis).

The future implications Merit Pay can best be described in another quote from Diane Ravitch, “It is possible to have an educational system that miseducates students while raising their test scores” (2009).  I believe Merit Pay will destroy the gains we have made in education with PLCs because teachers will not want to collaborate with one another because it may interfere with their bonuses.  I believe Merit Pay will re-direct the main focus of education to only tested areas.  It may encourage teachers to eliminate course offerings that do not meet the requirements for the bonus pay.  Teachers may also not put forth the amount of effort in planning and teaching in the courses that are not tested and will not bring them any extra money.  Our students are able to graduate from high school as a fairly well-rounded individual because of all the elective courses we offer.  Many of these electives do not have any state standardized test in their curriculum.  I believe Merit Pay would deem these courses insignificant and ruin our students’ opportunities to learn about all aspects of the world.  As a teacher in a tested area, I would thoroughly enjoy getting a bonus when my Algebra 1 test scores are received; however, I would not want to add another pound of pressure to myself or my students in order to receive that money.  I already feel like I push and shove the Algebra 1 test requirements and consequences to the point that I scare my students more than motivate them and I believe Merit Pay will only make this pressure multiply. 

References



Goldstein, D. (2010). What you need to know about merit pay for teachers (and why). The Washington Post, Retrieved from http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/11/what_you_need_to_know_about_me.html

Lewis, B. (n.d.). Pros and cons of merit pay for teachers. About.com. Retrieved from http://k6educators.about.com/od/assessmentandtesting/a/meritypay.htm

Malanga, S. (2001). Why merit pay will improve teaching. City Journal, Retrieved from http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_3_why_merit_pay.html

Ravitch, D. (2009). What's wrong with merit pay?. Hoover Digest, Retrieved from www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/5459

Sorrentino, J. (n.d.). What's the future of merit pay for teachers?. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/magazine/article/Whats_the_Future_Merit_Pay/

Smartphones and I-Pads

The two devices that I believe have made the most improvements to education on all levels are the SmartPhone and I-Pad. The future is wireless. Students and teachers are able to have an infinite amount of information in the palm of their hands with the use of these two devices. The most popular of these two pieces of technology is the SmartPhone. It is a combination of a phone and a computer. A student can use either capability to communicate with his/her teacher at any time and any location. In the past, students were only able to ask questions and communicate with the their teacher when they met face to face in the classroom. The incorporation of the SmartPhone has helped to tear down the barrier of classroom walls and make learning and communicating available at all times. Teachers are able to post videos, blogs, assignments, and answer questions through the Internet and students are able to access this information with ease because of the SmartPhone. Better communication opportunities leads to improvements in teaching and learning.

The invention of the SmartPhone and I-Pad has also made it possible for more people to continue their education and remain lifelong learners through distance education opportunities. When distance education was created, students were tied to a computer at a desk at a certain time of day. This limited their freedom and flexibility of their daily routines. Time has always been a major factor in an adult's ability to continue his/her education. In today's failing economy, an adult cannot afford to quit work to go back to school to further his/her education. This freedom has allowed more people to continue their education. SmartPhones and I-Pads make it possible for adults to continue their busy and hectic lives while continuing to learn new skills and occupations. Distance learning is cheaper than face to face learning and thus opens the doors to people of all socioeconomic status.

Lastly, SmartPhones and I-Pads open the doors to more educational resources through the ability to download apps that can enhance the lessons that students receive in the classroom. These apps are a great hands-on tool that make learning more enjoyment. Again, the capabilities that the SmartPhone and I-Pad possess make learning possible anywhere and anytime. Students do not have to be sitting in front of a computer to practice their multiplication skills....they can be riding in their car or sitting at a restaurant waiting for their food. Also, students spend more time practicing these skills because the apps are more engaging than a textbook or worksheet. The graphics that the apps have make these learning tools seem more like video games and students are more interested in playing games than practicing math.