Engagement using polling, or audience response systems
The Library lecture or training session is usually an hour long, one-shot session in which the Librarian is the centre of the session, and does most of the speaking. Students do not always know what the aims of the session are, believing that they are capable of finding information, or feeling that the Library is a scary or uninteresting place - and so engagement is low. Add to that the issue that attention spans in lectures are often very short (Glassman 2015) and lots of librarians are keen to improve teaching in an environment where “all too often the task seems like a charade where the skilled teach the reluctant” (Badke 2009 p.47) - or at least, where there is improvement to be made in terms of engagement and learning.
After attending a conference this year with a short presentation on using online polling software to promote engagement (Burke et al 2015), and on speaking to colleagues in other institutions, it seems that this is a technique which is gaining popularity.
Audience response systems (Glassman 2015) can be used in small or large groups to increase interaction, involvement and engagement. Students who are quizzed/polled anonymously are less likely to adapt their answers to fit in with their peers (Hoppenfeld 2012 p.6) and the teacher is able to control the session by including regular breaks for quizzes. This switches their role from passive to active, and alleviates boredom (Hoppenfeld 2012). Results are displayed in real time, so students are actively contributing to the class, and are able to easily see responses - in most cases the teacher is also able to save a record of these results for later comparisons (Glassman 2015). Anecdotally and within the literature, feedback is positive: “students are noticeably more attentive during library sessions, and their interest seems to rise during the polling questions” (Hoppenfeld 2012 p.18).
Nancy Glassman’s 2015 article “Texting During Class: Audience Response Systems” outlines a number of different audience response methods including clickers, apps, websites, texts, twitter and the pros and cons of each. All of the methods listed in Glassman’s article are free (with the exception of the purchase of clickers, internet access, and any upgrades available to free apps/website accounts) - although reliance on the technology working and students bringing and using devices as intended are challenges to be considered (Glassman 2015, Hoppenfeld 2012).
This academic year Royal Holloway Library started using the online polling software Socrative to increase engagement in Library teaching. In PC-lab sessions with international students and introductory lectures with English students a referencing quiz was set up and used to assess students awareness of referencing and understanding the different types of information they may encounter on their reading lists e.g. books, journal articles, book chapters. In previous years these sessions have been very teacher-led, with the Librarian at the front of the class doing all of the talking and students playing a passive role. By using Socrative to quiz the students, the students play a more active role, their knowledge is challenged (or confirmed) and the teacher is able to adapt the lesson according to need. For example, in one class students may all be familiar with referencing, and score very highly on the quiz. In others, students may be very unfamiliar with all or some of the references and scores will be low.
In previous years the Librarian would have explained each reference in detail - but with the use of Socrative not only were the students more involved and engaged in finding out whether their answers were correct; but the teacher was also able to adapt the lesson according to students’ previous knowledge. It was noticed that in certain groups explanation of references was found to be beneficial, but in others it was seen to be confusing to students who were unfamiliar, or not stimulating for those already familiar with referencing and reading list conventions (referencing and reading list conventions vary greatly from country to country, so a one size fits all approach for all international students wasn’t successful). If explanation was required, it was given, and if not the class could move on to another topic - thereby stretching students as well as engagement in the class. However, even in cases where all students answer correctly, it can help to reinforce the point with a short explanation or clarification, in order to embed the answer in context (Bruff 2009 p.49)
References
Badke, W. 2009, "Ramping Up the One-Shot", Online, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 47-49.
Bruff, D. 2009, Teaching with classroom response systems : creating active learning environments, 1st ed. edn, San Francisco, Calif. : Jossey-Bass ; Chichester : John Wiley distributor, San Francisco, Calif. : Chichester.
Burke, Russell, Coles, Kim, Downes, Sian, Woods, Emma. 2015. Teachmeet handout: Using Socrative polls in IL teaching. Presented at Librarians' Information Literacy Conference 2015, 8-10 April, University of Newcastle.
Glassman, N.R. 2015, "Texting During Class: Audience Response Systems", Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 59-71.
Hoppenfeld, J. 2012, "Keeping students engaged with web-based polling in the library instruction session", Library Hi Tech; Libr.Hi Tech, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 235-252.
Engaging large groups in introductory lectures using the “Cephalonian Method.” In previous years I have delivered tours of the library to new undergraduates from the departments I support, with the aim of teaching them about, and helping them understand, how to use our services & collections and engaging them in understanding the library’s relevance to their studies from the outset. Due to the increasing numbers of students each year, and the logistical problems of moving large groups around two buildings it became obvious that I, and other colleagues in the Library Liaison Team, needed to consider more effective approaches to teaching students about Library Services. We knew that, as there is so much going on in Welcome Week, we needed to take an approach that was highly interactive and memorable. I (and my other colleagues in the Liaison Team) carried out research into different methods that could be used in large group ‘induction sessions’. We chose to adopt the Cephalonian Method (Morgan & Davies, 2004) developed by the University of Cardiff and I have now replaced all my tours with this method. The Method is designed to engage large or small groups of people who do not know each other and who are likely to be nervous or less confident when participating in sessions (Morgan & Davies, 2008). As well as creating engagement from the very start of the session, the Method also works well as an ice-breaker. It is based on the potential involvement of the whole group, with individuals selected randomly to ask questions. The questions are created by the teacher, printed out with an eye-catching design / image, numbered and handed out at random or pre-placed throughout the lecture theatre before the students arrive. The questions relate to various essential elements of the library services. Each question has a corresponding Powerpoint slide, which is followed up with another slide providing the answer. The student holding Question 1 reads it out; the lecturer then shows the question slide (and repeats it, in case the student is a little quiet); the lecturer then shows the answer slide (expanding upon it, showing the relevant websites and demonstrating the relevant resources). Each slide is designed to be visually engaging and sometimes humorous (this is the students’ first week after all!). After a student has asked their question they then select a different number (it is a good idea to write the question numbers on a white/black board and mark them off when answered, to help minimise confusion). Interactive elements in lectures tend to be viewed favourably by students and these engagements can enable students to recall more of the information that is covered (Huxham, 2005). Whilst this approach has allowed me to provide more information to larger groups of students than was possible in a tour, I am not attempting to squeeze in as much as possible. The pace is measured and the constant level of interaction means that we have to choose material that is meaningful and gives purpose to the session. Sharing materials across the team also guarantees a more consistent message for students from all Departments. Delivering the session in a lecture theatre also ensures that students with disabilities are not disadvantaged, providing a more equitable approach for all new undergraduates. Anecdotal feedback from my sessions in Autumn 2014 was good, and this coming year my colleagues and I will be requesting more structured feedback so that we can further develop the sessions.
References:
Huxham, M. 2005. Do ‘interactive windows’ help? Active Learning in Higher Education, 6 (1), pp. 17 – 31.
Morgan, N. and Davies, L. 2004. Innovative induction: introducing the Cephalonian Method. SCONUL Focus 32, pp. 4-8.
Morgan, N. and Davies, L. 2008. How Cephalonia can conquer the world (or at the very least your students!). In: Cook, D. and Sittler, R. eds. Practical pedagogy for library instructors. Chicago: ACRL, pp. 20-29.
The Library lecture or training session is usually an hour long, one-shot session in which the Librarian is the centre of the session, and does most of the speaking. Students do not always know what the aims of the session are, believing that they are capable of finding information, or feeling that the Library is a scary or uninteresting place - and so engagement is low. Add to that the issue that attention spans in lectures are often very short (Glassman 2015) and lots of librarians are keen to improve teaching in an environment where “all too often the task seems like a charade where the skilled teach the reluctant” (Badke 2009 p.47) - or at least, where there is improvement to be made in terms of engagement and learning.
After attending a conference this year with a short presentation on using online polling software to promote engagement (Burke et al 2015), and on speaking to colleagues in other institutions, it seems that this is a technique which is gaining popularity.
Audience response systems (Glassman 2015) can be used in small or large groups to increase interaction, involvement and engagement. Students who are quizzed/polled anonymously are less likely to adapt their answers to fit in with their peers (Hoppenfeld 2012 p.6) and the teacher is able to control the session by including regular breaks for quizzes. This switches their role from passive to active, and alleviates boredom (Hoppenfeld 2012). Results are displayed in real time, so students are actively contributing to the class, and are able to easily see responses - in most cases the teacher is also able to save a record of these results for later comparisons (Glassman 2015). Anecdotally and within the literature, feedback is positive: “students are noticeably more attentive during library sessions, and their interest seems to rise during the polling questions” (Hoppenfeld 2012 p.18).
Nancy Glassman’s 2015 article “Texting During Class: Audience Response Systems” outlines a number of different audience response methods including clickers, apps, websites, texts, twitter and the pros and cons of each. All of the methods listed in Glassman’s article are free (with the exception of the purchase of clickers, internet access, and any upgrades available to free apps/website accounts) - although reliance on the technology working and students bringing and using devices as intended are challenges to be considered (Glassman 2015, Hoppenfeld 2012).
This academic year Royal Holloway Library started using the online polling software Socrative to increase engagement in Library teaching. In PC-lab sessions with international students and introductory lectures with English students a referencing quiz was set up and used to assess students awareness of referencing and understanding the different types of information they may encounter on their reading lists e.g. books, journal articles, book chapters. In previous years these sessions have been very teacher-led, with the Librarian at the front of the class doing all of the talking and students playing a passive role. By using Socrative to quiz the students, the students play a more active role, their knowledge is challenged (or confirmed) and the teacher is able to adapt the lesson according to need. For example, in one class students may all be familiar with referencing, and score very highly on the quiz. In others, students may be very unfamiliar with all or some of the references and scores will be low.
In previous years the Librarian would have explained each reference in detail - but with the use of Socrative not only were the students more involved and engaged in finding out whether their answers were correct; but the teacher was also able to adapt the lesson according to students’ previous knowledge. It was noticed that in certain groups explanation of references was found to be beneficial, but in others it was seen to be confusing to students who were unfamiliar, or not stimulating for those already familiar with referencing and reading list conventions (referencing and reading list conventions vary greatly from country to country, so a one size fits all approach for all international students wasn’t successful). If explanation was required, it was given, and if not the class could move on to another topic - thereby stretching students as well as engagement in the class. However, even in cases where all students answer correctly, it can help to reinforce the point with a short explanation or clarification, in order to embed the answer in context (Bruff 2009 p.49)
References
Badke, W. 2009, "Ramping Up the One-Shot", Online, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 47-49.
Bruff, D. 2009, Teaching with classroom response systems : creating active learning environments, 1st ed. edn, San Francisco, Calif. : Jossey-Bass ; Chichester : John Wiley distributor, San Francisco, Calif. : Chichester.
Burke, Russell, Coles, Kim, Downes, Sian, Woods, Emma. 2015. Teachmeet handout: Using Socrative polls in IL teaching. Presented at Librarians' Information Literacy Conference 2015, 8-10 April, University of Newcastle.
Glassman, N.R. 2015, "Texting During Class: Audience Response Systems", Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 59-71.
Hoppenfeld, J. 2012, "Keeping students engaged with web-based polling in the library instruction session", Library Hi Tech; Libr.Hi Tech, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 235-252.
Engaging large groups in introductory lectures using the “Cephalonian Method.”
In previous years I have delivered tours of the library to new undergraduates from the departments I support, with the aim of teaching them about, and helping them understand, how to use our services & collections and engaging them in understanding the library’s relevance to their studies from the outset. Due to the increasing numbers of students each year, and the logistical problems of moving large groups around two buildings it became obvious that I, and other colleagues in the Library Liaison Team, needed to consider more effective approaches to teaching students about Library Services. We knew that, as there is so much going on in Welcome Week, we needed to take an approach that was highly interactive and memorable.
I (and my other colleagues in the Liaison Team) carried out research into different methods that could be used in large group ‘induction sessions’. We chose to adopt the Cephalonian Method (Morgan & Davies, 2004) developed by the University of Cardiff and I have now replaced all my tours with this method. The Method is designed to engage large or small groups of people who do not know each other and who are likely to be nervous or less confident when participating in sessions (Morgan & Davies, 2008). As well as creating engagement from the very start of the session, the Method also works well as an ice-breaker.
It is based on the potential involvement of the whole group, with individuals selected randomly to ask questions. The questions are created by the teacher, printed out with an eye-catching design / image, numbered and handed out at random or pre-placed throughout the lecture theatre before the students arrive. The questions relate to various essential elements of the library services. Each question has a corresponding Powerpoint slide, which is followed up with another slide providing the answer. The student holding Question 1 reads it out; the lecturer then shows the question slide (and repeats it, in case the student is a little quiet); the lecturer then shows the answer slide (expanding upon it, showing the relevant websites and demonstrating the relevant resources). Each slide is designed to be visually engaging and sometimes humorous (this is the students’ first week after all!). After a student has asked their question they then select a different number (it is a good idea to write the question numbers on a white/black board and mark them off when answered, to help minimise confusion). Interactive elements in lectures tend to be viewed favourably by students and these engagements can enable students to recall more of the information that is covered (Huxham, 2005).
Whilst this approach has allowed me to provide more information to larger groups of students than was possible in a tour, I am not attempting to squeeze in as much as possible. The pace is measured and the constant level of interaction means that we have to choose material that is meaningful and gives purpose to the session. Sharing materials across the team also guarantees a more consistent message for students from all Departments. Delivering the session in a lecture theatre also ensures that students with disabilities are not disadvantaged, providing a more equitable approach for all new undergraduates.
Anecdotal feedback from my sessions in Autumn 2014 was good, and this coming year my colleagues and I will be requesting more structured feedback so that we can further develop the sessions.
References:
Huxham, M. 2005. Do ‘interactive windows’ help? Active Learning in Higher Education, 6 (1), pp. 17 – 31.
Morgan, N. and Davies, L. 2004. Innovative induction: introducing the Cephalonian Method. SCONUL Focus 32, pp. 4-8.
Morgan, N. and Davies, L. 2008. How Cephalonia can conquer the world (or at the very least your students!). In: Cook, D. and Sittler, R. eds. Practical pedagogy for library instructors. Chicago: ACRL, pp. 20-29.