Exploring the Irespond System Implementation at Htms 25

EXPLORING THE IRESPOND SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION AT HTMS 25

Running Head: EXPLORING THE IRESPOND SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION AT HTMS

Exploring the iRespond System Implementation at Hightower Trail Middle School

Prepared by: Carlene Bailey

Prepared for: Laura Montgomery, Assistant Principal HTMS

April 4, 2011

Executive Summary

Background Information

This evaluation explores the implementation and effectiveness of this technology in the middle school classroom, specifically at Hightower Trail Middle School in Cobb County, Georgia. Hightower Trail Middle school is a large suburban middle school in Marietta, Georgia with a strong focus on excellence.

The evaluation client of this process will be Laura Montgomery. Laura is the assistant principal of Hightower Trail Middle School (HTMS). She has served in this role for five years and was an instructor at the same school for many years prior. She is a strong advocate for improving the learning environment through both student and teacher success.

The mission of this evaluation is to explore iRespond as a tool to enhance the learning experience, and hopefully as a result, better understand what it takes to effectively incorporate other exciting new technologies in the classroom.

Purpose

The purpose of this evaluation is to determine the benefits and effectiveness of the iRespond system and its implementation as it is being utilized at HTMS to provide insights and direction for future technology implementations and offer suggestions for teachers and administrators that do not fully understand the possible benefits or drawbacks of this student response technology.

Evaluation Questions

The two primary questions of this evaluation project deal with the perceived effectiveness of the tool, and secondly, if the teacher preparation phase of the roll-out was successful at providing the participants with the necessary understanding and confidence to begin utilizing the tool for instruction.

Evaluation questions:

· How effective was the iRespond system implementation at providing teachers with necessary preparation and instruction for a successful launch?

· In what ways could the implementation been improved?

· Does the iRespond system enhance or distract from student learning?

· What additional uses of the iRespond system have been discovered by the teachers beyond the initial required assessments?

· Are there differences in the perceived effectiveness of the iRespond system based on grade level, years of experience, or subject content?

· Does the iRespond system as implemented provide effective and enhanced instruction for the middle school students at Hightower Trail Middle School?

Methods

The participants are middle school academic instructors. They teach the subject areas of mathematics, language arts, science, and social studies. Their years of experience vary from newly hired to over twenty-one years on the job. All the participants had received instruction on the iRespond system and been required to use it in their classrooms.

The evaluation instrument is a Google Docs survey form and all data is stored in an online spreadsheet. Questions provide for both quantitative and qualitative information establishing the background information about the participant such as grade level taught, years of experience, and subject area. A second focus is on the effectiveness of the iRespond implementation, while a third topic is how effective the tool can be in an educational setting. Finally the fourth topic focuses on attitudes possessed by the participant in regard to technology implementations in general.

Participants were asked by email to participate in this online survey. They had the option of remaining anonymous. Additional requests were submitted to ensure there was an adequate sample.

The data collected was processed by conversion of all the quantitative responses to a ten point sliding scale. Each key evaluation question was already represented in the survey by responses on a scale of one to ten. Additional questions were multiple choice or multiple selection; these questions were weighted and converted based on the negative or positive values to match the ten point format.

Key Findings

1. How effective was the iRespond system implementation at providing teachers with necessary preparation and instruction for a successful launch?

Overall the implementation of the iRespond system was viewed as adequate and effective at providing the instructors with the necessary training and resources to utilize the tool for instructional activities. The anecdotal evidence from the next evaluation question will shed some light on this result.

2. In what ways could the implementation been improved?

Listed below are summaries from anecdotal responses to this question:

· One on one training

· Training that was hands-on.

· Group sessions where we could help each other out.

3. Does the iRespond system enhance or distract from student learning?

The participant reaction to the effectiveness of the iRespond system was overall positive but the data suggests an only slightly positive result. An overall response to the iRespond system was 6.0 out of 10 points (on the positive side) with 5.5 representing a neutral response. Participants either embraced the technology or pushed away from it. Once again the anecdotal evidence provided by the participants can shed some light on this fairly low, yet positive result.

4. What additional uses of the iRespond system have been discovered by the teachers beyond the initial required assessments?

Listed below are summaries of anecdotal responses to this question:

· Review for a test.

· Review games to see what they understand. Used for formative assessment.

· Multiple choice formats would be the most frequent way to use iRespond.

· Other forms of interim assessments, like pencil and paper, or verbal question and answers, are much faster.

· Valuable time spent playing with the remotes

It is clear these responses represent not only ideas for additional uses of the system, but also illuminate the variance in opinions concerning the perceived effectiveness of the tool.

5. Are there differences in the perceived effectiveness of the iRespond system based on grade level, years of experience, or subject content?

Yes, the differences are displayed with graphs and discussed in detail in the following full report.

6. Does the iRespond system as implemented provide effective and enhanced instruction for the middle school students at Hightower Trail Middle School?

The answer to this question is yes, with a clear understanding that the tool can provide teachers with a valuable resource to make their instruction more interactive and engaging for themselves and their students. Those that found success with the system will continue to use the tool and discover more ways to enhance instruction and those that struggled with iRespond will put it aside and opt for more traditional teaching methods.

Conclusions

The recommendation of this report is that continued use of the iRespond system will enhance the learning process of the students at Hightower Trail Middle School. However, additional support needs to be provided in hands-on type practice sessions with small groups of interested instructors from similar subject areas. A method for collecting and sharing of ideas for creative uses (and solving technical challenges) of the iRespond system in the learning environment will provide a way for the school system to begin to see improvements in student learning from this or other technology enhancements.

Evaluation Report

Introduction

Clickers have become a fact of life in Georgia’s Cobb County classrooms. These tools offer students immediate feedback and can reduce the time teachers spend grading papers. In addition to these obvious benefits there are still questions as to whether incorporating this technology provides for enhanced student learning or is just another gadget to complicate an already cluttered learning environment.

The “clicker” currently being utilized is the iRespond-Lite. This system is manufactured by Wireless-eSystems, located in Florida. This tool has the capability of allowing students to respond to the following types of questions: multiple-choice, true/false, multiple-response, yes/no, content item, numeric fill-in-the-blank (by using the numeric keypad), survey, and up to five answer choice capability using multiple choice or multiple select type questions.

The benefits of incorporating this technology that proponents often mention are numerous and promising. After review of the available literature on this topic several conclusions have already been stated. Results in the literature were varied in that some referred to the enjoyment students and teachers get from use of personal response systems. Kenwright (2009) explained that students were more likely to respond and participate with the use of this personal response tool. Others focused on how they impacted attendance by making learning fun and engaging (Kolikant, Drane, & Calkins, 2010). One of the studies was different in that it suggested that uses of the system should not expect instantaneous results and that change only happens over a period of time (Kolikant et al., 2010).

The mission of this evaluation is to initially explore iRespond as a tool to enhance the learning experience, and hopefully as a result, better understand what it takes to effectively incorporate other exciting new technologies in the classroom.

Purpose

The purpose of this evaluation is to determine the benefits and effectiveness of the iRespond system and its implementation as it is being utilized at HTMS. The final conclusions of this evaluation study will provide insight and direction for future technology implementations and offer suggestions for teachers and administrators that do not fully understand the possible benefits or drawbacks of this student response technology.

Does the iRespond tool promise more than it delivers, or is the success of a student response tool, such as this, largely dependent on teacher acceptance and eager utilization? Students are often quoted as enjoying and looking forward to classes when the system is used.

Research is vital to explore the effective use of any technology. This evaluation project will be helpful in guiding and focusing the use of the iRespond tool as we explore the link between teacher training, technology, and ultimately improved student outcomes. As Levin & Hansen (2008) explained, “Some training may be necessary… Instructors should discuss how the course technology is relevant, or useful, to the students. The more likely students view the technology to be useful or relevant, the better the students will perform in the course” (p. 7).

Students and teachers who are thinking about using any personal response system can benefit from the information derived from this evaluation. School systems at large engaged in making decisions about whether or not to purchase systems such as this would also benefit from this information. Technology may seem appealing and effective at first glance, but without careful analysis and evaluation, schools could stand to sacrifice valuable resources on the latest fad.

Evaluation Questions

The two primary questions of this evaluation project deal with the perceived effectiveness of the tool, and secondly, was the teacher preparation phase of the roll-out successful at providing the participants with the necessary understanding and confidence to begin utilizing the tool for instruction. The questions are summarized below. The final question from the following list can be answered simply yes or a no; however, the first five questions are more qualitative in nature and will provide valuable insight necessary to come to a more complete understanding of the iRespond implementation and effectiveness.

· How effective was the iRespond system implementation at providing teachers with necessary preparation and instruction for a successful launch.

· In what ways could the implementation been improved?

· Does the iRespond system enhance or distract from student learning?

· What additional uses of the iRespond system have been discovered by the teachers beyond the initial required assessments?

· Are there differences in the perceived effectiveness of the iRespond system based on grade level, years of experience, or subject content?

· Does the iRespond system as implemented provide effective and enhanced instruction for the middle school students at Hightower Trail Middle School?

Methods

This evaluation study surveyed the academic instructors at HTMS. This year, all academic instructors received a classroom set of iRespond remotes with necessary software and hardware to utilize it in the classroom. Some required assessments were expected of them and all the instructors were instructed in its setup and use. The instructors were sent a letter (Appendix B) and encouraged to complete an online survey (Appendix A) to provide answers to the evaluation questions.

Follow-up involved resending the request letter with a thank you for those that had already participated. At the conclusion of the data collection time frame, over fifty percent of all the instructors had responded with a solid representation of all grade levels and subject areas.

The data was downloaded from the Google Doc website and placed in an Excel spreadsheet for analysis.

Participants

The participants are all middle school academic instructors. They teach the subject areas of mathematics, language arts, science, and social studies. Their years of experience vary from newly hired to over 21 years on the job. All the participants had received instruction on the iRespond system and been required to use it in their classrooms.

Design and Procedures

The survey uses a mixed data collection strategy with both qualitative and quantitative items. The survey questions request both open ended and closed ended responses. Each evaluation study question has more than one survey question available to provide data. Refer to the data collection organization matrix located in Appendix C for an analysis of the survey questions. The procedure of making the survey available online and anonymous (should the participant wish) allowed for more active participation from the teachers. Processing the data was also enhanced and simplified by this survey format.

Validity of the data collected is achieved through the use of a large population based on the fairly limited scope of the project. The sample pool is significant because all the academic instructors at Hightower Trail Middle School have received and have used the iRespond system. The survey data comes from a representative sampling of this group. Additional validity is accomplished through multiple data sources in the same instrument. Key questions are asked in different question formats providing evidence that responses are valid and thoughtful.