Electronic Voting Systems
Electronic Voting Systems (EVS) are a means through which a presenter can conduct an electronic poll or survey, and refer to automatically-generated histograms for an aggregated view of responses. Within Higher Education, Electronic Voting Systems are often utilised to improve or augment in-class engagement.
During a live lecture, it may prove to be challenging to readily ascertain whether students understand a taught concept, or feel confident enough in their ability to apply taught concepts. With one traditional method – conducting a ‘straw poll’, or asking for a ‘show of hands’ – students who do not understand the question may choose to abstain rather than to appear incorrect, or may base their own response on that of the visible majority in the room.
Indeed, Beatty (2004) concludes that:
- Students are often ‘more afraid of being incoherent than incorrect’ when interacting with an instructor in the presence of their peers.
- As such, students ‘may want to know their peers opinions but may feel reluctant to share their own’
- Students are often most hesitant to ask questions in class when they do not understand the material
- Some students prefer classes without ‘traditional participation’
It is in these situations where EVS may be deployed as a means to ‘empower’ rather than ‘enforce’ participation in-class (Graham, C. R. et al. 2007) due to its capacity to facilitate anonymous responses.
Physical Hardware or ‘Bring Your Own Device’
In the past, Electronic Voting Systems solely relied upon the provision of voting hardware being disseminated in order for participants to tender responses (see In-Class Clickers). With the advent of smartphones, tablets and handheld devices, modern electronic voting systems are often software, as opposed to hardware dependent. This means that participants may use their own devices to respond to polls – which may be termed as the ‘Bring Your Own Device’ model of polling.
Using ResponseWare to Engage Large Cohorts
Emma Rand, Biology
View Case Study
Comparison of Three Electronic Voting Systems
TurningPoint ResponseWare (Supported)
|Kahoot (Third Party)||Mentimeter (Third Party)|
|Type||Desktop & Web Browser-Based||Web Browser-Based||Web Browser-Based|
|Requires Account Registration||Yes||Can be signed in by Google||Can be signed in by Google|
|Deployment||Powerpoint Integration, Standalone Application for ‘Ad-hoc’ Polling||Web Interface/ Cloud Storage of Quizzes||Web Interface/ Cloud Storage of Quizzes & Limited PowerPoint Integration|
|Instructor Can Export Results?||Yes||N/A||Included in Free Package|
|Microsoft PowerPoint Slides Integration||Yes||N/A||Limited (In PowerPoint 2013 and later)|
|Microsoft Excel Integration||Yes||N/A||N/A|
|Vendor Product Support||Yes||With priced plans||With priced plans|
|Audience Size Limitation||500||None||
|License||Institutional License Required to use ResponseWare. [Free for UoY staff]
Use of TurningPoint Software is free with clicker hardware.
|Free for basic polling.
Individual licenses available.
Free for basic polling
Individual licenses available.
Session design with in-class polling
Peer instruction (Mazur, 1997) is a model for stimulating discussion and learning in face-to-face teaching sessions. Eric Mazur argues that the greatest value in the live lecture is the intrinsic potential for spontaneous interaction – but that the social etiquette around learning encounters (and even the architecture of some lecture theaters) may tacitly encourage passive participation.
As such, the Peer Instruction champions the idea that students who have recently solved a given problem may be well-placed to explain the thought processes involved in finding their solution to their peers. Therefore, by presenting a problem and asking students to discuss their answers with each other before providing the correct solution, an instructor can encourage the process of ‘externalising’ answers to shift the pedagogical focus of such engagement exercises from surface fact retention to reasoning.
The method can also be used to challenge students preconceptions through asking them to justify their response to questions with their peers. This can result in a change of thinking, but is supported by the use of pre- and post- discussion polling to show the lecturer if students have understood an underlying principle. The lecturer can then target subsequent content – perhaps spending more time on aspects the cohort has found difficult, rather than having to guess what students are understanding.
The video below (available to UoY users) is a capture of Professor Simon Lancaster’s lunchtime workshop on using ResponseWare in-class polling to stimulate learning through peer instruction activities. One of the significant points is to generate questions in class that force students to think, rather than just recall facts (blog post for this session).
Not all questions can be answered with a multiple-choice response. Text-based responses can be gathered using most ‘BYOD’-based Electronic Voting Systems, and displayed in either a ‘WordCloud’ or a Wall of Text. This approach may be useful to collect ideas from the group which can then be used to stimulate further discussion or generate a collective response to a case study situation.
Crowd-Sourcing Responses using MentiMeter
Victoria Jack, CELT
View Case Study
Modelling decision-making situations
Requiring a more structured approach to planning a teaching session, TurningPoint’s Conditional Branching tool can be used to create a simulation exercise for which all in the cohort are contributing to. Subsequent questions appear based on the majority of responses to a multiple-choice question.
Such activities that may utilise this approach include patient diagnosis, problem solving, applying procedures or exploring consequences to decisions made earlier on in a case study. Combine the questioning phase with peer discussion prior to answering a question to enable a collective ownership of the response, rather than majority guesswork.
- Mazur, E. (1997). Peer Instruction: A Users Manual. Pearson Education Press. London.
- Beatty, I. (2004). ‘Transforming Student Learning with Classroom Communication Systems’. ECAR Research Bulletin, 3, 1-13. Available online at:<http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB0403.pdf>.
- Bruff, D. (2014). ‘Classroom Response System (“Clickers”) Bibliography’. <http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/docs/classroom-response-system-clickers-bibliography/>. Last updated: 25 March 2014.
- Graham, C. R., Tripp, T. R., Seawright, L., & Joeckel, G. L. (2007). Empowering or compelling reluctant participators using audience response systems. Active Learning in Higher Education, 8(3), 233-258.
- Wiley, C. (2015) Innovative Pedagogies series: Using electronic voting systems in the Arts and Humanities. Available online at: <https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/dr_chris_wiley_final.pdf>