When looking at their new class syllabus, it wasn’t the long list of required texts that had many students frowning, it was their professor’s technologically advanced and expensive new system for taking attendance.
The InterWrite Personal Response System (PRS), affectionately dubbed “clickers,” has been adopted by both Astronomy 114 and Physics 131 for the spring semester. It is designed to be the digital embodiment of the student who uses it, allowing a professor to take attendance and collect test answers digitally. Though this may sound like an ideal addition to classroom technology, many students say the system leaves something to be desired.
According to Andrew Telesca, adjunct lecturer and instructor of Astronomy 114, the main allure of integrating such technology in his course was the potential for interaction and understanding.
“You look at the numbers: the last three or four springs, I’ve maxed out this room,” said Telesca of the 400-plus seat Lecture Hall One where Astronomy 114 is held. “I’ve been wanting to make the class more interactive.”
“Students could interact anonymously … and I can gauge [their] understanding,” agreed Robert Pompi, professor of physics, who, like Telesca, has integrated the clicker into his lecture.
Designed to “combine interaction and assessment to enhance classroom productivity,” the PRS transmitter is heralded as “the most robust student response system on the market.”
Robust as they may be, the transmitters have been less than awe-inspiring among their most recent buyers.
“It’s actually ineffective and unnecessary,” said Gregory Liss, a freshman in Telesca’s lecture.
While Telesca and Pompi’s desire for a more perfect lecture may be well-founded, the technology they are championing may not be.
In its first two weeks, the clicker has functioned sporadically at best, and has constantly impeded the flow of Telesca’s lectures. And while Pompi said he has not had as much trouble with his system, his past Friday’s lecture encountered what he described as “a major crash in [his] computer,” although he insists that the problem was “not with the clicker per se.”
“It seems like more of a hassle,” said Jessica Macrina, a freshman systems science major. “It takes up a lot of time for something that doesn’t work.”
Though they might think the benefits outweigh the detriments, some professors are realizing the unfavorable reviews clickers are getting from students.
“They don’t like it,” said Pompi when asked about his students’ initial feedback to the clicker system. “It forces them to come to class, which is not an all-together bad thing.”
The clicker’s relatively high $52 price tag is another point of contention for students.
“I understand the costs involved; I just don’t think it’s out of the range of expenses for this kind of course,” said Telesca.
“You can establish a secondary market for [the clickers],” agreed Pompi.
Factoring in the included $25 rebate students could receive if purchased with each course’s respective new custom text bundles, and the price differential in selling the clicker used, Pompi sees the eventual cost of buying a clicker as “not even a pitcher of beer.”
However, for current students, the educational utopia envisioned through use of the clicker is still both expensive and dubious.
“Its way too much for something we barely use in class,” Liss said.
Telesca said he realizes that implementing new systems can be difficult and time consuming, but pointed out that you have to start somewhere.
Both Telesca and Pompi see the clickers’ future as a promising one, even if their reluctant owners do not.