Final presentattion for Senior thesis

1. Implementing Audience Response
Systems: An Efficient Means to
Collect Data and Engage
Constituencies
Terrell Wesley

2. Foreword
 Hurricane Sandy and 2012 Elections
 Data
 Feedback
 ARS as the best way
 Technological advancements
 Accessibility
 Potential future uses

3. Audience Response Systems
• Clickers
• Classroom Response
Systems
• Student Response
systems
• Multimedia Response
Technology

4. How does this technology work

5. Introduction
 Validate the uses of ARS
 classroom
 Multiple platforms
 Advancements in the technology
 Location
 Devices
 Possible consideration for universal use.
 Internship at Turning Technologies

6. ARS: The Most Efficient Way to
Increase Student Performance and
Engagement
 Medina, Medina, Wanzer, Wilson, Er and Britton (2010)
 Efficiency in the classroom
 Non graded material proved better acceptance.
 Anxiety
 Most beneficial or efficient means to receive responses in the
classroom

7. Other Classroom Uses
Ioannou and Artino (2010)
Used ARS in different types of class settings
Reinforce lectures
Baytiyeh and Naja (2010)
 Validation
Quantitative and qualitative analysis•

8. ARS:Implementation
 Yu and Smith (2008)
 Supports multi-dimensional classroom:
 Implementation:
 Four Variables
 Engagement:
 Six Variables

9. Implementation Cont:
 Zapf and Garcia (2011)
 Technologically proficiency
 Engagement and performance
 Clicker classes vs not clicker classes
 National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
 Variety of reports
 Previous knowledge
 Found no evidence of dissatisfaction

10. ARS Increases Engagement in All
Platforms
 Keske and Smutko (2010)
 Used on small community
 ARS provided immediate data vs. other methods
 Limitations: larger communities will require:
 Smaller number of questions
 Distribution of clickers

11. Other Uses
 Osterman (2007)
 Library
 Generate conversation
 Guide lecture
 Participants are more engaged
 Better knowledge of audience
 (Anderson, 2011)
 Impact ARS had on adults
 Evaluative analysis of previous research
 ARS has positive effect on adult learners.

12. Companies Maximize Interest by
Advancing Application Integrations
 Stav, Nielsen, Hansen-Nygaard and Thorseth (2010)
 Technology integrations
 Mass array of users
 Increase accessibility
 Increased in overall reaction
 Tablets, smart phones, laptops and PC

13. Things to consider in universal
integration
 (Masikunis, Panayiotidis, & Burke, 2009).
 Role of the lecturer
 Presenter logs
 Methods should be individually based
 Suggestion of further research
 No definite strategy
 Must determine a strategy

14. Synthesis
 Efficient: Anderson (2011) Yu and Smith (2008), Medina
et al (2010)
 Classroom
 Outside of classroom
 Effective: Osterman(2007), Zapf and Garcia (2011)
 immediate data collection
 Accessibility: Stav et al. (2010), Medina et al. (2010),
Baytiyeh and Naja (2010),

15. Conclusion
 Increases engagement
 Privilege to poll from any location simultaneously
 Any internet connected device
 Increased accessibility

16. Final Note:
 Uses Across all age groups.
 Comfort
 Likelihood
 Opportunity for Implementation
 Research question: ARS is the most efficient means to gain
responses from any constituency in any location.
 Can we integrate this into our electoral process?