By Susan Smith Nash, Ph.D.
You've probably seen the "clickers" — the little electronic audience response devices that let you cast a vote during a presentation and have it tabulate automatically. You probably noticed, too, that you were instantly transformed from a passive observer to an active participant — and, you felt more engaged and interested. It was good to be able to express your opinion, and it was intriguing to see how fellow audience members felt.
Now, electronic voting and polling (audience response measures) are gaining popularity in elearning.
Why and how is electronic voting used online?
First, let's look at the "how." Individuals can cast their votes synchronously while in a webcast or chat. Programs such as Elluminate® incorporate polling capabilities. Other software provides the ability to vote synchronously or asynchronously. Examples include Turning Point®. It's possible to use cell phones to dial numbers to cast votes. The dial-in technique is an older one, but it works well in certain situations. It's also possible to text-message a response, but that is a bit harder to tabulate.
Now, let's look at the "why." Audience polling and/or voting is excellent for increasing student engagement. Students feel enthusiastic about being part of a group, and it seems to reduce emotional barriers to joining the group.
Audience polling allows one to vote anonymously. Thus, participation without penalty also assuages social anxiety and encourages a supportive, accepting social climate.
Polling creates less anxiety than anonymous posts on a discussion board because the responses are channeled into prescribed options (yes, no, choice from list of options), and there is less chance of harsh, abusive, or inappropriate posts.
Click your way to a good grade. Audience response polling also rewards engagement by giving "participation points." Roll calls and attendance can be taken immediately.
You can practice tests, quizzes, and other assessments, and thus practice the test-taking process as you review the material.
You can review material with a group and instantly check your results.
Electronic voting systems: 2002 versus 2006
In 2007, V. Simpson and M. Oliver published the results of a study in the Australasian Journal of Education Technology. In it, they looked at the way that electronic voting systems were used in education in 2002. They returned in 2006 to compare and contrast the technology and its usage.
For Simpson and Oliver (2007), the electronic voting systems were a good way to boost student engagement, and to encourage active, participatory learning.
In addition, Simpson and Oliver viewed electronic voting systems as one way to overcome the problems inherent in a lecture-based instructional strategy. For them, the lecture, whether it occur in a face to face classroom or via readings online, presents the same problem: it is a passive approach, and emphasizes content delivery rather than cognitive engagement and learning.
They articulate the goal of finding strategies to address the problem of lecture-dominated online learning: "Lectures are still seen as the dominant form of teaching and are associated with the tendency to emphasize content transmission over student engagement (Simpson & Oliver, 2007, p. 188).
Simpson and Oliver did not visit virtual classrooms, nor did they survey students. Instead, their investigation involved a literature search that covered indexes of journals and scholarly publications, as well as web-based search engines.
In 2002, the study found that electronic voting systems were often used in science and engineering disciplines. In 2006, articles had also been published on the use of electronic voting systems in economics, management, psychology, philosophy, medicine, and statistics.
In 2002, electronic voting systems were used mainly in large groups. In 2006, large groups still prevailed, but small groups were also beginning to use them. The electronic voting systems helped students and instructors know more about themselves and each other.
One major benefit that electronic voting system providers rarely mention was that polling can be done to help instructors attune to the students.
What Simpson and Oliver found was that the systems helped the lecturers increase their understanding of the students and gauge effectiveness.
On the student side, the systems helped them understand the material, check their knowledge, gain an idea of instructor expectations, and helped mastery of difficult materials.
With more robust infrastructure, electronic voting systems will be even more viable, even in mobile devices, handhelds, and smartphones. They are a great way to have people feel instantly connected, and, in conjunction with mobile learning, electronic voting systems could be a perfect way to incorporate authentic learning, with clear connections between course content and the real world.
Reference:
Simpson, V. and Oliver, M. (2007). Electronic voting systems for lectures then and now: A comparison of research and practice. Australasian Journal of Education Technology. 23(2): 187-208. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet23/simpson.html