In the previous post (part 1 of 2), we explored the fact that student response apps (Socrative, Kahoot!, Plickers, etc.) are often mislabeled as “formative assessment tools.” What makes them formative depends on the context in which they are used. Formative assessment is a process, and in order for a tool to play a part in this process the results/data it produces must be leveraged to differentiate instruction or learning.
The Problem
Now, let’s explore a second problem with these apps, which is the belief that they are not generally associated with higher-order thinking.
From what I have experienced, we are largely stuck in this rut when it comes to using student response tools, and there are two main reasons why:
- For the most part, old school “student clickers” included only multiple-choice questions (and maybe a little something else), which is a format that tends to result in lower level questioning. It has been easy to copy and paste these inadequate practices (or questions) on to our newer technologies, even though these apps are capable of a whole lot more.
- When it comes to classroom instruction, I also think it is easy to view student response tools as an all or nothing decision. Either the entire lesson is centered around their use, or they are not used at all. From what I have experienced (and have been guilty of as well), if these tools are the focal point of a class, chances are the students are simply answering one multiple-choice question after another (which aligns with the education world’s current fascination with hard, quantitative data). This means more lower level questions that travel in only one direction, from teacher to students. There is no encouragement of dialogue, collaboration, inquiry, etc. Everything is black and white, when we all know that higher-order thinking and inquiry-based learning are all about shades of grey.
The Solution
I do feel that multiple-choice and lower level questions have their place in the classroom, as higher-order thinking and inquiry are built on top of solid foundations and basic understandings. After all, you can’t think critically about nothing.
At the same time, I firmly believe that the majority of the questions asked in school, at the very least, should promote thought, curiosity and some level of exploration.
Here are two ideas as to how to encourage higher-order thinking with student response tools:
- Flipped Clickers: Tony Wagner defines critical thinking as “the ability to ask the right question, ask really good questions.” In Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching, the Distinguished level for Domain 3b (Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques) says, “Students formulate many questions, initiate topics, challenge one another’s thinking…” So, let’s flip the way student response tools our used by having students ask the questions. Overall, this shift can be accomplished by (1) the teacher promoting activities in which students have to respond with questions that they formulate (questions that can then be used creatively by the teacher to extend these activities), and/or (2) providing students with both student and teacher/administrative rights for as many tools as possible (for example, think small group literature circles in which students take turns leading the discussion). Just when you think you have all the answers, the students ask the questions.
- Fewer Questions for a Deeper Understanding: One of the components of Danielson’s Domain 3b reads, “When teachers ask questions of high quality, they ask only a few of them and provide students with sufficient time to think about their responses, to reflect on the comments of their classmates, and to deepen their understanding.” This quote addresses head-on what needs to be done in order to promote cultures of thinking in our classrooms. Many lower level questions (such as those that accompany stories in basal readers), should be converted to only a few higher-order questions (with the help of something like Webb’s Depth of Knowledge), and around these questions thinking routines should be formed (in which student response tools do not serve as the focal point, but are used to assist in facilitating discussion and increase opportunities to respond). Additionally, teachers need explicit professional development on how to shift from lower level questions to rigorous thinking routines, rather than just focusing on converting questions from lower level to higher-order. A bunch of higher-order questions asked in the same exact way (with or without technology) as an equal number of lower level questions will do very little to deepen students’ understanding of what they are learning.
For both options, it is not an either/or decision regarding whether or not the response tools are used, but rather finding the appropriate level of technology integration to enhance or redefine student learning experiences.
In the End
Once again, we need to emphasize pedagogy over technology by starting with the end in mind – higher-order questions and thinking routines – and then leveraging the tools that we have available to us in order for our students to arrive at the appropriate destination.
At the same time, we should keep in mind that although all educators are at different points on the learning curve when it comes to effectively integrating technology, the last thing we want is for instruction to be consistently inferior because technology just has to be included. Don’t try to cram a square peg into a round hole.
What are your thoughts on these apps? What are some unique ways in which you have seen them used to promote high-order thinking? Do you think there is a place for “flipped clickers” in the classroom?
Connect with Ross on Twitter.
- Project Based Learning: 3 Types of Direct Instruction #RealPBL - April 17, 2022
- Getting Started with Project Based Learning #RealPBL - April 11, 2022
- How Do I Lead Project Based Learning? – Evaluate Professional Learning #RealPBL (part 4 of 4) - April 3, 2022
This is a really good post on the use of tech in the classroom. For me, the key phrase is the “need to emphasize pedagogy over technology”, whether you use tech or not, “teaching” is the key. Personally, I love tech and try to integrate it in most of what I do, but you do need some balance of well-planned and thought out tech and non-tech teaching and learning activities. To answer your last question, I think these apps are very useful and have a place in my teaching, I’d also add Google forms and Quizlet. Thanks again for writing this post, its really relevant to a tech heavy world we live in.
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment, and thank you for chiming in with Google Forms and Quizlet! Yes, sometimes I feel like the art of teaching (and effective pedagogy) gets lost amongst all the technology. As you say, it’s all about balance.
I’m recommending this article to a group of teachers next week, and put that quote “emphasize pedagogy over technology” at the start of the presentation. Proper attribution of course 🙂
I think it is great to point out the use of these tools has mainly “enhanced” the practice of peppering students with low-level multiple choice questions. I have been guilty of designing review sessions like this in the past. I do think it is possible to effectively use these tools to check for understanding of foundational knowledge during warm-ups and closings without taking over the entire instructional period. However, we really want technology/tech tools to enhance our best practices, and our challenge is to find ways to leverage them to do so.
This reminds me of whiteboards, which often just become digital chalkboards used to do the same instructional things teachers were doing before. Technology has the ability to allow students and teachers to do things we couldn’t previously do without it. That’s our charge!
Thanks, Mike! I really like the whiteboard analogy, as often times I do not think we are maximizing how they can be used. Regarding student response tools, I have also thrown around the idea of using them for “hinge questions” (a few questions towards the middle of a lesson that assess where students are, and then differentiation takes place accordingly).
Reblogged this on Leren.Hoe?Zo! and commented:
Lees ook zeker dit vervolg op de vorige blogpost (https://lerenhoezo.wordpress.com/2015/09/19/the-problem-with-formative-assessment-tools-part-1-of-2/) over student response systems.
Thank you so much for this post. More than often, the tools like Socrative or Kahoot end up becoming the assessment tool, while in reality they can do better as “engagement” or “feedback” tools. A better use for these tools could be to initiate a doubt clearing session where students may write their questions in the open ended format and teacher might discuss them then and there or probably in the next class.Or how about teacher asks the students for a rating of the topic taught to them.
I have multiple times come across students during my user research, who tell me that they do not appreciate how clickers are used every time to ask a question which could have been understood better with an interactive session. It feels that they are graded every time. The important task for teachers is to re-evaluate how they are using these apps. Do they need to use them even for non graded activities? Do they need to to know what the individual responses are each time? Those designing tools can come up with ways to support learning better- something more than just a multiple choice question like ClickEinstein or Socrative does.
Thanks, Jagriti! The idea of a “doubt clearing session” is definitely interesting. I also think it’s great how you’re getting feedback from students in regards to how the clickers are used.
Great follow up post to Part I, Ross. I enjoy reading your perspective–and not only because it aligns with my own thinking. 🙂 As a creator of professional development, I’ve moved away from including these apps in sessions with teachers and administrators unless we get multiple touch points with the group. I’ve found there has got to be robust learning around leading with the pedagogy–the standards, the learning targets, and acceptable evidence for student learning–first. Otherwise, these tools become shiny objects and educators leave the session saying, “Kahoot is so cool and engaging!” instead of “I learned how to create more complex learning opportunities that will increase my students’ learning.” I remember facilitating (what I thought was!) a great session on the PA Core’s pedagogical shifts, and I used QR codes to take teachers on a scavenger hunt through the standards. I chose QR codes because it made the process more efficient and quick–I knew I was way beneath the SAMR line. The next week, I saw about 15 teachers using QR codes with their students. While I wanted my participants to employ evidence-based thinking and meaningful learning of academic vocabulary in their classrooms, I felt like the only learning that actually transferred into practice was a low level use of technology. This was a huge A-HA moment for me which has forced me to be very careful and deliberate when using tools in professional learning sessions.
Jaime, I think your story is quite a powerful one…Let me know if you would be interested in turning it into a guest post. Thanks!