Maximizing Lab Engagement With Classroom Response Systems

Katie Graves, University of the Pacific

Michael Robinson, Howard University

Julia VanderMolen, University of the Pacific

 

Key Statement: Using classroom response systems in a laboratory setting can enhance student engagement while providing a means of formative assessment and peer teaching.

Keywords: Classroom Response Systems, Formative Assessment, Student Engagement, Peer Teaching

Background

The positive effect of classroom response systems (CRS) on learning performance in active learning environments has been well established (Lopez et al., 2014). The use of such technologies in healthcare education has shown to increase student engagement and understanding (Oosthuizen et al., 2019), promote clinical reasoning (Russell et al., 2011), facilitate peer teaching, and provide a means of formative assessment (Oosthuizen et al., 2019). A core competency in most healthcare professions is the demonstration of clinical evaluation skills and techniques. Can CRS be applied outside of the traditional lecture classroom and used in a clinical laboratory setting to promote student engagement and provide formative assessments/feedback on students' understanding and application of hands-on skills?

In a lecture setting, the instructor is aware of the students’ attention spans and can assess engagement by observing their students (taking notes, maintaining eye contact, asking questions, responding to lecture questions etc.). But in a lab setting, the instructor utilizes other cues to assess engagement and understanding, such as observation of students’ practicing the assigned skills, asking questions, seeking the instructor’s assistance or feedback, and monitoring for the restlessness that occurs once students are done and ready to move on.

Alt text: College students in a laboratory section discuss responses to a CRS prompt.

The Solution

Why not use CRS in a laboratory setting to sustain engagement, provide an additional means of assessing understanding, and promote discussion and deeper learning through peer teaching?

One of the primary goals of lab activities in healthcare education is to provide a learning environment where the students can practice, develop, and understand the application of psychomotor skills. Mass practice is a key tenet to developing proficiency. However, in the academic environment, the motivation to practice for the sake of practice can be a challenge for the students. Similar to maintaining attention during a lecture, once a student practices a skill once or twice, their motivation and attention can falter. Typical methods of enticing the student to practice more include switching lab partners or asking students to demonstrate skills to the entire class.

Using CRS could also help sustain engagement by asking students to respond to questions about the specifics of each technique and the application of such skills in different scenarios. Open-ended questions could prompt discussion and peer teaching. CRS allows the instructor to design various questions to assess and evaluate the progress of their students’ understanding and application of techniques.

Student Engagement

As enrollment increases and class sizes grow (National Institutes of Health, NSF-NIH Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering, 2024), engaging students becomes more challenging. CRS help instructors ensure that every student remains actively engaged and on track with the material. This is especially important in larger lab groups, where traditional methods like verbal questioning or written reports make it challenging to assess comprehension. CRS offer all students an equal opportunity to participate, respond, ask questions, and check their understanding, regardless of class size.

CRS has been shown to effectively engage students in lab settings, mainly when targeting the psychomotor domain of learning (Sen, 2012). The psychomotor domain encompasses physical movement, coordination, and the development of motor skills (Simpson, 1972). Mastery of these skills requires practice and can be measured by factors such as speed, precision, distance, and technique. Initially identified by Benjamin Bloom in the 1950s, Elizabeth Simpson expanded this domain to include seven levels: perception, set, guided response, mechanism, complex overt response, adaptation, and origination (Simpson, 1972). The following is an example of a CRS question suitable for a physical therapy lab setting:

When performing Manual Muscle Testing (MMT) for hip abduction, where should the therapist apply resistance to assess muscle strength accurately?

(a) On the posterior thigh

(b) On the lateral ankle

(c) On the lateral side of the distal femur

(d) On the anterior thigh

This multiple-choice question aligns with the "guided response" level, which involves the early stages of learning complex skills characterized by imitation and trial-and-error (Simpson, 1972). Performance proficiency is achieved through repeated practice.

Formative Assessment

Formative assessment plays a critical role in lab practical settings by providing real-time feedback to instructors, enhancing the learning process (Msosa et al., 2021). CRS allows instructors to gauge students’ understanding of concepts and skills immediately, enabling tailored instruction and timely invention, if needed. Additionally, instructors can use CRS to facilitate peer assessment by having students evaluate the performance of their lab partners on specific skills or competencies. Students can anonymously rate or provide feedback on their peers’ execution during or after lab sessions—allowing for a collaborative learning environment. The immediate feedback generated can be shared with both students and instructors, providing insight into how well students understand the material, and guiding the need for either more or less discussion on the given subject matter.

For example, after a practical demonstration of a psychomotor skill, students could be asked to rate their confidence in performing the technique on a 5-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from "1 - Not confident at all" to "5 - Very confident." This type of prompt allows the instructor to quickly assess the students' perceived competency, providing immediate feedback and identifying areas for further instruction. By using the Likert scale, the instructor can also measure the progression of student confidence and skills over time, facilitating targeted interventions to enhance learning outcomes. Similarly, peer-to-peer feedback can be facilitated with the following prompt: "Rate your partner's ability to correctly [insert psychomotor skill] on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Needs significant improvement and 5 = Excellent technique."

Peer Teaching

Using peer teaching with use of a CRS in the lab setting can provide an additional mode of learning output and add elements of formative assessment and student engagement.  Using the same example of manual muscle testing, the instructor/facilitator could ask the students to take a quick photo of themselves performing a technique in response to prompts about hand placement, or body mechanics, as a means of teaching their peers. For example, during open lab practice, when a student demonstrates a technique that meets or exceeds the expectations of the course, the lab instructor/facilitator would ask that student to post a photo of themself performing the technique to a CRS that allows for free text/or image uploads (such as Padlet). Similarly, the same student could also include a “teachable moment” with the class based on the feedback they received from their peers or lab instructor.

Field Reaction

Although CRS fosters opportunities for students to share valuable information with instructors and peers, it still may not achieve full participation. Some students may prefer to give or receive feedback in a more personalized way. When using CRS, it’s essential to consider timing relative to cognitive load and the level of understanding desired. Factors like the length of the lab session and the timing of prompts—whether at the beginning, middle, or end—should also be carefully considered.

Next Steps

We encourage instructors, regardless of discipline, to try using CRS in their lab settings. It’s a fun, low-cost, and innovative way to engage students. Using formative assessment in this way is a low-stakes experiment that allows us, as instructors, to learn from the experience and wisdom of our students.

Discussion Questions

1. What method(s) do you currently use to assess student engagement during the lab and to what extent do you feel these methods are effective?

2. How would you maximize lab engagement using CRS?

3. Where and when could you utilize CRS during an individual lab session?

References

Bingen, H. M., Aamlid, H. I., Hovland, B. M., Nes, A. A. G., Larsen, M. H., Skedsmo, K., & Steindal, S. A. (2023). Use of active learning classrooms in health professional education: A scoping review. International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances, 100167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnsa.2023.100167

Decman, M. (2020). Factors that increase active participation by higher education students, and predict the acceptance and use of classroom response systems. International Journal of Higher Education, 9(4), 84–98. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v9n4p84

Kenwright, K. (2009). Clickers in the classroom. TechTrends, 53(1), 74–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-009-0230-5

Lopez, J. A., Love, C., & Watters, D. (2014). Clickers in biosciences: Do they improve academic performance? International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 22(3).

Msosa, A., Bruce, J., & Crouch, R. (2021). Effect of a formative assessment intervention on nursing skills laboratory learning in a resource-constrained country. Nurse Education Today, 97, 104677. 10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104677 

National Institutes of Health. (n.d.). NSF-NIH survey of graduate students and postdoctorates in science and engineering. Author.

Oosthuizen, F., Owira, P., & Bangalee, V. (2019). Pharmacy students’ experience towards active learning using ‘clickers’. The Independent Journal of Teaching and Learning, 14(1), 32-41.

Russell, J. S., McWilliams, M., Chasen, L., & Farley, J. (2011). Using clickers for clinical reasoning and problem solving. Nurse Educator, 36(1), 13–15. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0b013e3182001e18

Sen, A. (2012). Designing clicker questions that encourage active learning in a technology enhanced practical lab setting. INTED2012 Proceedings, 3246–3255.

Sevian, H., & Robinson, W. E. (2011). Clickers promote learning in all kinds of classes—Small and large, graduate and undergraduate, lecture and lab. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(3).

About the Authors