Invite Me to Speak!

I am sometimes available as a keynote speaker, workshop leader, webinar presenter, and instructional-design team-meeting facilitator.

I have spoken hundreds of times over the last 10 years at national and international conferences, including being an invited keynote speaker on numerous occassions.

 

Some of the organizations/groups where I have spoken:

  • International Society of Performance Improvement
  • American Society of Training and Development
  • E-Learning Guild
  • Canadian Society of Training and Development
  • Training Solutions Conference
  • Chicagoland Learning Leaders
  • Children’s Hospitals Exchange
  • Compliance and Ethics
  • Industry Trainers Conference
  • Training Conference
  • ITTC Conference
  • Questionmark
  • Isotrain
  • Microsoft
  • Intermountain Health
  • UNUM
  • Salem State University
  • Tufts University
  • MIT
  • ISPI Armed Forces Chapter
  • JMITC
  • Association for Multimedia Communications
  • Documentation and Training
  • New England Learning Association
  • Distance Teaching and Learning

 

Testimonials from Conference Presentations

“Excellent presentation. Provocative. Interactive. Interesting. Best session of the conference for me.”

“This is the best session I have attended so far! Engaging, useful information presented in an interactive and humored way. I loved that Dr. Thalheimer had such a great sense of humor. Obviously, he is very knowledgeable and skilled. Thank you!”

“Very thought provoking and well done.”

“He’s great. I always attend a ‘Will Session.'”

“Charming passion. Thank you.”

“Outstanding! Love the research base, tempered by experience.”

“Thanks for leading the charge to use research productively in practice!”

“As ever insightful, engaging, inspiring. Thanks for delivering another outstanding presentation Will.”

“Brilliant!!!!”

“Excellent. Best presentation I’ve attended at the conference.”

“Great speaker. Relevant and engaging. Best seminar so far.”

“This was an excellent session and provided me with executable inexpensive information I can use right away.”

“Fabulous presenter. Have him do an annual something on research summary.”

“Great stuff! Got to the point quickly!”

“Excellent job and excellent material.”

“Very personable and engaging presenter. Lots of good info! Good use of humor, kept my attention.”

“Great session. Very informative and well presented.”

“Good research/data with practical application.”

“I have not rated any other workshop as highly as this workshop. The best, most useful & stimulating workshop I’ve attended at this conference.”

“Best workshop of the conference.”

“This was the best presentation I sat through all week! Recommend as encore presentation. I was completely engaged.”

“Outstanding!! Best of show!!”

“The best presentation so far.”

“Excellent presentation on a research topic which any one involved in e-learning should know.”

“Best I’ve attended!”

“Awesome. Only good speaker I have seen so far (w/ good content).”

“Excellent session where facilitator practiced what he preached.”

“New information!!! Great delivery!! Best session thus far!!!!”

“Great presentation, good citing of studies and real-life applications. Thanks!”

“Best session I’ve attended this week”

“Excellent presentation. Humor incorporated in the presentation made the information not only insightful but also enjoyable.”

“This was one of the best sessions I’ve attended. Bring him back to other conferences!”

 

Setting Up a Speaking Engagement

Contact me by phone at 888-579-9814 or by email.

Will’s Message:

I’ve been in the learning-and-performance field for almost 30 years, and have been running Work-Learning Research for over 15 years. In that time, I’ve learned that developers of instruction need practical advice, not academic jargon; that they need an in-depth understanding of underlying principles, not inflexible, oppressive rules; that they want validated information, not fluff. That the most important thing is to be open to learning, to bridge the gap between research and practice with a humble wisdom.

My goal is to utilize my research-based insights while tempering them with practical intelligence understood in specific learning and on-the-job performance contexts. Consulting for me is a mutual exploration, bringing together insights and knowledge from both party’s experience, knowledge, and on-the-ground understanding of how learning works to create performance.

Because I’ve spent years building rich and flexible mental models of how learning works; because I’ve been in the learning world on the practical side and on the business side; I tend to see solutions that others don’t see. I tend to create solutions that meet the needs of the learners and the organization. I don’t know everything of course, but if your organization needs another set of eyes, mine might be just what’s needed to take your work to the next level.

Potential Applications

Want to jumpstart your team by getting them thinking beyond their day-to-day grind?

Having a debate within your development team? Can’t figure out which learning design method to use?

Purchasing a new e-learning program and want to know how effective it’s likely to be?

Developing a new product or upgrading your old offerings, and want to ensure that you’ve considered all the options, especially those based on the deepest learning mechanics?

Ever wonder whether your instructional designs are effectively producing learning and performance results? Or whether they might be better?

Want to assure your boss or organization that your training designs utilize the latest research findings?

Is your team stuck in a rut? Producing the same learning designs over and over and over again?

Do your folks constantly fight about the same old design issues? Do they seem to speak different languages when it comes to developing your learning interventions? Want to get them all on the same page?

Do you want to know for sure how effective your learning interventions are? Willing to evaluate your efforts? Want to prove that what you’re doing is effective?

Has your team’s knowledge of instructional design grown worn and frayed? Need to revitalize the thinking?

Want to know what the research says?

Contact me, Will Thalheimer, at 888-579-9814 or through email.

Workshops

Hi. This is Dr. Will Thalheimer. I teach all our workshops, most often alone, but sometimes with copresenters. My goal is to help your team build wildly more effective learning interventions, and my workshop designs reflect that. I begin with hard research, translated to make it practical. I help your folks build deep mental models of how learning works to generate on-the-job performance.

I keep the focus on the practical. I help prepare your learners to bring back wisdom to their workplace.

Workshops can be tailored to the needs of the specific client, audience, and workplace. We can go as deep as you want. I’ve provided short sessions covering a few narrow topics, or multiday intensives building actual learning interventions or learning-measurement practices.

 
Some Titles

  1. Performance-Focused Smile Sheets
  2. The Decisive Dozen — The Most Important Learning Factors
  3. Creating and Measuring Learning Transfer
  4. Research-Based Instructional Design
  5. Learning for E-Learning
  6. Using Questions to Facilitate Learning
  7. Writing Scenario-Based Questions
  8. Measuring and Evaluating Learning
  9. Situation-Based Learning Design
  10. Spaced Learning, Subscription Learning, Microlearning
  11. Immersive Learning Audit Workshop

 

Typical Workshop Design

  • All of our workshops are based on validated research and focus on practical learning-design decisions.
  • Our workshops can be tailored to the specific needs of our clients and workshop participants.
  • Workshops encourage learners to think and discuss, question and apply, and plan for putting ideas into practice.
  • We guarantee complete satisfaction.

 

Workshop Pricing

  • Pricing varies depending upon your specific needs.
  • Our workshops offer world-class information and are priced from this perspective.
  • We offer discounts to qualifying nonprofit organizations and educational institutions.

 

Workshop Options

  1. Have one or more of your learning programs evaluated with our proprietary research-based auditing process. Discuss results and brainstorm improvements as part of your workshop.
  2. Utilize online learning as the primary or secondary delivery method.
  3. Combine workshop with project work to create an action-learning intervention.
  4. Combine workshop with consulting to get recommendations on particular issues and situations.
  5. Combine workshop with research to delve into specific areas of interest.
  6. Combine workshop with program evaluation to get feedback on your current instructional offerings and develop plans for improvements.
  7. Utilize custom assessments to ensure that your participants are meeting standards.

 

Discuss Options

  • Contact me (Dr. Will Thalheimer) directly through email at info@work-learning.com or by calling 1-888-579-9814.

 

Why are Work-Learning Research Workshops Worth Considering?

  1. Your learning designers deserve a richly rewarding developmental opportunity.
  2. Your team will be challenged with new perspectives on learning and performance, enabling creativity and innovation.
  3. It’s a great way to get your team started on a new project.
  4. It’s a great way to energize your team or get the started in a whole new direction.
  5. Because the workshops are backed by the world’s best research, it’s a perspective you can trust—not just another fad-driven exhortation.
  6. Dr. Will Thalheimer brings a rare combination of instructional-design experience, management awareness, and research savvy to his work. He’s been in the field since 1985, working as an instructional designer, trainer, simulation architect, project manager, product manager, business leader, researcher, and consultant. Dr. Thalheimer brings depth, practicality, and a human touch to these workshops.

Leaders in the learning-and-performance field are beginning to move away from traditional notions of instructional design. The emerging model is based on having a deep understanding of human learning and performance. In the future, we’ll all design our learning interventions with an eye toward the human learning system. Work-Learning Research workshops will enable your team to lead the rest of the industry into the future.

The value of these workshops comes from their transformational properties. The way people always work constrains the way they see the world. To break out of our tattered views of learning, we need to be challenged to see things differently. Work-Learning Research workshops can get your team started on the road to innovation.

Hello! This is Dr. Will Thalheimer.

Since founding Work-Learning Research in 1998, my goal has been to help my clients maximize the effectiveness of their learning interventions and learning environments, while also working to improve our field. I do this by exhaustively compiling research from the world’s preeminent refereed journals on learning, memory, and instruction—and translating that research with practical wisdom.

Through my speaking engagements, workshops, e-learning benchmarking, and consulting, I help enlightened clients build world-class learning programs.

I can help your organization build wildly more effective learning too.

Feel free to contact me at 888-579-9814 or by emailing me.

Or you can check out my work at my other websites:

Key Information on Audience Response Learning:

 

Contact Will Thalheimer

Lectures are widely reviled for putting learners in a passive mode. On the other hand, lectures are relatively easy to implement, even with large numbers of learners. And regardless of the pluses and minuses, lectures are ubiquitous. While there aren’t many lectures in kindergarten, by third grade teachers are talking a lot and learners are listening. The college classroom is dominated by lecture. So is the corporate training session, conference presentations, church sermons, public meetings, elder hostels, and the local library’s evening speaker series. Lectures aren’t going away anytime soon, nor should they. Like all tools for learning, they provide certain unique advantages and have certain unique limitations.

Lectures can be modified in different ways to increase the amount of active learning—to ensure that learners are more fully engaged, have a more robust understanding of the learning material, are more likely to remember what they learned, are more likely to utilize the information at a later time.

One such method to increase active learning are “response cards.” Response cards are provided to students so that each one can respond to instructor questions. Two types of response cards are available, (1) those that enable each learner to write his or her answer on the card (for example with a dry-erase marker), and (2) those that enable learners to hold up preprinted answers (either True or False; or A, B, C, or D for example).

Research

While not a lot of good research has been done on response cards, the research seems to suggest that compared with the traditional method of having students raise their hands in response to questions, response cards improve learners’ classroom engagement, the amount they learn, and the amount they retain after a delay (Marmolejo, Wilder, & Bradley, 2004; Gardner, Heward, Grossi, 1994; Kellum, Carr, and Dozier, 2001; Narayan, Heward, Gardner, Courson, Omness, 1990; Christle & Schuster, 2003). Learners generally prefer response cards to simple hand-raising. Most of the research has focused on K-12 classrooms, with some research done in community college. The research has tended to focus on relatively low-level information and has not tested the value of response cards on higher-order thinking skills.

Recommendations

Getting learners to actively respond in lectures is certainly a worthwhile goal. Research has been fairly conclusive that learners learn better when they are actively engaged in learning (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999). Response cards may be one tool in the arsenal of methods to generate learner engagement. Of course, electronic keypads can be used in a similar way, at a significantly increased cost, with perhaps some added benefits as well. Still, at less than $30 a classroom, response cards may be worth a try.

Personally, I’m skeptical that audiences in adult training situations would be open to response cards. While 87% of college students rated the cards highly (Marmolejo, Wilder, & Bradley, 2004), the corporate audiences I’ve worked with over the years, might find them childish or unnecessary (“hey, why can’t we just raise our hands?”). On the other hand, electronic handsets are more likely to be accepted. Of course, such acceptance—whether we’re talking about response cards or electronic handsets—really depends on the relevance of the material and the questions used. If the questions are low-level rote memorization, adult audiences are likely to reject the instruction regardless of the technology employed.

Making lectures interactive has to be done with care. Adding questions and student responses can have negative consequences as well. When we ask questions, we signal to learners what to pay attention to. If we push our learners to think about low-level trivia, they will do that to the detriment of focusing on more important high-level concepts.

Limitations of the Research

The research on response cards tends to focus on low-level questions that are delivered all-to-frequently throughout lectures. Learners who have to answer a question every two minutes are being conditioned to focus on trivia, facts, and knowledge. Future research on response cards should focus on higher-level material in situations where more peer discussion are enabled.

Most of the research on response cards suffered from minor methodological difficulties (e.g., weaker than preferred comparison designs and a low level of learners actually tracked) and ambiguity (e.g., in reading the research articles, it was often difficult to tell whether the in-class questions were repeated on the final quizzes—those used as dependent variables; and no inferential statistics were available to test hypotheses).

References

Marmolejo, E. K., Wilder, D. A., & Bradley, L. (2004). A preliminary analysis of the effects of response cards on student performance and participation in an upper division university course. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 405-410.

Cristle, C. A., & Schuster, J. W. (2003). The effects of using response cards on student participation, academic achievement, and on-task behavior during whole-class, math instruction. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12(3), 147-165.

Gardner, R., Heward, W. L., & Grossi, T. A. (1994). Effects of response cards on student participation and academic achievement: A systematic replication with inner-city students during whole-class science instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 63-71.

Kellum, K. K., Carr, J. E., & Dozier, C. L. (2001). Response-card instruction and student learning in a college classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 28(2), 101-104.

Narayan, J. S., Heward, W. L., Gardner, R., Courson, F. H., & Omness, C. K. (1990). Using response cards to increase student participation in an elementary classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 483-490.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Questions produce cognitive effects in our learners and generate learning benefits. While it is beyond the scope of this webpage to delve into these benefits in great depth, the following list offers a flavor of the myriad ways that questioning strategies support deep and meaningful learning. Some of these benefits are inherent to questions, while others are possible if questions are well designed and well facilitated.

The following list of benefits is drawn from (a) the basic research on human learning, (b) from the research literature on active learning, and (c) from the practical utilization of active-learning classroom techniques, often in conjunction with audience response systems.

I’ve divided these 24 learning benefits into two sections. The first section will cover the learning benefits that result almost inherently from the cognitive effects of questioning. The second section will continue the list of learning benefits, but will cover the learning benefits that are possible—those that are leveragable if questions are appropriately utilized.

There is more information about the benefits of questions in the report. Click to download the report.

The Inherent Learning Benefits of Questions

1. Prequestions Guide Learner Attention

Prequestions improve overall learning when they are presented to learners soon before learning events Prequestions help learners focus on the most important learning material they subsequently encounter.

2. Postquestions Guide Later Learner Processing

How learners approach new material is affected by previous questions . For example, Sagerman and Mayer (1987) found that learners did better on verbatim questions when they had previously gotten verbatim questions and conceptual questions when they had previously gotten conceptual questions. Questions then, not only have an effect on learning events that occur immediately after the questions, but also on subsequent learning events. Because questions create habits of mind, we need to be very careful that our questions are creating the right habits. Questions can have detrimental effects when we continually test learners on meaningless fragments of facts, figures, and folderol.

3. Questions Provide Repetition

Repetition is arguably the most important learning factor there is. It enables learners to remember things they’d forgotten, learn things they didn’t quite get the first time around, and strengthen and enrich what they already know. Repetition doesn’t imply verbatim repetition. Verbatim repetitions can sometimes be valuable but they’re often boring. The true power of repetition is realized when we use paraphrasing, examples, case studies, role-plays, simulations, and questioning. Questions inherently provide repetitions. Consider the instructional sequence, (a) content, (b) question, (c) discussion, (d) feedback. This sequence provides four repetitions of the learning point. Each of these interactions prompts the learners to engage the learning point in some manner.
 
4. Questions Provide Retrieval Practice

The fundamental purpose of learning is to facilitate later retrieval of the learned information. While the term “retrieval” may conjure up images of simple recall, retrieval refers more broadly to drawing information from long-term memory into working memory. Therefore, retrieval occurs when we answer a question, when we think about how to solve a problem, when we engage in creativity, when we kick a soccer ball, when we are involved in a conversation, and when we play music. If our goal is to facilitate later retrieval, one of the best ways to support that retrieval is to prompt learners to retrieve information during learning. Practice makes perfect, and retrieval during learning not only provides practice but it makes the information that was retrieved more accessible in memory as well .

5. Questions Provide Learners with Feedback

Questions enable learners to get feedback on their retrieval attempts. Questions not only enable learners to evaluate their retrieval performance, but they can be used to help learners overcome their misconceptions and reinforce their tentative understandings. Researchers who have reviewed research articles on feedback have concluded that feedback was very effective in producing learning benefits . In fact, many investigators have been so sure of feedback’s effectiveness that they have simply assumed it improves learning and have gone on to discuss other variables that affect its impact . Studies that have compared giving feedback to not giving feedback generally have found fairly sizable improvements with feedback .

6. Questions Provide Instructors with Feedback

Questions not only provide learners with feedback, but they provide instructors with feedback as well. In a typical lecture, instructions get some feedback by watching the body language of learners and by listening to audience questions. This feedback tends to be quite impoverished. Learners are hesitant to admit their confusion in large rooms of peers. Instructors may tune out the feedback because it’s uncomfortable to acknowledge that their performance may be lacking. Body language, may tell an instructor that learners are confused, but it can’t clarify the exact nature of the confusion. Well-designed questions can help pinpoint the comprehension issues and get all the learners involved in providing data about their comprehension. Moreover, instructors can modify their facilitation based on the feedback they receive. For example, Draper and Brown (2004) talk about the benefits of contingent teaching—where instructors change what they teach within a particular learning session based on learner responses to questions.

The Leveragable Learning Benefits of Questions

The list above highlighted the inherent learning benefits of questions—the advantages that questions almost automatically produce. The following list highlights the possible benefits—the gains that can be leveraged depending on the design of your questions and the quality of the work and discussions that supplement those questions . I have chosen to continue the numbering, instead of starting anew, because I want to emphasize that questions offer myriad ways to produce their “benefits.”

7. Prequestions Activate Prior Knowledge

One factor that propels learning is to help learners connect their new knowledge to what they’ve already learned. Great instructors—whether they are teachers, religious leaders, managers, or political leaders—are adept at using metaphorical language to imbue a discussion with immediate meaning. The metaphor bridges the gap between what is well known and what is new. In the same way, we can help our learners learn by using questions that ask them to bring into working memory information they’ve already learned.

8. Questions Can Grab Attention

Questions by their very nature force learners to pay attention. While the drone of a lecture is more likely to keep learners in a state of daydreaming, questions prompt learners to reorient their minds to the content of the question. This has obvious learning benefits. Without attention, there is no learning.

9. Questions Can Provide Variety

Providing learners with a variety of learning methods can create learning, attention, and motivational advantages. Research has shown that variety helps people learn better, keeps them attentive longer, and motivates them to feel more interest in the topic. Even repeating concepts with paraphrased wording has advantages. The basic act of providing a question provides variety in comparison to lecture alone. Going beyond this basic mechanism, questions can provide variety by utilizing different question types. Questions can focus on the same concept but utilize different background situations. Instructors can facilitate questions differently, asking learners to answer individually sometimes, or having them discuss with partners, groups, or the whole class.

10. Questions Can Make the Learning Personal

Designing your lectures and discussions to help your learners see how the material relates to them personally has obvious value. It helps motivate the learners to pay attention and makes it more likely that learners will relate the new learning to their long-held knowledge structures. Even if your lectures and discussions are devoid of personal connection, questions can highlight the personal aspects of the material. By connecting the learning material to learners’ personal concerns, we can also help our learners learn outside our classrooms. Learners don’t learn only in th
e classroom. If we can generate thinking in the classroom that makes it likely that learners will spontaneously ponder relevant concepts while away from the classroom, we’ve doubled the returns on our classroom learning investment. In fact, we’ve done much more than that. When learning is personal, it’s much more likely to be remembered and utilized long into the future.
 
11. Questions Can Provide Spaced Repetitions

Repetitions of questions that are spaced apart in time are more effective than those that are massed together . Glover (1989b) found that repeating a test spaced by one day produced significantly higher retention than providing a test immediately after the material was learned. Even in a single classroom session, waiting to space a question after covering other unrelated material can provide substantial benefits. So for example, you might present Content A, then Content B, and then provide a question regarding Content A. Similarly, you might present Content A B C and D and then ask questions on A B C and D. Homework and studying also provide spaced repetitions. For example, you might use a couple questions at the end of class—without providing the answers—to spur learning outside the classroom. You could then include those questions in the following session and provide feedback.
 
12. Questions Can Highlight Boundary Conditions

Questions can be used to introduce learners to boundary conditions or test their knowledge of contingencies. For example, fifth graders may be taught that tolerance is good, but they also need to learn that tolerance of evil is not good. Managers can be taught to encourage their direct reports to help in making decisions, except in cases that have safety, ethical, or legal repercussions. Highlighting boundary conditions often brings a dose of reality to instruction, thus engaging learners by moving beyond stale platitudes. Real life is complicated. If we don’t acknowledge this to our learners, we not only do them a disservice, we lose their respect and attention.

13. Questions Can Highlight Common Misunderstandings

Learners often come to learning experiences with naïve understandings that make it difficult for them to learn new information. Their preconceptions may bias them against the new paradigms they have to learn. As many master instructors have concluded, one of the primary goals of instruction is to help learners unlearn their flawed beliefs and replace them with more accurate knowledge structures. Question answering reveals the truth of learners’ knowledge to learners and to the instructor. Such revelations enable learners to awaken to new constructs and test newly learned constructs. At the same time, these “teachable moments” provide instructors with special advantages in guiding and supporting further learning.

14. Questions Can Demonstrate Forgetting

Learners forget. It’s an immutable law of nature. As instructors, one of our primary goals is to ensure that our learners learn AND remember. Unfortunately, the typical learning environment is set up to make this difficult. First, learners are overly optimistic about their ability to remember, so during learning events they sometimes avoid using the kind of cognitive processing that supports long-term retention. For example, they tend to use simple rehearsal strategies as opposed to more elaborative processing. Second, learners are often too busy or distracted to devote enough time to learning. Third, learners who are graded often focus on getting good grades as opposed to supporting their long-term ability to remember. For example, they tend to cram instead of spacing their learning and practice over time. As recent research has showed, learners who are prompted to retrieve information from memory after a significant delay—typically over a week or more—are much more likely afterwards to utilize cognitive processing that propels long-term remembering. If we want our learners to remember concepts over time, we can help them by providing them with questions well after we’ve moved on to different topic areas.

15. Questions Can Support Transfer to Related Situations/Topics

It is rare for knowledge learned in one topic area to be retrieved from memory when another topic is being considered. You may have heard of this as the problem of transfer . Even when learners are given a problem to solve that closely resembles another problem they already solved, they very rarely use the solution to the solved problem to solve the second problem. In current parlance, learners “just don’t get it” unless the connections are actually practiced or made incredibly obvious. Questions provide an obvious opportunity to help support transfer. We can use questions to provide authentic scenarios to directly practice transfer. We can also provide multiple questions on the same learning point—each utilizing a different background context.

16. Questions Can Prepare Learners for Future Decision-Making

Rarely is rote recall the primary goal of instruction. Often, we want learners to be able to retrieve information from memory to make decisions. For example, history teachers might want learners to remember the lessons of the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War so that they can make better decisions about which political party to support. A biology teacher might want learners to remember how ecosystems work so that the learners will make more-informed decisions about recycling, eating, and purchasing a car. A leadership trainer might want learners to make better decisions about how to handle unstable employees. To support future decision-making, questions can be used that simulate future decision-making situations. In other words, if we give them authentic decisions to make, we’ll better prepare them to make future real-world decisions.
 
17. Questions Can Demonstrate Relevance to the Real World

Sometimes our learners aren’t preparing for specific future decision-making responsibilities, so the section immediately above may not seem to apply directly. Still, to keep learners engaged and to provide them with deep learning experiences, it may be beneficial to provide them either with decision-making questions beyond what their futures may hold and/or other questions that aren’t decision-making related but do highlight the importance of the topic.
 
18. Questions Can Help Learners Identify Their Assumptions

Questions are excellent vehicles to prompt students to identify their assumptions. Socrates used a series of questions to help pinpoint his learners’ misunderstandings. You can use a series of questions or one question to do the same.

19. Questions Can Encourage Attention to Difficult Content

When faced with extremely difficult content in a classroom situation, some learners become overwhelmed and just tune out. This can happen intentionally or automatically. Some learners will move into a state of performance anxiety that literally overloads the limited capacity of their working memories with off-task ruminations. Others will consciously tune out, expecting to be able to learn the material on their own outside the classroom. In either case, valuable learning time is lost. Questions can be used in these instances to partition the learning content into manageable chunks and to slow the flow of the lecture to give learners an opportunity to refocus their attention on processing the learning material.
 
20. Questions Can Demonstrate Learning over Time

Questions delivered in a pretest-posttest format, before and after the accompanying content, can demonstrate for learners how much they’ve learned. While this may not seem particu
larly advantageous—“Can’t they see how far they’ve come?”—learners often can’t remember their previous states of mind, so demonstrating it to them may be the only way to convince them of their progress. This has advantages for the learners, because it demonstrates that their learning efforts have value, making it more likely that they’ll approach future learning tasks with a bent toward perseverance. It has advantages for instructors as well, because it will increase learner satisfaction, instructor ratings, and will induce further learner engagement.

21. Questions Can Provide Practice in Learning with Others

Almost all learners need to be able to work with others—and learn with others. Certainly, in today’s knowledge economy, the ability to work with others is critical to success. There are at least three reasons to give them practice in working with others. First, learning with others provides people with multiple perspectives and thus a richer learning experience. Second, learning with others usually improves individual learning outcomes. It improves attention to the task. It creates more elaborate memory pathways. It prompts retrieval practice to reinforce the concepts. Finally, learning with others is preparation for their real-world futures. It helps them practice articulating their thoughts. It gives learners practice interacting and working with others.
 
22. Questions Can Be Utilized to Gather Experimental Data

This benefit doesn’t relate to all classrooms, but it can be quite powerful when it is relevant. The idea is that we can actually collect data from our learners to elucidate our topic. For example, an instructor could prompt students to respond to a typical color-blindness test by selecting an answer with their handsets. To begin a discussion of perfect pitch, an instructor could ask students to listen to a musical note and ask them to select which note it is. Gathering experimental data is particularly appropriate when the class topics revolve around issues related to human beings, for example in courses in psychology, perception, decision making, ethics, and political science, among many other similar courses. A professor teaching a course on experimental psychology might replicate famous experiments that have been done.

23. Questions Can Prompt Out-of-the-Classroom Learning Activities

The more time learners spend learning, the more they learn. The correlation isn’t perfect—not all learning is created equal—but it’s still a strong positive correlation. Whether it’s a corporate classroom or high-school chemistry lab, only so much learning can take place in the classroom. If learners can be encouraged to engage in meaningful mathemagenic (learning-creating) processing outside the classroom, their learning outcomes will be improved. Questions can prompt out-of-the-classroom learning in a number of ways. The most brutish way is through grading. If learners are graded on their handset responses, they’re more likely to prepare for classes. Note that this has to be done very carefully so as not to stifle learning in the classroom. I talk about this more in the report. We’ve already talked about how personally relevant questions can spontaneously promote out-of-the-classroom thinking related to the course content. If the questions relate to the learner’s real-world futures, cues in those future situations may remind the learners about the content they previously learned.
 
24. Questions Can Promote Thinking Skills

Helping learners digest facts, learn terminology, and understand complex topics is commendable, but not sufficient. Our learners won’t be fully prepared for their futures unless they develop thinking skills—methods to evaluate situations, solve problems, generate options, make decisions. Questions, in conjunction with classroom facilitation and well-designed classroom exercises, can promote such thinking skills, encouraging learners to (a) generate multiple solutions, (b) categorize and classify, (c) discuss, summarize, and model, (d) strategize, justify, and plan, (e) reflect and evaluate, and (f) think about thinking and learning . Questions can also help learners (g) notice the most critical factors in a chaotic swarm of stimuli, (h) utilize hypothesis generation tactics, (i) simplify complexity to within workable boundaries, (j) recognize when a proposed solution has been fully vetted, and (k), persevere in learning in the face of obstacles, etc.

Click here to download the full report.

The following articles are some of the most cited research articles in regard to audience response systems and learning. They are briefly annotated so you can quickly determine their quality and meaning.

 

Bruff, D. (2009). Teaching with classroom response systems: Creating active learning environments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Type of Publication?

Book. 

Covered What?

For the most part provides an overview of how college professors are teaching with audience response systems.

Strengths?

Does a really nice job covering some of the best ways to encourage deep student learning in the classroom. 

Weaknesses?

Looks at some of the best of “what is” in college teaching—admittedly some really good stuff—but tends to assume that this is all that is possible. Unfortunately, there are many more opportunities—based on what we know about learning—that are not included in the book.

Evaluation?

A good book, with good ideas, but this shouldn’t be seen as the full spectrum of what is possible in using audience response systems. Still, if you want to teach thoughtfully with audience response systems, you should read this book.

Buy it?

Click here to purchase from Amazon.com: Teaching with Classroom Response Systems: Creating Active Learning Environments

 

Abrahamson, L. (2006). A brief history of networked classrooms: Effects, cases, pedagogy, and implications. In David A. Banks (Ed.) Audience response systems in higher education: Applications and cases (pp. 1-25).

Type of Publication?

Book chapter. 

Reviewed What?

Reviewed the history of the use of audience response systems. 

Strengths?

Interesting and enlightening review. Who knew, for example, that audience response systems were first used in the 1960’s? 

Evaluation?

Provides a wide-ranging introduction to the history and thinking around audience response systems.

 

Barak, M., Lipson, A., & Lerman, S. (2006). Wireless laptops as means for promoting active learning in large lecture halls. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 245-263.

Type of Publication?

Descriptive article in refereed journal on learning.

Tested What?

Did not compare. Instead, the authors describe their experiences using laptops to teach computer science. They did measure student reactions.

Strengths?

One of the first articles to examine the use of wireless laptops in the classroom.

Weaknesses?

No comparison data.

Evaluation?

Not much evidence for effectiveness.

 

Beatty, I. D., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., & Dufresne, R. J. (2006). Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching. American Journal of Physics, 74(1), 31-39.

Type of Publication?

Practice review article in refereed journal on physics.

Reviewed What?

The University of Massachusetts Physic’s department’s approach to using audience response systems.

Strengths?

Very thoughtful review of their approach to using audience response systems in teaching physics.

Weaknesses?

It’s just one approach.

Evaluation?

Great article by very thoughtful practitioners. Recommended for non-physics folks as well. They make a nice case that instructors ought to have more than just content goals for their learners. Instructors ought to also have a process (cognitive) goal, and a metacognitive goal. For their physics courses, the process goals include 12 “habits of mind” that all their learners are expected to come away with as well.

 

Carnaghan, C., & Webb, A. (2005). Investigating the effects of group response systems on learning outcomes and satisfaction in accounting education. Retrieved on January 1, 2007 from www.learning.uwaterloo.ca/LIF/ responsepad_june20051.pdf

Type of Publication?

Research article (available online) on learning.

Tested What?

Compared class sessions that used an audience response system with class sessions that did not, where both types of sessions utilized active-engagement techniques. Looked at learner satisfaction, objective measures of learner engagement, and at learning results.

Strengths?

Very strong research design. Compared same learners in a counterbalanced design using audience response systems in half the class sessions and not using them in other half of sessions. Measured learning results, not just learner satisfaction ratings.

Weaknesses?

Mostly minor issues, except the fact that the authors didn’t cite raw learning results, making analysis difficult. Can’t rule out instructor-enthusiasm effects. Measures of learner engagement are not convincing because they don’t account for handset responses and they are analyzed by only one observer who was not blind to condition.

Evaluation?

Seems to demonstrate improvements in learning on exam questions that were most similar to audience-response questions used in class, but no improvement for exam questions unrelated to class questions. Also shows the typical result of high learner satisfaction with audience response systems. However, while the learners rated the audience-response systems highly, on questions about the course in general, the ratings were similar whether learners had just finished the series of sessions using (or not using) audience response systems.

 

Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970-977.

Type of Publication?

Research and practice review article in refereed journal on physics.

Reviewed What?

Eric Mazur’s (and Catherine Crouch’s) Peer Instruction practice and results. Research results compare classes taught in traditional ways to those taught with the Peer-Instruction methods.

Strengths?

Peer Instruction is one of the most widespread methodologies in use and the authors do a nice job of covering the practice and results. At least some of the research comparisons use standardized tests of physics competence, providing good face validity and lessening opportunities for bias. Many instructors utilized.

Weaknesses?

Peer Instruction is just one approach. Research comparisons are versus previously-taught traditional classes, leaving open the possibility for learning gains due to differences in instructor enthusiasm and instructor preparation. Also, because no pretests were provided on the traditional courses, we can’t rule out bias due to differences in learners.

Evaluation?

Great article by thoughtful practitioners. Research comparisons, while not perfect, are suggestive of the benefits of Peer Instruction methodologies. Note that authors do NOT focus on the use of audience response systems. In fact, in the research cited they didn’t always use them. In an endnote they say, “We did not see any significant changes in student learning on introducing the classroom network system, and find the main advantages of the [system] are anonymity of student responses and data collection…” (page 976, endnote 9). On the other hand, the improvements in results they cite (in Figure 2 on page 971 and Table 1 on page 972) all come after the audience response systems were introduced. In any case, the study did not test audience response systems vs. no audience response systems. It examined the Peer Instruction method.

 

Dori, Y. J., & Belcher (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 243-279.

Type of Publication?

Research article in refereed journal on learning.

Tested What?

Active learning methods in a specially-designed classroom that enabled simulation and visualization versus traditional lecture method in a standard classroom.

Strengths?

Interesting discussion.

Weaknesses?

Major methodological weaknesses. Comparison groups likely sampled from different populations. Conflated active learning with the many technology interventions. The treatment group received conceptual questions. The control group did not. Couldn’t rule out effects of exciting new classroom or instructor-enthusiasm effects.

Evaluation?

Major methodological weaknesses. Moreover, can’t differentiate between effects of audience response systems and the many other variables in play.

 

Draper, S. W., & Brown, M. I. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 81-94.

Type of Publication?

Research article in refereed journal on learning.

Tested What?

Student opinions of audience response systems.

Strengths?

Looked at lots of classrooms and instructors. Very thoughtful analysis of potential benefits.

Weaknesses?

Only measured student opinions. No comparison with non-ARS situation.

Evaluation?

Methodology weak, but can tell us learner opinion, and did show improvements of opinion over time.

 

Draper, S. W., & Brown, M. I. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 81-94.

Type of Publication?

Descriptive article in refereed journal on learning.

Tested What?

Did not compare. Instead, the authors describe their institution’s experiences using audience response systems to improve classroom sessions. They did measure learner and instructor reactions.

Strengths?

Looked at many different topics taught with many different learners and instructors. Thoughtful analysis.

Weaknesses?

No comparison data. No data on learning improvements, only learner and instructor opinions.

Evaluation?

No evidence for learning effectiveness, but some suggestive evidence for learner satisfaction (though there is no comparison to traditional methods). Very thoughtful analysis with many helpful suggestions for how to use audience response technology.

 

Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., & Wenk, L. (1996). Classtalk: A classroom communication system for active learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 7, 3-47.

Type of Publication?

Descriptive article in refereed journal on learning.

Tested What?

Did not compare. Instead, the authors describe their experiences using the audience response system and show some graphs of student reactions to using the response systems and active engagement.

Strengths?

An early look at how audience response systems were used.

Weaknesses?

No comparison data.

Evaluation?

Not much evidence for effectiveness.

 

Duncan, D. (2005). Clickers in the classroom: How to enhance science teaching using classroom response systems. San Francisco: Addison Wesley.

Type of Publication?

Short book (pamphlet).

Reviewed What?

Provides an introduction to using handsets in the classroom.

Strengths?

Covers many important areas. Good introduction.

Weaknesses?

Recommendations are limited to only a few questioning strategies. Book now a bit dated. Not generally available unless you contact publisher.

Evaluation?

Good primer. Could be better.

 

Hake, R. R. (1996). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64-74.

Type of Publication?

Research article in refereed journal on physics.

Tested What?

Active learning methods vs. traditional methods in classrooms.

Strengths?

Lots of classrooms, instructors, and institutions. Used nicely standardized relevant test in a pretest-posttest design.

Weaknesses?

Data seriously biased by collection method. Can’t rule out instructor bias and instructor preparation effects.

Evaluation?

Focuses not on ARS usage, but on active learning. Poor methodology makes results dubious.

 

Nicol, D. J., & Boyle, J. T. (2003). Peer instruction versus class-wide discussion in large classes: A comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom. Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 457-473.

Type of Publication?

Research article in refereed journal on learning.

Tested What?

Compared learner ratings on both peer instruction and classwide discussions, both of which were used in conjunction with audience response systems. 

Strengths?

Used a within-subject design, examining the feelings of the same students to both peer-instruction techniques and classwide discussion techniques. Used several methods to gather learner opinions.

Weaknesses?

Measured only learner opinions, not actual learning results.

Evaluation?

Shows that learners seem to prefer peer-instruction techniques to classwide-discussion techniques (when both are used with audience response systems).

 

Poulis, J., Massen, C., Robens, E., & Gilbert, M. (1998). Physics lecturing with audience paced feedback. American Journal of Physics, 66(5), 439-441.

Type of Publication?

Short research-like article in refereed journal on physics.

Tested What?

Compared examination pass rates over the years when physics classes used, or did not use, simple one-button handsets.

Strengths?

Used an ABA design, measuring actual learning results, comparing no-handset classes in Year’s 1 and 2 versus handset classes in Year’s 3 and 4, and no-handset classes in Year’s 5 and 6.

Weaknesses?

Methodology section is too brief to really assess the experimental methodology. The one-button handsets in use are much more basic than today’s handsets. Use of handsets was conflated with active-engagement techniques, so we can’t be sure what produced the effect, handsets or active-engagement. No statistics were used, making it difficult to assess comparisons, though the handset classes appear to generally—but not always—outperform the no-handset classes.

Evaluation?

Shows suggestive improvements in learning due to active engagement and handset use, but methodology is quite suspect.

Abrahamson, L. (2006). A brief history of networked classrooms: Effects, cases, pedagogy, and implications. In David A. Banks (Ed.) Audience response systems in higher education: Applications and cases (pp. 1-25).


Type of Publication?

Book chapter.

Reviewed What?

Reviewed the history of the use of audience response systems.

Strengths?

Interesting and enlightening review. Who knew, for example, that audience response systems were first used in the 1960’s?

Evaluation?

Provides a wide-ranging introduction to the history and thinking around audience response systems.

 

Barak, M., Lipson, A., & Lerman, S. (2006). Wireless laptops as means for promoting active learning in large lecture halls. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 245-263.


Type of Publication?

Descriptive article in refereed journal on learning.

Tested What?

Did not compare. Instead, the authors describe their experiences using laptops to teach computer science. They did measure student reactions. 

Strengths?

One of the first articles to examine the use of wireless laptops in the classroom.

Weaknesses?

No comparison data.

Evaluation?

Not much evidence for effectiveness.

 

Beatty, I. D., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., & Dufresne, R. J. (2006). Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching. American Journal of Physics, 74(1), 31-39.


Type of Publication?

Practice review article in refereed journal on physics.

Reviewed What?

The University of Massachusetts Physic’s department’s approach to using audience response systems.

Strengths?

Very thoughtful review of their approach to using audience response systems in teaching physics.

Weaknesses?

It’s just one approach.

Evaluation?

Great article by very thoughtful practitioners. Recommended for non-physics folks as well. They make a nice case that instructors ought to have more than just content goals for their learners. Instructors ought to also have a process (cognitive) goal, and a metacognitive goal. For their physics courses, the process goals include 12 “habits of mind” that all their learners are expected to come away with as well.

 

Carnaghan, C., & Webb, A. (2005). Investigating the effects of group response systems on learning outcomes and satisfaction in accounting education. Retrieved on January 1, 2007 from www.learning.uwaterloo.ca/LIF/ responsepad_june20051.pdf


Type of Publication?

Research article (available online) on learning.

Tested What?

Compared class sessions that used an audience response system with class sessions that did not, where both types of sessions utilized active-engagement techniques. Looked at learner satisfaction, objective measures of learner engagement, and at learning results.

Strengths?

Very strong research design. Compared same learners in a counterbalanced design using audience response systems in half the class sessions and not using them in other half of sessions. Measured learning results, not just learner satisfaction ratings.

Weaknesses?

Mostly minor issues, except the fact that the authors didn’t cite raw learning results, making analysis difficult. Can’t rule out instructor-enthusiasm effects. Measures of learner engagement are not convincing because they don’t account for handset responses and they are analyzed by only one observer who was not blind to condition.

Evaluation?

Seems to demonstrate improvements in learning on exam questions that were most similar to audience-response questions used in class, but no improvement for exam questions unrelated to class questions. Also shows the typical result of high learner satisfaction with audience response systems. However, while the learners rated the audience-response systems highly, on questions about the course in general, the ratings were similar whether learners had just finished the series of sessions using (or not using) audience response systems.

 

Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970-977.


Type of Publication?

Research and practice review article in refereed journal on physics.

Reviewed What?

Eric Mazur’s (and Catherine Crouch’s) Peer Instruction practice and results. Research results compare classes taught in traditional ways to those taught with the Peer-Instruction methods.

Strengths?

Peer Instruction is one of the most widespread methodologies in use and the authors do a nice job of covering the practice and results. At least some of the research comparisons use standardized tests of physics competence, providing good face validity and lessening opportunities for bias. Many instructors utilized.

Weaknesses?

Peer Instruction is just one approach. Research comparisons are versus previously-taught traditional classes, leaving open the possibility for learning gains due to differences in instructor enthusiasm and instructor preparation. Also, because no pretests were provided on the traditional courses, we can’t rule out bias due to differences in learners.

Evaluation?

Great article by thoughtful practitioners. Research comparisons, while not perfect, are suggestive of the benefits of Peer Instruction methodologies. Note that authors do NOT focus on the use of audience response systems. In fact, in the research cited they didn’t always use them. In an endnote they say, “We did not see any significant changes in student learning on introducing the classroom network system, and find the main advantages of the [system] are anonymity of student responses and data collection…” (page 976, endnote 9). On the other hand, the improvements in results they cite (in Figure 2 on page 971 and Table 1 on page 972) all come after the audience response systems were introduced. In any case, the study did not test audience response systems vs. no audience response systems. It examined the Peer Instruction method.

 

Dori, Y. J., & Belcher (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 243-279.


Type of Publication?

Research article in refereed journal on learning.

Tested What?

Active learning methods in a specially-designed classroom that enabled simulation and visualization versus traditional lecture method in a standard classroom.

Strengths?

Interesting discussion.

Weaknesses?

Major methodological weaknesses. Comparison groups likely sampled from different populations. Conflated active learning with the many technology interventions. The treatment group received conceptual questions. The control group did not. Couldn’t rule out effects of exciting new classroom or instructor-enthusiasm effects.

Evaluation?

Major methodological weaknesses. Moreover, can’t differentiate between effects of audience response systems and the many other variables in play.

 

Draper, S. W., & Brown, M. I. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 81-94.


Type of Publication?

Research article in refereed journal on learning.

Tested What? 

Student opinions of audience response systems.

Strengths?

Looked at lots of classrooms and instructors. Very thoughtful analysis of potential benefits.

Weaknesses?

Only measured student opinions. No comparison with non-ARS situation.

Evaluation?

Methodology weak, but can tell us learner opinion, and did show improvements of opinion over time.

 

Draper, S. W., & Brown, M. I. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 81-94.


Type of Publication?

Descriptive article in refereed journal on learning.

Tested What?

Did not compare. Instead, the authors describe their institution’s experiences using audience response systems to improve classroom sessions. They did measure learner and instructor reactions.

Strengths?

Looked at many different topics taught with many different learners and instructors. Thoughtful analysis.

Weaknesses?

No comparison data. No data on learning improvements, only learner and instructor opinions.

Evaluation?

No evidence for learning effectiveness, but some suggestive evidence for learner satisfaction (though there is no comparison to traditional methods). Very thoughtful analysis with many helpful suggestions for how to use audience response technology.

 

Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., & Wenk, L. (1996). Classtalk: A classroom communication system for active learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 7, 3-47.


Type of Publication?

Descriptive article in refereed journal on learning.

Tested What?

Did not compare. Instead, the authors describe their experiences using the audience response system and show some graphs of student reactions to using the response systems and active engagement.

Strengths?

An early look at how audience response systems were used.

Weaknesses?

No comparison data.

Evaluation?

Not much evidence for effectiveness.

 

Duncan, D. (2005). Clickers in the classroom: How to enhance science teaching using classroom response systems. San Francisco: Addison Wesley.


Type of Publication?

Short book (pamphlet).

Reviewed What?

Provides an introduction to using handsets in the classroom

Strengths?

Covers many important areas. Good introduction.

Weaknesses?

Recommendations are limited to only a few questioning strategies. Book now a bit dated. Not generally available unless you contact publisher.

Evaluation?

Good primer. Could be better.

 

Hake, R. R. (1996). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64-74.


Type of Publication?

Research article in refereed journal on physics.

Tested What?

Active learning methods vs. traditional methods in classrooms.

Strengths?

Lots of classrooms, instructors, and institutions. Used nicely standardized relevant test in a pretest-posttest design.

Weaknesses?

Data seriously biased by collection method. Can’t rule out instructor bias and instructor preparation effects.

Evaluation?

Focuses not on ARS usage, but on active learning. Poor methodology makes results dubious.

 

Nicol, D. J., & Boyle, J. T. (2003). Peer instruction versus class-wide discussion in large classes: A comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom. Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 457-473.


Type of Publication?

Research article in refereed journal on learning.

Tested What?

Compared learner ratings on both peer instruction and classwide discussions, both of which were used in conjunction with audience response systems.  

Strengths?

Used a within-subject design, examining the feelings of the same students to both peer-instruction techniques and classwide discussion techniques. Used several methods to gather learner opinions.

Weaknesses?

Measured only learner opinions, not actual learning results.

Evaluation?

Shows that learners seem to prefer peer-instruction techniques to classwide-discussion techniques (when both are used with audience response systems).

 

Poulis, J., Massen, C., Robens, E., & Gilbert, M. (1998). Physics lecturing with audience paced feedback. American Journal of Physics, 66(5), 439-441.


Type of Publication?

Short research-like article in refereed journal on physics.

Tested What?

Compared examination pass rates over the years when physics classes used, or did not use, simple one-button handsets. 

Strengths?

Used an ABA design, measuring actual learning results, comparing no-handset classes in Year’s 1 and 2 versus handset classes in Year’s 3 and 4, and no-handset classes in Year’s 5 and 6.

Weaknesses?

Methodology section is too brief to really assess the experimental methodology. The one-button handsets in use are much more basic than today’s handsets. Use of handsets was conflated with active-engagement techniques, so we can’t be sure what produced the effect, handsets or active-engagement. No statistics were used, making it difficult to assess comparisons, though the handset classes appear to generally—but not always—outperform the no-handset classes.

Evaluation?

Shows suggestive improvements in learning due to active engagement and handset use, but methodology is quite suspect.

If you really want to know what Will Thalheimer’s up to—if you want to be the first to know when new research and information is revealed, if you want to be the first to get involved in Will’s Book Project—sign up here.

 

Questioning Strategies for Audience Response Systems:
How to Use Questions to Maximize Learning, Engagement, and Satisfaction

by Dr. Will Thalheimer


Introduction

    The buzz in the learning industry is focused on e-learning, m-learning, wikis, and blogs; but one of the most powerful learning technologies is being overlooked, probably because it’s an in-the-classroom technology—audience response systems. In this research-to-practice white paper I offer a blueprint for how to use audience response systems to maximize higher-order learning in the classroom and beyond.

What One Reader Wrote to Me:

Dr. Thalheimer,

Just wanted to drop you a little note this morning to express my gratitude for your paper “Questioning Strategies for Audience Response Systems: How to Use Questions to Maximize Learning, Engagement, and Satisfaction.”

A friend recommended that I read it to prepare for a Higher Order Questioning staff development class that she and I are teaching together (in conjunction with some CPS [audience response] training we’re offering). To tell you the truth, I really wasn’t looking forward to reading it because I expected it to be dry and full of boring I’m-trying-to-sound-snobbily-intellectual writing, but I LOVED it. 🙂

I enjoyed your approachable style and dry sense of humor so much I read all the way through (including the endnotes!) and had many a good laugh along the way. In addition to being a blast to read, the paper challenged and inspired me to find new ways to push my questioning skills to a higher level for the next school year.

Thanks again, for the inspiration and for the great read. I’ll be checking out your website later today and hope to find that equally enjoyable.

    Sincerely,

    Liz Walhof

    Spanish Teacher
    Colorado


From the Paper’s Introduction

“Audience response systems have enormous potential for transforming lectures from dry recitals into rich jam sessions of deeply resonant learning. The technology is widely available, but the key to success is not in the technology; it’s in the instruction. To maximize meaningful learning, instructors must become adept in using questioning and discussion techniques. Unfortunately, some of us may come to believe that we can simply sprinkle our lectures with a few multiple-choice questions. This approach is emphatically inadequate, and is simply not worthy of our profession.

This report provides a near-exhaustive list of questioning strategies, and a comprehensive guide on using questions to facilitate classroom learning. No other resource exists that is research-based and comprehensive, while also being practical and useful. It has been designed specifically to provide practical guidance for trainers, teachers, and professors so that their learners—whether they are eight, forty-eight, or eighty years old—can experience deep and meaningful learning.”

Special thanks to eInstruction for agreeing to license the paper for distribution to their clients. Such underwriting helps move the audience-response field forward and demonstrates an enlightened commitment to effective learning in classrooms of all types throughout the world. Other underwriting opportunities are available for research on audience-response learning. Contact Dr. Thalheimer with inquiries.


Additional Information

    Number of Pages: 124
    Number of Research Citations: 54
    Publication Date: 2007
    Available to you Immediately as downloadable Electronic file (PDF).
    Value: $495.00 (US) but FREE to you.


Download Button