Montgomery County Public Schools has allocated 1.

03 million dollars this year to spend

on technology equipment (MCPS, 2011). A portion of these funds should go towards purchasing

ActiVotes, a learner response system that connects directly to the Promethean boards that are

already installed in 6th grade World Studies classrooms. Through the use of ActiVotes, teachers

can link questions posed to students directly to state performance indicators and promote student

proficiency on state assessments. Research studies conducted have shown that ActiVotes

contribute to better assessment by allowing teachers to more accurately assess students

knowledge, plan for re-teaching when necessary, and provide feedback to students in a timely

manner.

The first study to consider was completed by Robert Marzano and Mark Haystead over 2

years, 2008-2010, and investigated the increase in student achievement when Promethean Boards

were used in the classroom. A portion of his research included the effectiveness of ActiVotes.

While his research was, in part, funded by Promethean, the findings should still be considered

when evaluating the usefulness of ActiVotes. Eighty-five teachers were examined the first year

(Marzano, 2009), and Forty-six the second year, (Marzano & Haystead, 2010). Pre- and

Post-tests were used as indicators of growth (Marzano & Haystead, 2010). In the first year of the

study, it was found use of Promethean Boards increased student achievement, on average, by 16

percentile points (Marzano, 2009). When instruction was combined with the use of ActiVotes,

student achievement jumped to 26 percentile points on average (Marzano, 2009). The

continuation study identified a 35 point gain in percentile (Marzano & Haystead, 2010). Such a

large gain in the second year may be a reflection of improving teacher competency with the

technology. In both years, it was proven, with success, that using ActiVotes during instruction

increased student achievement.

 The second survey of ActiVotes used in the classroom to be considered was completed by

Euline Schmid in 2003 and 2004. Schmid (2008) examined the effectiveness of using ActiVotes

in an English language learning classroom. While adult language learners were used as a sample

(2008), the same learning process of language acquisition occurs whether the student is an adult or

a middle school student. Among other advantages, Schmid found that using ActiVotes during

instruction contributed to improved assessment as teachers could use the technology to assess prior

knowledge and measure understanding before moving to new content (2008).

The final research to be taken into account when evaluating this technology was conducted

by a group of instructors at the University of South Carolina Upstate using Education majors as a

sample (Marlow, Wash, Chapman, & Dale, 2009). Again, while the findings of this study were

based on adult learners, the authors make a point that, Response technology enhances student

involvement and enables reflective teachers of any subject, at any level, to make teaching

contingent on student understanding (Marlow et al., 2009). The students involved with this

study were considered digital natives (Marlow et al., 2009), the same as our current middle

school students. ActiVotes were used in an Education classroom to practice questions for the

South Carolina certification exam (Marlow et al., 2009). The instructor discovered that by using

ActiVotes, assessment was improved because students increased their content knowledge and

were more confident in their answers (Marlow et al., 2009).

Assessment will benefit from the use of ActiVotes as teachers can more accurately assess

students knowledge. Voting systems produce students who are active participants in the

classroom (Schmid, 2008). The ActiVote functions the same as a remote control for the

television, a controller for a game console, or a cell phone which students text on. Providing

students with devices they are accustomed to puts them at ease and they become subsequently
more engaged (Marlow et al., 2009). A student in the Schmid study noted, the voting activity

made me feel participating in class more (2008). We will be better able to assess what students

truly know because they will be more engaged in answering questions using ActiVotes. Students

will be less likely to show apathy towards answering questions, and provide teachers with a

truthful picture of their level of understanding.

As ActiVotes make the opportunity for assessment quicker and more efficient, teachers can

better plan for re-teaching. Schmid utilized ActiVotes to assess prior knowledge, stating they can

be, used to evaluate students level of understanding before making certain pedagogical

decisions (2008). Using formal and informal assessments, teachers will base their lessons on

student understanding (Marlow et al., 2009). Marzano and Haystead found a strong positive

linear relationship with student achievement when ActiVotes were used to conduct formal and

informal assessments (2010). Teachers were able to thoroughly identify students level of

content knowledge (Marzano & Haystead 2010). As teachers are implementing more

assessments, they will be provided with clearer information about individual students and their

level of understanding.

ActiVotes provide students with feedback in a timely manner, a matter of seconds, and

assessment takes place immediately. No longer will students have to wait until the next day, or

longer, for an exit card to be graded and returned. In a post-observation interview, a student said,

If the others and right and only you are wrong, you must think about to learn more about this

topic (Schmid, 2007). As students have instant feedback from using the ActiVotes to answer,

they will be able to focus on areas they know they need more practice in. Another student

remarked, I wanted to have an idea of my own progress (Schmid, 2007). With feedback in real

time, students will leave the classroom knowing if they were successful for the day, or need to
refocus for the next lesson. The instructors in the University of South Carolina Upstate study

surveyed students on a level of 1 to 5, 5 being the highest, on several uses for the ActiVote (2009).

Students responded with a level of 4.58 that they believed the ActiVote helped provide instant

feedback on what students know (Marlow et al., 2009). Providing instant feedback to students

will improve the effectiveness of assessment.

There are some limitations teachers will encounter when using ActiVotes in the classroom,

including the option of students guessing, a degree of over emotional involvement in getting the

incorrect answer, and the simple fact that some teachers may just not use them because they are not

comfortable using the technology.

To avoid the limitation of guessing, teachers could create an I Dont Know option.

Students are still self-evaluating and processing the content. Students admitting that they are

unsure can positively influence the learning process (Schmid, 2008), and lead to a safe learning

environment where they feel comfortable asking for help. Providing an open forum where

content can be reviewed and re-taught will have a strong effect on student achievement (Marzano

& Haystead, 2010). When students reflect and can self-assess, they can better communicate what

content they are struggling with and those they feel they have mastered.

To address students emotional involvement in getting the wrong answer, teachers can post

a confidence indicator before the question is voted on. This would allow students to rate their

confidence in how well they believe they could answer the question (Schmid, 2008). If students

rate their confidence as generally low, teachers could allow for peer-discussions (Schmid, 2008) or

re-teach as necessary. Some students may even take this as a challenge. A student in the Schmid

study stated that when she saw her overall performance was not at the level as the rest of the class,

she was motivated to start the process of self-evaluation and correct herself (2008).
 One final limitation that may occur is teachers not using the technology because of their

confidence level. In the same survey given to the University of South Carolina Upstate students,

they responded with the lowest score (4.1) to the question, (Voting Systems) Should be used more

in the K-12 classroom (Marlow et al., 2009). As these students were Education majors, the low

score is a reflection that they are not committed to using voting technology in the classroom, even

though they found it helped them learn. Marzano and Haysteads study included teachers in their

first year, all the way to teachers who had been in the education field for 31 years (2010). Despite

novice skill levels, the use of ActiVote technology nonetheless increased student achievement.

Professional Development, built into the school day, should be used to help teachers implement

the new technology in lessons.

The benefits of ActiVote technology outweigh any limitations. Assessment will improve

as teachers can more accurately assess students knowledge, plan for re-teaching, and provide

feedback to students in a timely manner. The research has shown that using ActiVote technology

increases student achievement. It is a technology that would be worthwhile to invest in for the

benefit of our students.

References:

Marlow, D.W., Wash, P.D., Chapman, J.M., & Dale, T.M. (2009). Electronic engagement: The

use of classroom response technology in four disciplines. Currents in Teaching and

Learning, 2(1), 17-27. Retrieved from: http://www.worcester.edu

Marzano, R. J. (2009). Teaching with interactive whiteboards. Educational Leadership, 67(3),

80-82. Retrieved from: http://www.ascd.org

Marzano, R. J., & Haystead, M. W. (2010). Final report: A second year evaluation study of

Promethean ActivClassroom. Englewood, CO: Marzano Research Laboratory. Retrieved

from: http://www.prometheanworld.com/upload/pdf/MarzanoYear2_PressRelease.pdf

Montgomery County Public Schools. (2011). Approved FY2012 Operating Budget and Personnel

Complement. Retrieved from:

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/budget/FY2012/approved/pdf/chapte

r7.pdf

Schmid, E.C. (2007). Enhancing performance knowledge and self-esteem in classroom language

learning: The potential of the ACTIVote component of interactive whiteboard

technology. System, 35(2), 119-133. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2007.01.001

Schmid, E.C. (2008). Using a voting system in conjunction with interactive whiteboard

technology to enhance learning in the english language classroom. Computers and

Education, 50(1), 338-356. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.001