Like laptops and desktop computers, clickers have entered many classrooms over the past thirty years. Called “student response systems,” clickers are hand-held devices that students use to answer teacher questions.
I have seen teachers in San Francisco Bay area schools pass out clickers to high school students as they enter the classroom since the lesson the teacher prepared required students to respond by “clicking” the remote device rather than raising hands. In one math class I observed, for example, students worked on a problem in pairs or individually. Then the teacher passed out “clickers” so students could answer a multiple choice question appearing on an Interactive White Board (IWB) by voting whether A, B, C, or D answer was correct for the problem they were working on. And students did use their clickers:
The teacher then tapped a button and the results of the entire class were displayed in charts so that the teacher and students saw what percentage of the class got or missed the concept embedded in the multiple-choice question.
Then, the teacher moved on (although she could have re-taught the concept if too many students erred).
Clickers are also used in university classrooms. Over a decade ago, Northwestern University Professor Bill White who taught “Organizational Behavior” to undergraduates used them. Reactions from students to these instant voting devices vary, of course, but those responding to a journalist’s questions were positive. As one said: “I actually kind of like it. [Having clickers to register your opinion] make[s] you read. It makes you pay attention. It reinforces what you’re supposed to be doing as a student.”
One of the arguments used by boosters of clickers echoes the above student. Students participate more in class and attendance, particularly in lecture classes. Active not passive classroom learning occurs, cheerleaders for clickers claim. However, I have yet to see any studies that causally connect clickers to increased student participation.
The companies that sell “clickers” as a class set of 30-plus devices charge schools nearly $700 dollars per student. Individual students will pay around $50 for one. Here is how the student newspaper of the University of Arizona described the cost of clickers in March 2024:
If you’re one of the lucky few students who is blissfully unaware of clickers, allow me to fill you in: Clickers are very expensive pieces of technology that some professors use in large classes in order to take attendance and give quizzes on lectures. The concept is pretty straightforward, and it’s a handy tool for professors who have anywhere from 70-400 students in their classes. But the price is somewhat of a hefty one: Clickers are $80 from the UA BookStores, including a subscription. You can find a way to purchase a clicker for cheaper than this, which typically is found with ease online. However, if you do end up finding a clicker for, say, $50, you still have to purchase a subscription in order to use it, which costs at least $17.99.
Freshmen Katy Johnston, speech pathology, Fernando Diaz, pre-business, Caitlin Beall, retail and consumer sciences and Kelly Alston use traditional clickers that can be purchased at the (University) bookstore for their [Natural Sciences] 101 class taught by Harold Larson. This was the first class that Larson required students to purchase and use clickers for tracking class participation.
The entry of electronic technologies into public school and university classrooms over the past quarter-century has been accompanied by the familiar rhetoric and claims that professors and students using the “new” technologies will increase student participation thereby making learning faster and better.
Yet the evidence ain’t there. And the costly devices continue to be bought.
Larry Cuban on School Reform and Classroom Practice 
We always have to consider finances. Any tech company is going to be delighted to fill our classrooms with expensive tech. How much do they care whether or not it provides value for money? I can remember watching a demo with students doing a brainstorm using clickers. It took the entire lesson as students played around personalizing their profiles with clipart images. Students wanted to identify as Barbie dolls or Gladiators etc. After 45 minutes about a third of the students had answered the set question ‘What did you make of Wilfred Owen’s war poem with either ‘I liked it’ or ‘it sucked’. That was 45 minutes of life gone forever. The tech company, of course, still said it would eventually be marvelous if we were patient. Children get just one shot a high school. What if we have to be patient for four years?
For the last 10 years of my classroom career I resisted the use of technology and my students achieved outstanding results. The key for me was in arming myself to the teeth with useful tech that I could dazzle my students with. I built a collection of brilliant YouTube videos my students were inspired by. I’m sure some subjects will make far better use of technology than others. We do, however, have to show that what we are doing is working.
Well, Coach, you figured out which technologies helped you do what you believed would benefit students the most. Many teachers do the same as you have. People forget that the hardware and software are tools, not the end result. Thank you for commenting.
Spot on, Sir. Embracing technology on my side of the room transformed my career. Not letting my students be zombified by their Chromebooks enabled them to be enriched by the study and thinking skills I taught them.
So many of my former students stay in touch and tell me that they took my study skills with them to college and still use them in their jobs. Most of them now earn three times as much as I ever did! 🙂
One of the many non-monetary rewards of teaching, Coach.
Indeed, Sir. Priceless.