Example Of Nursing Case Study Essay

Response Cards in Classrooms Response Cards (ARC) have boomed as a teaching resource with classrooms throughout Australia and internationally. Their aim is to limit the amount of avoidable disruption that occurs in the learning environment by helping to keep students engaged and on-task. Supporters of ARC implementation in classrooms report heightened student participation, in turn, leading to improved academic achievement of students.

Heard (1994) proclaims that 'response cards are cards, signs or items that are held up simultaneously by all students to display their response to a question or problem presented by the teacher. This new form of "low-tech" learning technology can be used across many key learning areas as they provide equal opportunity for all students to actively participate and contribute during lessons.

Furthermore, ARCS generate an engaging and lively classroom environment contradictory to the lack of participation that is characteristic of more teacher-centered classrooms. Furthermore, the variability of activities that ARCS allow for help to generate a more positive and productive teacher-student relationship. Rationales and Evidence Base A substantial amount of research has been conducted on ARC use to determine the outcomes they improve, and how significant these improvements may be.

Order custom essay Example Of Nursing Case Study Essay with free plagiarism report

450+ experts on 30 subjects Starting from 3 hours delivery

Get Essay Help

Current research purports similar rationales and findings, including that ARCS stimulate engagement from an entire class during a lesson, allow students to clearly communicate their understanding of specific course content, allow the educator to detect when a student does not fully comprehend a particular concept within course material, and help decrease disruption and the prevalence of off-task behavior (Blackwell & McLaughlin, 2005; Heard, 1994; Maroon, 2007; Randolph, 2007). In The Classroom Experiment, William argues that ARCS are an incredibly important educational development.

William expected that Arcs, such as "mint-whiteboards" would help teachers to quickly identify when pupils did and did not have a solid understanding of specific course content. Further, William hypothesized that these ARCS would promote the engagement of every student in the classroom, as they would have no chance to "hide" an incorrect response. It was clear from the observations and reflections of the students and the teaching staff, that the implementation of these "mint-whiteboards" was achieving Williams goals.

Teachers at the school reported that the "mint-whiteboards" were lawful in quickly identifying the students' misconceptions and that they thoroughly increased classroom participation. It was further found that students also had a positive learning experience through the use of this type of ARC, with some children saying that on the whole, the use of this new learning technology improved their time within the classroom, by allowing them to help each other with their work.

One student proclaimed it was an easier method of receiving information, and more interesting than reading it out of a book. In order for ARCS to be effective they must multitudinously engage and involve all members of the class, and disallow for any biases regarding individual differences in ability (Heard, 1994). In the Classroom Experiment, Williams implementation of the "mint-whiteboards" is concurrent with this. ARCS require all learners to provide a response, thereby eliminating the teacher's challenge of engaging and including all students.

Previous pedagogies, such as the "raise your hands" approach, promoted higher ability students to constantly offer their answers, disallowing the opportunity for lower ability students have their misconceptions realigned. This provided a difficult task for the teachers as they were unable to determine the cognitive ability, and learning of some crescents. In the Classroom Experiment, William rationalists the use of Arcs, such as "motherboards", by purporting that they allow teachers to clearly identify who does and does not understand, so that no student is left behind.

Further, this form of ARC allowed the students who frequently gave responses, in the previous hand-raising environment, to still participate in classroom activities. Moreover, the students who, previously, did not often participate get the chance to show what they do know, and eave their misconceptions corrected. Heard (1994), in his examination of Arcs, reports identical hypotheses to those of William in the Classroom Experiment. It is discussed that ARCS provide all students the opportunity to respond, and further, they are able to learn by observing each other.

Following this, Heard (1994) suggests that ARCS allow teachers to more easily detect understanding of the students, through individual response. Heard (1994) discusses the cavalcade of experimental paradigms that have tested these hypotheses, one such is the Nary Experiment. This experiment clearly portrayed how effective ARCS are within he classroom setting. When students began to use the Arcs, every student made about 30 responses during the lesson, this is compared to the average two responses from each child per lesson when using the "raise your hands" approach.

Extrapolating these findings, Heard (1994) highlights that by replacing the "raise your hands" approach with Arcs, for only 20 minutes during the day, lead to approximately 5000 more responses from a student per year. It is therefore evident that Warhead's (1994) rationale purporting that ARCS promote higher student engagement and response was found to have significant empirical support. Another of Warhead's (1994) key rationales for the use of ARCS is his assertion that ARC implementation will promote higher test scores.

In order to support this rationale, Heard (1994) looked at the daily quiz scores of students, finding that when ARCS were used, average quiz scores were higher than those found during the use of the "raise your hands" approach. Thus, the positive effect of ARCS on improving pupils' grades is highly evident. By Stanchion's Principle of Connectivity, in order for the new pedagogy to be deemed efficacious, it must be founded on, and substantiated by, empirical search (Stanchion & Stanchion, 2003).

There is significant statistical support in the literature to suggest that widespread implementation of ARCS is necessary to improve students' learning outcomes (Randolph, 2007; Blackwell & McLaughlin, 2005). There is a vast array of research that supports the claims that ARCS decrease classroom disruptions, decrease students' off-task behavior and increases student engagement, all of which lead to improved academic results. When comparing the "raise your hands" approach to the implementation of Arcs, Randolph (2007) reports some convincing findings.

The proportion of students achieving 80% or better in the "hand-raising" condition was 41. 8% for test scores, and 29. 7% for quiz scores. However, through the use of Arcs, the group of high achieving students rose to 52. 1% for test scores and a staggering 62. 2% for quiz scores. Finally, students taught using ARCS achieved test scores 0. 8 standard deviations higher than those taught using the "raise your hands" approach. Not only efficacious in improving academic performance, ARCS have been demonstrated to provide significant reductions in classroom disruption and off-task behavior of students.

In his ARC condition, Randolph (2007) found that student participation was 35. 6% higher in the ARC condition than in the "raise your hands" condition. Blackwell and McLaughlin (2005) further report that fatsos behavior, in the "raise your hands" condition, was prevalent 56% of the time, compared to 6% in the ARC condition. Finally, it is also reported that the use of ARCS led to 8% disruptive behavior, compared to 33% in the "raise your hands" approach. Thus, the evidence suggests that ARC implementation has great effect in reducing the amount of classroom disruption and off-task student behavior.

Further, ARCS have been continually shown to increase the participation and engagement of students, compared to the "raise your hands" response technique. Thus the empirical research on ARCS is clear in supporting the rationales purported by educational experts. In the Classroom Experiment, William was able to demonstrate that ARCS are incredibly beneficial for both student and teacher, through the increasingly positive atmosphere generated in the classroom, and the academic achievements of the students. As reported above, the literature is expansive in its support of the claims of

ARC advocates (Blackwell & McLaughlin, 2005; Heard, 1994; Maroon, 2007; Randolph, 2007). This new, "low-tech" learning technology has been shown to increase student participation, decrease the amount of off-task behaviors, limit the amount of classroom disruption and have an overall positive effect on the test scores of learners. Student Welfare, Good Discipline and Effective Learning Policy When used in any classroom environment, response cards are a very effective tool in promoting the learning of all students in the class, regardless of ability, as their premise is heavily founded on inclusively and participation.

Not only do ARCS assist in the students' level of engagement within the classroom environment, but they also assist the teacher in their behavior management of the class (good discipline), the confidence and mindset of the students (student welfare) and the ability of the students to process the information (effective learning). The "motherboards" featured in the Classroom Experiment, act as an important formative assessment within all classrooms to allow the teachers to actively self-assess.

Teachers are able to quickly assess whether their current teaching method and style is allowing the students to get the most out of the Essen and conduct their behavior in a manner that meets the goals of the policy. This is sanctioned through the immediate formatively assessed response provided by ARCS (Heard, 1994; Maroon, 2007). The first part of the policy that can be addressed through the use of the ARCS is the student welfare component. The welfare of students is paramount within any educational facility.

Wanes (1996) stresses the importance of a welfare system to be a network that provides social and emotional support. ARCS are an excellent way of understanding how the students are progressing and how they are feeling about ACH topic and also school life, and thus, satisfy Wanes' (1996) assertion. By using ARCS in different environments in the school, teachers are able to better regulate student behavior (Blackwell & McLaughlin, 2005). This is important as it links in with the discipline component of the welfare policy.

Student welfare is heavily reliant on the behaviors and attitudes of the students, and ARCS help to create a greater sense of community as the students are given increased responsibility in their learning, and nurturing of the school environment. No longer are they able to sit idle in class, ARCS force each and every student to be accountable for their understanding of the content. Activities that involve ARCS may be related to listing the most interesting thing in the school in their opinion.

This allows the students to find their own connection to the school and their community, ultimately bettering their behavior due to their community pride, and creating a better student welfare system in the school environment. Many of the "good discipline" goals, presented within the "Student Welfare, Good Discipline and Effective Learning Policy', can be reached and accomplished through the use of ARCS in a variety of ways. Arcs, being an interactive and entertaining resource can be presented to the class as a privilege, with bad behavior resulting in less time with the resource.

This promotes the students' responsibility to their behavior and the resource, and further, increases their on-task engagement (Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Within the Classroom Experiment, William argued that by presenting the "mint-whiteboards" to the students as a privilege, where misbehaver led to removal of this privilege, and when used in conjunction with other teaching techniques ("lollipop-sticks", "traffic-light cups") teachers were able to create a costive and active learning classroom environment for all the students.

Initially, in the Classroom Experiment, teachings displayed indecision and hesitancy during Williams introduction of the "mint-whiteboards". When the students were first presented with this form of ARC there was a generally positive reaction. However, their attention quickly wavered and the privilege was briskly revoked by the teacher. This action used the "mint-whiteboards" as a form of discipline.

All students were given the responsibility to appropriately use the "mint-whiteboard", however, they did not et the objectives outlined within the policy, which states that 'students will be able to learn without disruption from unruly behavior' (New South Wales Department of School Education, 1996, p. 7). In turn, the privilege was removed, thus the students had to learn from this punishment, so that they would have more respect for the ARC resource in the next opportunity.

Furthermore, Arcs, such as "mint-whiteboards", effectively help teachers and students reach the goals of the "Student welfare, Good Discipline and Effective Learning Policy' by having the responsibility of their learning and welfare being put back on the student. The New South Wales Department of School Education (1996) highlights the importance of students participating as equals in all facets of their schooling life. This goal, being a core element to student welfare, is achieved by growing student confidence, another positive outcome of Arcs.

Within the school environment, confidence is of enormous importance when examining student morale and in turn, student welfare. In Shuck and Sears's (2007) comparative study, teachers reported that when primary school students were given interactive whiteboards or similar resources, the students thrived. One teacher stated 'Students re "exhibitionists" and hence liked to use the whiteboard for "projecting" their work and their thinking. ' (p. 52). Here, it is evident that the implementation of Arcs, such as interactive whiteboards allow students to confidently, and proudly, display their work.

This method of teaching is highly effective in increasing students' motivation and concentration maintenance. An assistant principal reported that 'shy students now want to share and present their work... They're Just freely talking because they have the visual prompt' (Carney & Shuck, 2007, p. 52). The responsibility is shifted to the dents to get the most out of the work and use the resource productively, thereby creating a better learning environment. Further, teachers are able to better manage discipline and behavioral issues within the classroom.

Effective learning is an essential component of the "Student Welfare, Good Discipline and Effective Learning Policy'. As such, there are many outcomes and objectives to be addressed, and most of these can be assisted by the use of a learning resource, particularly, Arcs. Arguably, the most important and relevant objectives are the 'establishing [of] well-managed teaching and learning environments... And] encouraging students to take responsibility for their own learning (New South Wales Department of School Education, 1996, p. ). These crucial objectives of effective learning are centered on the classroom environment and the ability of the teacher to create an engaging lesson. In classroom settings, engagement is particularly important because it functions as a behavioral pathway through which students' motivational processes contribute to their subsequent learning and development (Connell & Hellebore, 1991). Thus, any learning resource must promote student engagement and motivation, and this is the Tara effect of ARC implementation.

The use of a "mint-whiteboard" actively shifts the onus of learning onto the students as they know that they are being formatively assessed during the course of their learning. ARCS such as "mint-whiteboards" encourage the students to participate in the lesson, and further can highlight to the teacher where their teaching styles may need adapting. The teacher is able to quickly and effectively see when students are participating and attending to the content, and where misconceptions may lie.

Therefore, they are able to take the student aside, without the humiliation of the rest f the class knowing they are struggling, and work to increase performance. The advantage of this technique is its efficacy in a range of classrooms, at any grade level (Randolph, 2007). In the Classroom Experiment, the "mint-whiteboards" were deemed effective by the mathematics, English and humanities teachers. Further, William argued that ARCS are appropriate for all ability levels, helping under-confident students to express their skills and knowledge.

This is reflective of the outcomes in the "Student Welfare, Good Discipline and Effective Learning Policy' in which Students will develop competencies which enhance the quality of their relationships with others... [and] students will feel valued as learners' (New South Wales Department of School Education, 1996, p. 5). Other forms of formative assessment, such as checking workbooks as the lesson progresses are less productive than Arcs.

This method has none of the engaging capabilities of ARCS and further disrupts the rhythm of the lesson, creating opportunities for distraction and misbehaver. Thus, the implementation of Arcs, such as the "mint-whiteboards" used in the Classroom Experiment are effective in promoting the effective learning of students, in turn, promoting better results, and greater productive work. There are many different techniques that can be employed by teachers, with the use of Arcs, to effectively meet and exceed the goals of the "Student Welfare, Good Discipline and Effective Learning Policy'.

Using different teaching styles and methods, teachers can engage students of all abilities in the content of each lesson while being able to formatively assess each student during the learning of the content. Used effectively, ARCS can act as a motivation for the students to regulate heir own learning and behavior, and allow teachers to discipline within the class and school environment. Strengths and Weaknesses of Response Cards As reported above, the strengths of ARCS are quite substantial. The literature has empirically supported the claims of many educational practitioners that purport the positive outcomes associated with Arcs.

Implementing ARCS in classrooms leads to greater student participation and engagement in on-task behaviors, improved academic performance, the teacher is able to identify students' misconceptions, and students learn from each other at a higher rate than in a hand-raising approach Blackwell & McLaughlin, 2005; Heard, 1994; Maroon, 2007; Randolph, 2007). Furthermore, as discussed previously, ARCS are effective in satisfying the stipulations in the "Student Welfare, Good Discipline and Effective Learning Policy'.

ARCS have been found to be generally well-liked by students, and this is arguably one of the greatest strengths of Arcs. Heard (1994) discusses that ARCS are a relatively low-cost learning technology, and hence, do not present a great expense for schools. By using Arcs, the teacher can formatively assess not only the students' understanding of the content, UT their own teaching style and efficacy. Research emphasizes that expert teachers engage in constant reflection of their teaching, adapting it so to improve the learning of their students (Thus, 2009).

ARCS allow teachers to quickly and effectively gauge how well the majority of the students are comprehending the lesson, and can alter their approach if needed. Further, Maroon (2007) discusses the importance of mild pressure in promoting student motivation and engagement, and ARCS effectively allow teachers to do so. Each student knows that their individual response will be seen by he teacher, and potentially their peers, and as a result engages more in the lesson, and attempts to provide a more accurate response. Finally, ARCS have been shown to be efficacious in a broad range of contexts (Randolph, 2007).

ARCS have been attributed to higher achievement in test, quiz and essay scores in all stages of education (primary, secondary, tertiary), across various key learning areas (I. E. Mathematics, English, science, etc. ) and for both disabled and general learning environments. Although ARCS have a wealth of associated advantages, there are some practical limitations of this technology (Randolph, 2007). Heard (1994) highlights that whilst increasing active student responding is important, it is only one third of the broader learning trial involving the content, response and teacher feedback.

It is thus reported that in order for ARCS to be effectively implemented into classrooms, they must be supported by a strong and direct curriculum that helps to support the students' learning. Furthermore, the feedback the teacher provides during each learning trial must be corrective and constructive, though non-humiliating. It is therefore evident that Arcs, alone, will not deliver on academic and behavioral gains unless supplemented by a wallpapered curriculum and appropriate teacher response. Herein lies another limitation of Arcs, one shared by any new pedagogy.

New technologies are limited by the teacher's ability to adapt the technology to their classroom, adapt their teaching style to the technology, maintain their pace, and have patience enough to allow the students to practice with the technology before it becomes effective (Randolph, 2007). As seen in the Classroom Experiment, teachers are often hesitant to implement these new strategies as it requires additional work and practice. Teachers' concerns lie in the time-consuming process of handing out the Arcs, and the requirement of additional stationary to use the resource, I. E. Whiteboard markers for the "mint-whiteboards".

Furthermore, ARCS are limited by the time it takes for students to formulate their answer, and then write it down (Heard, 1994). Additionally, some forms of ARC use depends on a certain level of literacy amongst the students, the must be able to write down their answers which can cause discord amongst higher ability students who must wait for the lower ability students. In his meta-analysis, Randolph (2007) reports that in some cases, older students mound the use of ARCS to be somewhat childish, and thus, it is clear the ARCS are limited by how the teacher introduces and uses the technology in the classroom.

Arguably the greatest limitation of ARCS is highlighted by Maroon (2007) in his exploration of the types of questions ARCS are useful for, and the answer students can provide. Student responses must be kept to a relative minimum when using ARCS such as "mint-whiteboards". Due to the limited space and the necessity of the teacher being able to read the responses, students are unable to write anything longer than a few words. This is problematic in that the teacher can only effectively utilities ARCS in the classroom when forced-choice style questions (I. . True/false, multiple choice, etc. ) are used. This may require additional work for the teacher to come up with pre- planned multiple choice questions and answers. Thus, whilst primarily positive in outcomes, ARCS have practical limitations associated with space to write answers, time spent engaging in handing out of the resource, and the ability of the teacher to promote a classroom environment that stimulates a lively pace and allows students the confidence to surrender their responses. Randolph, 2007).

Response Cards in the Teaching of Federal Government The experiences of educational professionals using ARCS in the classroom have been hallucinated. In an Internet blob, Waxier (n. D. ) discusses his use of pre-printed response cards in the teaching and reviewing of the three branches of the federal government. Each student receives three cards, pre-printed with either Legislative, Judicial, or Executive. The teacher then asks questions regarding the powers held by each of these branches. Students are to listen to the question, and when signaled, hold up the appropriate card.

Waxier uses the example of "Which branch has the power to veto laws? ", noting that the correct student response is the Executive. If the majority of students are correct in holding up that particular ARC, the teacher repeats the correct answer, and moves on to the next question. However, if more than a third of the students are incorrect in their response, Waxier stresses the importance of revising how the initial material was taught, and planning following lessons to be more adaptive to the students' learning.

This is a crucial component to the teaching process. Formative assessment is incredibly useful in highlighting to the teacher hat the students comprehend during the teaching of content, rather than testing understanding at the end of the unit, as is the case with summation assessment (Heard, 1994). This helps teachers like Waxier to identify when their teaching is successful, and when important changes need to be made. Washer's (n. D. ) use of these pre-printed response cards coincides with many of the strengths of a ARC system.

In the blob, Waxier reports that all his students were more actively involved, rather than Just the more confident students, and this supports the results found by William in the Classroom Experiment. Further, Washer's ARCS are a successful example of a low-cost and low-tech teaching resource in that they are simply laminated sheets of paper. Another strength of his method is the speed and ease of use. Waxier is able to ask assorted questions regarding the branches of the government, and students are able to all respond using the cards.

As the ARCS are pre-printed, student responses are quick and efficient, and could be easily read by Waxier, a necessary consideration when using ARCS (Heard, 1994). Furthermore, this use of ARCS allows the students to learn from each other, rather than having the coacher, alone inform them of their misconceptions (Randolph, 2007). Maroon (2007) stresses the importance of mild pressure in helping keep students engaged, and Washer's use of ARCS optimists this, by ensuring that each student is made accountable for their response and thus, classroom participation. As with all pre- printed Arcs, Washer's (n. D. Are limited by the small number of different learning trials they can be used for. In this example, Washer's ARCS can only be used for questions specific to the features of the branches of the federal government, thus, additional cards would need to be created to test other topics. Alternatively, write-on Arcs, such as the "mint-whiteboards" featured in the Classroom Experiment, negate the need to create a wide variety of pre-printed responses, and would thus be an appropriate resource to use. As Heard (1994) argues, pre-printed Arcs, such as Washer's, limit the array of material the teacher is able to assess.

In this example, students could still answer with the correct branch, however, other questions could be included in the quiz, I. E. "Name the two houses of parliament", with correct students writing "Lower - House of Representatives and Upper - Senate", or some variation thereof on their Arcs. Summary Arcs, whether pre-printed or write-on, are an effective low-tech, low-cost teaching resource, and have been well supported by empirical evidence and research. In implementing "mint-whiteboards" in the Classroom Experiment, William was able to find empirical support for his claims of the advantages of Arcs.

Students benefit from the formative assessment that ARCS allow, as shown through improved academic performance, increased student participation and generally positive reactions to ARC implementation in classrooms. Teachers report that ARCS generate more on-task, and reduce disruptive, behavior, and allow them to not only recognize and correct detent misconceptions during the teaching of the content, but also identify where modifications to their teaching style are necessary to stimulate greater classroom understanding.

As discussed, ARCS are an important development as they satisfy the stipulations outlined in the "Student Welfare, Good Discipline and Effective Learning Policy'. Whilst teachers and students report the cavalcade of strengths associated with Arcs, there are limitations. Teachers must have patience to allow students to become familiar with the resource, and develop the confidence to display their answers. Further, teachers need to ensure that they maintain a lively pace in the classroom, and use ARCS as a privilege, rather than a right. In this way, students are more likely to see the removal of the ARCS as a punishment for misbehaver.

ARCS are limited by the styles of questions they are appropriate in answering, and as such work best in tandem with other pedagogical strategies. As Washer's (n. D. ) blob demonstrates, teachers are effectively utilizing ARCS in their classrooms to stimulate greater learning in their students, improved academic performance, and heightened student engagement.

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

Check my essay Hire Writer