I have the unusual luxury of two whole weeks at the office before teaching begins and while I do have quite a few other things to do, I’m happy to have time to really think about how I want to teach this semester’s course.

Benedikte Irgens, who teaches Japanese here at UiB, linked on Facebook to this article about the use of clickers in teaching medicine at the University of Oslo. An immediate discussion broke out about whether or not clickers can be useful in teaching in the humanities, where we often want critical thinking and reflection rather than true/false answers, and so I remembered that Liz Lawley uses clickers, and she writes that

instead of using this for multiple-choice quizzing, I use this for things like “Choose Your Own Lecture,” in which students pick which path I take through the lecture material, or for polling the students on what they thought about a required reading or video, or for letting them vote on whether we should end class early on a beautiful day and go outside. It’s not perfect, but it’s a way to discourage passivity.

Next I found a whole book, by Derek Bruff, about creative ways of  using them precisely to foster classroom discussion and higher-order thinking. So now of course I want to try out clickers in the classroom, being a nut for trying out new and interesting teaching tricks. But I think not this semester.

Reading about clickers led me to another post on Derek Bruff’s blog about structured Twitter assignments, where he gives a couple of examples of ways teachers have used Twitter in teaching. It’s key, Bruff argues, that students have clear deliverables and aren’t just asked to Tweet whatever they feel like, and also that “student tweets are aggregated and analysed” and not just ignored. An examples is Mark Sample’s use of Storify to gather student tweets about watching Blade Runner, or using Poll Everywhere, as Corbette Doyle has done, to have students vote on which questions (previously posed on Twitter) should be addressed in an upcoming class.

I like the idea of requiring questions on the readings before class and gathering them somehow. Corbette Doyle used HootSuite, which seems to gather Tweets from your students and let you (and the students) easily read them. I’m not sure how much added value this really gives you in comparison to simply using a Twitter hash tag or a Facebook group for class discussions.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

2 thoughts on “tools for teaching

  1. Catherine Shuler

    tools for teaching :: http://t.co/dDSg0SFp

  2. Derek Bruff

    Glad you like the book and the recent blog post. For more inspiration for using clickers in the humanities, you might check out some of my older posts on clickers and critical thinking: http://derekbruff.org/?tag=critical-thinking.

    Good luck with your refinements to your upcoming course. If you try out clickers or structured Twitter assignments, I’d be eager to hear about it.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Screenshot of a paragraph from a New York Times article published May 12, 2026. Text reads: "The price of tomatoes -tart bursts of flavor in salads and sandwiches — surged nearly 40 percent in April from a year ago on a combination of bad weather, high tariffs and climbing transportation costs."
AI STORIES

Genre glitches and unexpected promotional phrases as a sign of AI writing

A genre glitch is a characteristic of LLM-assisted writing where the text suddenly switches genre, typically inserting a short promotional phrase full of sensory details into an informational text. Genre glitches occur when a word in the generated text is heavily associated with a genre or context that is markedly […]

Top of a ransom note from Shinyhunters hacking group. Text reads: "SHINYHUNTERS rooting your systems since '19 ;) ShinyHunters has breached Instructure (again). Instead of contacting us to resolve it they ignored us and did some "security patches"."
Networked Politics University politics

UiB self-hosts the open source version of Canvas, so wasn’t affected by the breach

On May 1st Canvas announced a security breach, and then yesterday the system was hacked. The login page was replaced by a ransom note: if universities don’t pay up by 12 May, student data will be released. Here’s what the login page looked like yesterday: Way back in 2015, when […]

AI and algorithmic culture Networked Politics

AI-generated images, fascist aesthetics: Dieselbrølet and Heimatstrom

My German is pretty dodgy, so when I first saw Heimatstrom on Bluesky, shared by Roland Meyer, a professor of visual culture at Universität Zürich’s Digital Society Initiative, I misinterpreted it and thought it was a far-right campaign. But no, Heimatstrom is a group of left-wing environmentalists using fascist AI […]

Photo of a billboard ad at Oslo S train station showing a smiliing conductor and the text "Du må ikke sove. Joda, bare sov du."
AI STORIES

“Du må ikke sove”: a floating motif detached from its meaning (or: LLMs can write Norwegian but miss cultural references)

There’s a new ad for the train between Stavanger and Oslo in Norway that uses a line from Arnulf Øverland’s famous anti-fascist poem Du må ikke sove (“You must not sleep”). Du må ikke sove, you must not sleep, the ad says. And then it flips it, jovially, joda, bare […]

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.