Purpose
Various digital polling tools have been adopted by faculty and staff to enhance engagement in classes, workshops, and meetings. Use of these tools was prevalent before the covid-19 pandemic but increased significantly through the pandemic and continue to be used widely since the return to campus. We expect increased usage of digital tools such as this with the Blended Learning Initiative and emphasis from instructors on active-learning techniques where polling tools are used for engagement and to assess learning outcomes.
This review was launched after receiving several requests over the past few years from faculty and staff to consider a centrally funded and recommended polling tool. After a preliminary investigation of costs associated with individual University of Waterloo licenses for Kahoot and Mentimeter, it was determined a review would be beneficial since there is opportunity to provide additional benefits and cost savings to the University.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the university obtain centrally funded site licenses for both iClicker (online cloud only) and Vevox. Coordination of polling tool site licenses will address the issues/risks mentioned in the Current State section below, and result in savings to the university over the long term. Site licenses offer the additional benefits of LMS integrations, single sign-on (SSO), user training through the vendor, a vendor account manager, user management and reporting, analytics, and additional features.
Update for fall 2024 term
In April 2024, the University funded and supported an agreement for Vevox for all faculty, staff and students for a one year pilot and four additional years if the pilot returns positive results. The cost structure of Vevox enabled the University to enter in this agreement through a request for quote (RFQ) from a minimum of three polling tool vendors, as per Policy 17. iClicker remained centrally supported with the student pay model. Since the polling tool review was originally conducted, Vevox and iClicker have both added new functionality that warrants a further look to determine if both tools are still required to meet academic and non-academic requirements. The vendor has offered iClicker to students, free of charge, for the fall 2024, winter 2025, and spring 2025 terms for the University to conduct another full comparison of iClicker and Vevox. The results of this pilot do not guarantee the University will move forward with any new or centrally funded agreements; the results will inform a decision that will also consider other factors such as projected future usage and requirements, budget, and other potential factors. If the University wishes to consider a centrally funded agreement for iClicker, Policy 17 dictates that software in this cost range must be acquired through a request for proposal (RFP) after a competitive bidding process that openly and fairly compares all responses. If the University wishes to continue with the Vevox agreement following the pilot, the remainder of the contract following the pilot year will be executed.
Polling Tools at Waterloo Today
In the absence of centrally funded, supported, and/or recommended tools, instructors, presenters, and meeting/workshop leaders have adopted a wide variety of polling tools in an ad hoc way. Some tools are hierarchical in their licensing structure and start with free versions with limited functionality and some have various levels of subscriptions with increased functionality and costs. Many of the tools will not integrate with LEARN or other university supported applications such as MS Teams or allow for single sign-on without a site license agreement. Current subscriptions are primarily paid individually by the instructor/presenter or department, but some are also paid by students.
Due to the volume of individuals using different polling tools, the ad hoc purchases introduce several issues and risks to the university, which include but are not limited to:
-
Students are frustrated with having to learn several different tools, many of which provide the same functionality.
-
Separate usernames and passwords are being created without appropriate security/privacy assessments.
-
The tools have not been assessed for accessibility compliance.
-
Students may be paying for a tool that has the same functionality as a centrally funded and supported tool.
-
Money spent on these ad hoc subscriptions can be higher than a coordinated site license.
-
In the case of student-purchased subscriptions, the University is at risk of not adhering to guidelines in relation to student-required fees towards third-party learning resources.
-
Limitations to available help/support/training on tools.
-
Students don’t have access to digital polling tools (as presenters) for activities such as class presentations and group work unless they acquire a free license, or pay for a license.
Despite the popularity of specific polling tools, at the time of the review the vendor agreements for use of those tools were between the students, staff, or faculty and not the University. To initiate a new centrally funded agreement between the University and a software vendor, an open and competitive process must be followed as outlined in Policy 17: Quotations and Tenders and provincial procurement laws for publicly funded institutions. For new University agreements at this price range, the selected solution must be the one that best meets requirements (functional, costs, privacy and security, accessibility, support, and any others specified) which may not always be the one most used on campus.
Review Summary
A focus group of 77 faculty and staff, which included CEL, CTE, ITMS, IST, academic support units (e.g., OHD) and faculty members from every Faculty.
The group came to an early consensus on key considerations:
-
A centrally supported/recommended solution should be free for staff, faculty, and students using the tool.
-
There are several different use cases related to tool capabilities such as types of questions, mathematical symbols and formulas, grading, integrations (LEARN, Teams, etc) and anonymity that cannot easily be provided through a single solution.
-
There is a difference between what various tools do, and how well they do it.
Please see Tools Reviewed for a complete list of polling tools that were assessed. The short-listed tools were reviewed in more detail to form a recommendation based on the tools that best met the use cases. Where tools are very similar in what they offer, costs were considered. The review concluded the following:
iClicker:
-
Most robust LEARN integration and grade handling capabilities.
-
Simplest integration with other presentation tools, such as PowerPoint.
-
Functionality and licensing are very academically focused and do not work well for other use cases for meetings and workshops.
-
Includes many question types, but does not have functionality for gamification, word clouds, Q&A, and some others requested.
Vevox:
-
Functionality for gamification, word clouds, Q&A and other such features, with up to 5,000 participants in a session.
-
Integration with LEARN and single sign-on, as well as Powerpoint, MS Teams and Zoom.
-
Appears to have the best integration with MS Teams and PowerPoint presentations.
-
Supports math notation (LaTeX).
Poll Everywhere:
-
Functionality for gamification, word clouds, Q&A and other such features.
-
Integration with LEARN and single sign-on, as well as Powerpoint, Keynote and Google Slides.
-
Very similar to Vevox in features.
-
Supports math notation (LaTeX).
Tools Reviewed
The following tools, in alphabetical order, were discussed during the review:
-
iClicker
-
Kahoot
-
Mathmatize
-
Mentimeter
-
Piazza
-
Poll Everywhere
-
Slido
-
TopHat,
-
Vevox
-
WooClap
After comparing the above list against requirements, a shortlist was identified as having the most potential to meet our needs:
-
iClicker
-
Poll Everywhere
-
Vevox