A new kind of technology has cropped up at Iowa State, allowing professors to use remote control-like “clickers” as a replacement for paper exams and quizzes despite glitches that have caught the ire of students.

Professors have begun to use systems like the InterWrite Personal Response System, which allows students to respond through a registered clicker and several receivers in the classroom.

Students purchase a clicker for around $30 and then register it on WebCT for each class. In class, students respond to questions by aiming the clicker at a receiver that records responses. The respondent’s name and identification number will flash red to indicate the technology worked.

Many students, however, have complained about flaws in the system that have had negative effects on their grades. Glitches in the system have kept students’ answers from being recorded or from even being counted present.

At least four professors are using the system at Iowa State, said Kenneth Windom, associate professor of geological and atmospheric sciences. This is the first semester Windom has used the system to teach.

“I think I will be happy with the results,” he said.

Windom said he believes there are several benefits to the system. Not only will it eliminate the use of paper, but it may also improve class attendance and give instructors immediate feedback.

“It’s almost instant,” he said. “You can see if you’re explaining a topic well. If there’s a significant number of students who didn’t understand it, you probably didn’t do a good job explaining it.”

Windom said a professor won’t know if he or she needs to explain a topic better until after an exam has been given in a normal class, and by then it’s too late.

Ryan Myers, sophomore in finance, said the system helped him pay more attention to lectures, and he likes the fact that it prevents students from being called on to answer a question in a huge lecture.

Professors may choose the clicker over paper because it’s less work for them, it’s quicker and they will get better results, he said.

But even with the benefits to students and professors, Myers is still hesitant to use the system.

“I’d probably prefer the bubble sheets just because I don’t trust technology,” he said.

Kasey Magnussen, sophomore in apparel merchandising, design and production, said she used the system last year and was disappointed by it.

People were counted absent when they were there, and some didn’t get points for questions they answered, Magnussen said. More receivers were added, but the problem continued throughout the semester. Professors continued to use the system despite its obvious problems, she said.

“There were a lot of people very angry at the end of the semester because of their grades,” she said. “I would hate to use them again in a class.”

Windom said one problem he has seen with the system is that there is more than one type of system on campus.

“Unfortunately, I know there are some students in my class who have to buy both,” he said. “The university hasn’t set a standard yet. They need to do that.”

Cheating is always a problem, and his system is no different because a student could send another person he or she trusts to class with their clicker, Windom said.

“Short of requiring a palm print when you walk through the door, there’s a certain amount of trust that you have to learn,” he said.