Context matters: Increasing understanding with interactive Clicker Case studies

Educational Technology Research and Development

Volumn 59, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 645-671

  Lundeberg, Mary A ^a   Kang, Hosun ^a   Wolter, Bjørn ^a   delMas, Robert ^b   Armstrong, Norris ^c   Borsari, Bruno ^d   Boury, Nancy ^e   Brickman, Peggy ^f   Hannam, Kristi ^g   Heinz, Cheryl ^h   Horvath, Thomas ⁱ   Knabb, Maureen ^j   Platt, Terry ^k   Rice, Nancy ^l   Rogers, Bill ^m   Sharp, Joan ⁿ   Ribbens, Eric ^o   Maier, Kimberly S ^a   Deschryver, Mike ^a   Hagley, Rodney ^p   Goulet, Tamar ^q   Herreid, Clyde F ^r   more..

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^c University of Georgia   (United States)

^d WINONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^g STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^h BENEDICTINE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

ⁱ STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^j WEST CHESTER UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^k UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

^l WESTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^m BALL STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

ⁿ SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^o WESTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^p UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA WILMINGTON   (United States)

^q UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI   (United States)

^r UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Case; Clickers; Interactive technology; Performance; Personal response system

Indexed keywords

EID: 80052874566     PISSN: 10421629     EISSN: 15566501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11423-010-9182-1     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1-32.
2. Crossgrove, K., & Curan, K. (2008). Using clickers in nonmajors- and majors-level biology courses: Student opinion, learning, and long-term retention of course material. CBE Life Sciences Education, 7(1), 146-154.
3. Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. The Physics Teacher, 69(9), 970-977.
4. Dangel, H. L., & Wang, C. X. (2008). Student response systems in higher education: Moving beyond linear teaching and surface learning. Journal of Educational Technology Development, 1(1), 93-104.
5. Duch, B. J. (2001). Writing problems for deeper understanding. In B. J. Duch, S. E. Groh, & D. E. Allen (Eds.), The power of problem-based learning (pp. 47-58). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
6. Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., Mestre, J. P., & Wenk, L. (1996). A classroom communication system for active learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 7(2), 3-47.
7. Duncan, D. (2005). Clickers in the classroom: How to enhance science teaching using classroom response systems. San Francisco: Pearson Education/Addison-Wesley/Benjamin Cummings.
8. Fairweather, J., & Paulson, K. (2008). The evolution of scientific fields in American universities: Disciplinary differences, institutional isomorphisms. In J. Valimaa & O. Yijoki (Eds.), Cultural perspectives in higher education (pp. 197-212). Dordrecht: Springer.
9. Guthrie, R. W., & Carlin, A. (2004). Waking the dead: Using interactive technology to engage passive listeners in the classroom. In Proceedings of the tenth Americas conference on information systems. http://www. mhhe. com/cps/docs/CPSWP_WakindDead082003. pdf.
10. Hansen, A. J. (1997). Writing cases for teaching: Observations of a practitioner. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 398-403.
11. Herreid, C. F. (1994). Case studies in science: A novel method in science education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(4), 221-229.
12. Herreid, C. F. (1997). What makes a good case? Some basic rules of good storytelling help teachers generate student excitement in the classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 27(2), 163-165.
13. Herreid, C. F. (2006). "Clicker Cases": Introducing case study teaching into large classes. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(2), 43-47.
14. Herreid, C. F. (Ed.). (2007). Start with a story. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
15. Herzog, S. (2007). The ecology of learning: The impact of classroom features and utilization on student academic success. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2007(135), 81-106.
16. Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn. Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.
17. Horowitz, H. M. (1988). Student response systems: Interactivity in a classroom environment [PDF]. Retrieved March 17, 2003, from http://www. qwizdom. com/software/interactivity_in_classrooms. pdf.
18. Jonassen, D. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65-94.
19. Jonassen, D. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63-85.
20. Jonassen, D., & Hernandez-Serrano, J. (2002). Case-based reasoning and instructional design: Using stories to support problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 65-77.
21. Kelson, A. C. (2004, November). The power of problem oriented learning. Paper presented at the Problem-based learning professional development project, East Lansing, MI.
22. Lundeberg, M. A. (2008). Case pedagogy in undergraduate STEM: Research we have; research we need. Paper commissioned by the Board on Science Education, National Academy of Sciences. http://www7. nationalacademies. org/bose/Lundeberg_CommissionedPaper. pdf.
23. Lundeberg, M., Levin, B. B., & Harrington, H. (Eds.). (1999). Who learns what from cases and how: The research base for teaching and learning with cases. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
24. Lundeberg, M. A., & Yadav, A. (2006a). Assessment of case study teaching: Where do we go from here? Part I. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(5), 10-13.
25. Lundeberg, M. A., & Yadav, A. (2006b). Assessment of case study teaching: Where do we go from here? Part II. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(6), 8-13.
26. MacGeorge, E., Homan, E., Dunning, S., Elmore, D., Bodie, D., Evans, G., et al. (2008). Student evaluation of audience response technology in large lecture classes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 125-145.
27. Mayer, R. E., Stull, A., DeLeeuw, K., Almeroth, K., Bimber, B., Chun, D., et al. (2009). Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(2009), 51-57.
28. McCormick, C. B., & Pressley, M. (1997). Educational psychology: Learning, instruction, assessment. New York: Longman.
29. Morris, J., & Ellwood, M. (1996). Sun exposure modification programmes and their evaluation: A review of the literature. Health Promotion International, 11(4), 321-332.
30. Mun, W. K., Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2009). The impact of the use of response pad system on the learning of secondary school physics concepts: A Singapore quasi-experiment study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(5), 848-860.
31. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
32. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
33. National Research Council. (2002). Investigating the influence of standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
34. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
35. Roschelle, J., Penuel, W. R., & Abrahamson, L. (2004, 12-16 April). Classroom response and communication systems: Research review and theory. Paper presented at the American educational research association 81st annual conference, San Diego, CA.
36. Rybarczyk, B. J., Baines, A. T., McVey, M., Thompson, J. T., & Wilkins, H. (2006). A case-based approach increases student learning outcomes and comprehension of cellular respiration concepts. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 35(3), 181-186.
37. Schwartz, D., & Bransford, J. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475-522.
38. Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, T., et al. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323, 122-124.
39. Suchman, E., Uchiyama, K., Smith, R., & Bender, K. (2006). Evaluating the impact of a classroom response system in a microbiology course. Microbiology Education, 7, 3-11.
40. Trees, A. R., & Jackson, M. H. (2007). The learning environment in clicker classrooms: Student processes of learning and involvement in large university-level courses using student response systems. Learning, Media, and Technology, 32, 21-40.
41. Yadav, A., Lundeberg, M. A., DeSchryver, M., Dirkin, K., Schiller, N. A., Maier, K., et al. (2007). Teaching science with case studies: A national survey of faculty perceptions of the benefits and challenges of using cases. Journal of College Science Teaching, 37, 34-38.
42. Zahn, C., Barquero, B., & Schwan, S. (2004). Learning with hyperlinked videos-design criteria and efficient strategies for using audiovisual hypermedia. Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 275-291.