Gender differences in student performance in large lecture classrooms using personal response systems ('clickers') with narrative case studies

Learning, Media and Technology

Volumn 37, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 53-76

  Kang, Hosun ^a   Lundeberg, Mary ^a   Wolter, Bjørn ^a   delMas, Robert ^b   Herreid, Clyde F ^c  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

Author keywords

case studies; clickers; education; gender; learning; technology

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857173315     PISSN: 17439884     EISSN: 17439892     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17439884.2011.556123     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. AAUW (American Association of University Women). 2004. Under the microscope: A decade of gender equity projects in the sciences, Edited by: Dyer, S. K. Washington, DC: The American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.
2. Belenky, M. F., Clichy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R. and Tarule, J. M. 1986. Women's ways of knowing, New York: Basic Books, Inc.
3. Bell, P. 2004. "The educational opportunities of contemporary controversies in science". In Internet environments for science education, Edited by: Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A. and Bell, P. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
4. Bergland, Mark, Klyczek, Karen and Lundeberg, M. A. 2006. Collaborative case-based study of genetics and infectious disease via molecular biology computer simulations and internet conferencing. International Journal of Learning, 13(8): 149-54.
5. Bergland, Mark, Lundeberg, M. A., Klyczek, Karen, Sweet, Jennifer, Emmons, Jean, Martin, Christine, Marsh, Katherine, Werner, Joy and Jarvis-Uetz, Michelle. 2006. Exploring biotechnology using case-based multimedia. The American Biology Teacher, 68(2): 81-6.
6. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L. and Cocking, R. R. 1999. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
7. Callahan, C., Hertberg-Davis, H., Hockett, J. and Reed, C. Using on-line case-based lessons to supplement instruction for diverse learners in advanced placement courses. In Proceedings of World Conference of Educational Multimedia Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008, ed. J. Luca and E. Weippl, 332-36. Chesapeake, VA: AACE
8. Cooper, J. and Weaver, K. D. 2003. Gender and computer: Understanding the digital divide, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. Cotner, Sehoya, Fall, Bruce, Wick, Susan, Walker, J. and Baepler, Paul. 2008. Rapid feedback assessment methods: Can we improve engagement and preparation for exams in large-enrolment courses?. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(5): 437-43.
10. Crouch, C. H. and Mazur, E. 2001. Peer instruction: Ten years experiences and results. Amerian Journal of Physics, 69(9): 970-7.
11. Davis, J. L. and Davis, H. 2007. Perceptions of career and technology and training and development students regarding basic personal computer knowledge and skills. College Student Journal, 41(1): 69-79.
12. Draper, S., Cargill, J. and Cutts, Q. 2002. Electronically enhanced classroom interaction. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 18(1): 13-23.
13. Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., Mestre, J. P. and Wenk, L. 1996. A classroom communication system for active learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 7(2): 3-47.
14. Duncan, D. 2005. Clickers in the classroom: How to enhance science teaching using classroom response systems, San Francisco: Pearson Education/Addison-Wesley/Benjamin Cummings.
15. Fies, Carmen and Marshall, Jill. 2006. Classroom response systems: A review of the literature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1): 101-9.
16. Gilligan, C. 1982. In a different voice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17. Greer, L. and Heaney, P. J. 2004. Real time analysis of student comprehension: An assessment of electronic student response technology in an introductory earth science course. Journal of Geoscience Education, 52(4): 345-51.
18. Guthrie, R. W. and Carlin, A. Waking the dead: Using interactive technology to engage passive listeners in the classroom. AMCIS 2004 proceedings. Paper 358. http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2004/358.
19. Hake, R. 1998. Interactive engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1): 63-74.
20. Hatch, J., Jensen, M. and Moore, R. 2005. Manna from heaven or 'clickers' from hell: Experiences with an electronic response system. Journal of College Science Teaching, 34(7): 36-42.
21. Herreid, C. F. 1994. Case studies in science: A novel method in science education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23(4): 221-9.
22. Herreid, C. F. 2006a. 'Clicker' cases: Introducing case study teaching into large classrooms. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(2): 43-7.
23. Herreid, C. F. 2006b. Start with a story: The case study method of teaching college science, Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
24. Hoekstra, Angel. 2008. Vibrant student voices: Exploring effects of the use of clickers in large college courses. Learning, Media, & Technology, 33(4): 329-41.
25. Joiner, R., Littleton, K., Chou, C. and Morahan-Martin, J. 2006. Gender and information communication technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(5): 317-9.
26. Kang, Hosun and Lundeberg, M. A. 2010. Participation in science practices while working in a multimedia case-based environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9): 1116-36.
27. King, Daniel and Joshi, Shivani. 2008. Gender differences in the use and effectiveness of personal response devices. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6): 544-52.
28. Kumar, D. D. and Sherwood, R. D. 2007. Effect of a problem based simulation on the conceptual understandings of undergraduate science education students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(3): 239-46.
29. Losh, S. C. 2004. Gender, educational, and occupational digital gaps - 1983-2002. Social Science Computer Review, 22: 152-66.
30. Lundeberg, M. A. 2008. "Case pedagogy in undergraduate STEM: Research we have; research we need". In The Board on Science Education, National Academy of Sciences.
31. Lundeberg, M. A., Kang, Hosun, Wolter, Bjørn, DelMas, Robert, Maier, Kimberly, DeSchryver, Mike and Armstrong, Norris. 2011. Context matters: Increasing understanding with interactive clicker case studies. Educational Technology Research and Development. DOI: 10.1007/s11423-010-9182-1
32. Lundeberg, M. A. and Mohan, Lindsey. 2007. "Gender issues and schooling". In 21st Century Education: A reference handbook, Edited by: Good, T. L. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33. MacGeorge, Erina, Homan, Scott, Dunning, John, Elmore, David, Bodie, Graham, Evans, Ed, Khichadia, Sangeetha, Lichti, Steven, Feng, Bo and Geddes, Brian. 2008. Student evaluation of audience response technology in large lecture classes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2): 125-45.
34. Mercier, E. M., Barron, B. and O'Connor, K. M. 2006. Images of self and others as computer users: the role of gender and experience. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(5): 335-48.
35. Mollborn, Stefanie and Hoekstra, Angel. 2010. A meeting of minds. Teaching Sociology, 38: 18-27.
36. Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J. and Maier, M. A. 2006. Achievement goals and discrete achievement emotions: A theoretical model and prospective test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98: 583-97.
37. Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W. and Perry, R. P. 2002. Academic emotions in students' self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37: 91-105.
38. Preszler, Ralph W., Dawe, Angus, Shuster, Charles B. and Shuster, Michele. 2007. Assessment of the effects of student response systems on student learning and attitudes over a broad range of biology courses. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6: 29-41.
39. Price, L. 2006. Gender differences and similarities in online courses: Challenging stereotypical views of women. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(5): 349-59.
40. Rybarczyk, B. J., Baines, A. T., McCey, M., Thompson, J. T. and Wilkins, H. 2007. A case-based approach increases student learning outcomes and comprehension of cellular respiration concepts. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 35(3): 181-6.
41. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D. and Campbell, D. T. 2002. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
42. Stowell, Jeffrey R. and Nelson, Jason M. 2007. Benefits of electronic audience response systems on student participation, learning, and emotion. Teaching of Psychology, 34(4): 253-8.
43. Tobin, Kenneth. Producing and maintaining emotional climates to support success in science. Paper presented at the International Academic Conference of Preparing Quality Science Teachers for Elementary and Secondary Schools, Mar 31-June 2. Taipei, Taiwan.
44. Trees, April R. and Jackson, Michele 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, & Technology, 32(1): 21-40.
45. Volman, Monique, and Edith van Eck. 2001. Gender equity and information technology in education: The second decade. Review of Educational Research, 71(4): 613-34.
46. Wolter, Bjørn H.K., Mary A. Lundeberg, Hosun Kang, and Clyde F. Herreid. 2011. Students' perceptions of using personal response systems ("clickers") with cases in science. (Report). Journal of College Science Teaching 40, no. 4: 14
47. Yadav, Amen, Lundeberg, M.A., DeSchryver, Michael, Dirkin, Kathryn, Nancy, Schiller A., Maier, Kimberly and Freeman Jerrid, C. 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, September/October: 34-37
48. Zhang, Y. 2005. Distance learning receptivity: are they ready yet?. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6: 45-55.
49. Zohar, A. and Sela, D. 2003. Her physics, his physics: Gender issues in Israeli advanced placement physics classes. International Journal of Science Education, 25: 245-68.