Getting the most out of audience response systems: Predicting student reactions

Learning, Media and Technology

Volumn 37, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 379-394

  Trew, Jennifer L ^a   Nelsen, Jacqueline L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

audience response systems; clickers; engagement; learning; student perceptions

Indexed keywords

EID: 84871219719     PISSN: 17439884     EISSN: 17439892     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17439884.2011.621957     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Beckert, T. E., Fauth, E. and Olsen, K. 2009. Clicker satisfaction for students in human development: Differences for class type, prior exposure, and student talkativity. North American Journal of Psychology, 11(3): 599-612.
2. Beekes, W. 2006. The 'millionaire' method for encouraging participation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 7(1): 25-36. (doi:10.1177/1469787406061143)
3. Bentler, P. M. 2004. EQS structural equations program manual, Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.
4. Blood, E. and Neel, R. 2008. Using student response systems in lecture-based instruction: Does it change student engagement and learning?. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3): 375-83.
5. Boyle, J. T. and Nicol, D. J. 2003. Using classroom communication systems to support interaction and discussion in large class settings. Association of Learning Technology Journal, 11(3): 43-57. (doi:10.1080/0968776030110305)
6. Collins, L. J. 2007. Livening up the classroom: Using audience response systems to promote active learning. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 26(1): 81-8. (doi:10.1300/J115v26n01_08)
7. Cotner, S. H., Fall, B. A., Wick, S. M., Walker, J. D. and Baepler, P. M. 2008. Rapid feedback assessment methods: Can we improve engagement and preparation for exams in large-enrollment courses?. Journal of Science and Educational Technology, 17(5): 437-43. (doi:10.1007/s10956-008-9112-8)
8. Doucet, M., Vrins, A. and Harvey, D. 2009. Effect of using an audience response system on learning environment, motivation, and long-term retention, during case-discussions in a large group of undergraduate veterinary clinical pharmacology students. Medical Teacher, 31(12): e570-9. (doi:10.3109/01421590903193539)
9. Freeman, S., O'Connor, E., Parks, J. W., Cunningham, M., Hurley, D., Haak, D., Dirks, C. and Wenderoth, M. P. 2007. Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6(2): 132-9. (doi:10.1187/cbe.06-09-0194)
10. Graham, C. R., Tripp, T. R., Seawright, L. and Joeckel, G. L. 2007. Empowering or compelling reluctant participators using audience response systems. Active Learning in Higher Education, 8(3): 233-58. (doi:10.1177/1469787407081885)
11. Griff, E. R. and Matter, S. F. 2008. Early identification of at-risk students using a personal response system. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6): 1124-30. (doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00806.x)
12. Hoekstra, A. 2008. Vibrant student voices: Exploring effects of the use of clickers in large college courses. Learning, Media, and Technology, 33(4): 329-41. (doi:10.1080/17439880802497081)
13. Kay, R. H. and LeSage, A. 2009. Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 53(3): 819-27. (doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.001)
14. King, F. B. 2001. Perceptions of technology: A factor in distance education course achievement?. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(4): 407-18. (doi:10.2190/VYD1-VVKK-MFG7-DRYJ)
15. King, D. B. and Joshi, S. 2008. Gender differences in the use and effectiveness of personal response devices. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6): 544-52. (doi:10.1007/s10956-008-9121-7)
16. Lau, S. H. and Woods, P. C. 2009. Understanding learner acceptance of learning objects: The roles of learning object characteristics and individual differences. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(6): 1059-75. (doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00893.x)
17. MacGeorge, E. L., Homan, S. R., Dunning, J. B., Elmore, D., Bodie, G. D., Evans, E., Khichadia, S., Lichti, S. M., Feng, B. and Geddes, B. 2008. Student evaluation of audience response technology in large lecture classes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2): 125-45. (doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9053-6)
18. Martyn, M. 2007. Clickers in the classroom: An active learning approach. Educase Quarterly, 30(2): 71-4.
19. Mayer, R. E., Stull, A., DeLeeuw, K., Almeroth, K., Bimber, B., Chun, D., Bulger, M., Campbell, J., Knight, A. and Zhang, H. 2009. Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1): 51-7. (doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.04.002)
20. Morling, B., McAuliffe, M., Cohen, L. and DiLorenzo, T. M. 2008. Efficacy of personal response systems ("clickers") in large, introductory psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 35(1): 45-50. (doi:10.1080/00986280701818516)
21. PAIR UBC. 2009. Planning and institutional research statistics, University of British Columbia.http://www.pair.ubc.ca/statistics/students/students.htm
22. Quinn, A. 2010. An exploratory study of opinions on clickers and class participation from students of human behavior in the social environment. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 20(6): 721-31. (doi:10.1080/10911351003749102)
23. Saade, R. G. 2007. Dimensions of perceived usefulness: Toward enhanced assessment. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 5(2): 289-310. (doi:10.1111/j.1540-4609.2007.00142.x)
24. Satorra, A. and Bentler, P. M. 1994. "Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis". In Latent variables analysis: Applications for developmental research, Edited by: von Eye, A. and Clogg, C. C. 399-419. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25. Savalei, V. and Bentler, P. M. 2006. "Structural equation modeling". In The handbook of marketing research: Uses, misuses, and future advances, Edited by: Grover, R. and Vriens, M. 330-64. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
26. Shaffer, D. M. and Collura, M. J. 2009. Evaluating the effectiveness of a personal response system in the classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 36(4): 273-7. (doi:10.1080/00986280903175749)
27. Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N. and Su, T. T. 2009. Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323(5910): 122-4. (doi:10.1126/science.1165919)
28. Sprague, E. W. and Dahl, D. W. 2010. Learning to click: An evaluation of the personal response system clicker technology in introductory marketing courses. Journal of Marketing Education, 32(1): 93-103. (doi:10.1177/0273475309344806)
29. Stowell, J. R. and Nelson, J. M. 2007. Benefits of electronic audience response systems on student participation, learning, and emotion. Teaching of Psychology, 34(4): 253-8. (doi:10.1080/00986280701700391)
30. Trees, A. R. and 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(1): 21-40. (doi:10.1080/17439880601141179)
31. UBC Faculty of Arts. 2008. Grading guidelines: UBC's guidelines for grading and reporting grades, University of British Columbiahttp://www.arts.ubc.ca/faculty-amp-staff/resources/courses-and-grading/grading-guidelines.html
32. UBC Faculty of Science. 2009. Grades and grading: Grading practices, University of British Columbia.http://www.skylight.science.ubc.ca/grades
33. Willoughby, S. D. and Gustafson, E. 2009. Technology talks: Clickers and grading incentive in the large lecture hall. American Journal of Physics, 77(2): 180-3. (doi:10.1119/1.3013542)
34. Yourstone, S. A., Kraye, H. S. and Albaum, G. 2008. Classroom questioning with immediate electronic responses: Do clickers improve learning?. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 6(1): 75-88. (doi:10.1111/j.1540-4609.2007.00166.x)