The Effect of Clickers in University Science Courses

Journal of Science Education and Technology

Volumn 22, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 651-666

  Sutherlin, Autumn L ^a   Sutherlin, Gordon R ^b   Akpanudo, Usenime M ^b  

^a ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b HARDING UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Biochemistry; Biology; Chemistry; Clickers; Instructional technology; Study time; University

Indexed keywords

EID: 84884185503     PISSN: 10590145     EISSN: 15731839     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10956-012-9420-x     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Addison S, Wright A, Milner R (2009) Using clickers to improve student engagement and performance in an introductory biochemistry class. Biochem Mol Biol Educ 37(2): 84-91.
2. Banks D (2006) Audience response systems in higher education: applications and cases. Information Science Publishing. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED508862).
3. Beatty L, Gerace W (2009) Technological-enhanced formative assessment: a research-based pedagogy for teaching science with classroom response technology. J Sci Educ Technol 1: 146-162.
4. Bracy C, Bevill S, Roach TD (2010) The millennial generation: recommendations for overcoming teaching challenges. Proc Acad Educ Leadersh 15(2): 21-25.
5. Bruck A, Towns M (2009) Analysis of classroom response system questions via four lenses in a general chemistry course. Chem Educ Res Pract 10(4): 291-295.
6. Brush D (2010) Evaluation of an audience response system in library orientations for engineering students. Issues in science and technology librarianship, 60, Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ896040).
7. Cauley FG, Aiken KD, Whitney LK (2010) Technologies across our curriculum: a study of technology integration in the classroom. J Educ Bus 85: 114-118.
8. Cheesman E, Winograd G, Wehrman J (2010) Clickers in teacher education: student perceptions by age and gender. J Tech Teach Educ 18(1): 35-55.
9. Cleary A (2008) Using wireless response systems to replicate behavioral research findings in the classroom. Teach Psychol 35(1): 42-44.
10. Cotner S, Fall B, Wick S, Walker J, Baepler P (2008) Rapid feedback assessment method: can we improve engagement and preparation in large-enrollment courses? J Sci Educ Technol 17: 437-443.
11. Crossgrove K, Curran K (2008) Using clickers in non-majors and majors-level biology course: student opinion, learning, and long-term retention of course material. CBE Life Sci Educ 7: 146-154.
12. Cummings R, Hsu M (2007) The effects of student response systems on performance and satisfaction: an investigation in a tax accounting class. J Coll Teach Learn 4(12): 21-26.
13. Doty M, Griffin J, Sutherlin AL, Sutherlin GR (2006) The effect of immediate feedback on the achievement of introductory chemistry students using a student handheld response system. Harding University, Searcy, AR and Abilene Christian University, Abilene, TX. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the MidSouth Educational Research Association's annual meeting, Birmingham, AL.
14. El-Rady J (2006) To click or not to click: that's the question. Innovate: J Online Edu 2(4). Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ854499).
15. Falconer J (2007) Conceptests for chemical engineering thermodynamics course. Chem Eng Educ 4: 107-114.
16. Fies C (2005) Classroom response systems: what do they add to an active learning environment? Doctoral dissertation. University of Texas, Austin. Retrieved from http://www. lib. utexas. edu/etd/d/2005/fiesc84685/fiesc84685. pdf.
17. Fies C, Marshall J (2006) Classroom response systems: a review of the literature. J Sci Educ Technol 15: 101-109.
18. Flynn J, Russell J (2008) Personal response systems: is success in learning just a click away? Educ Technol Mag Mag Manag Change Education 48(6): 20-23.
19. Freeman S, O'Connor E, Parks J, Cunningham M, Hurley D, Haak D, Wenderoth MP (2007) Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology. CBE Life Sci Educ 6(2): 132-139.
20. Gauci S, Dantas A, Williams D, Kemm R (2009) Promoting student-centered active learning in lectures with a personal response system. Adv Physiol Educ 33(1): 60-71.
21. Kaleta R, Joosten T (2007) Student response systems: A University of Wisconsin System study of clickers (Research Bulletin, Issue 10). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Available from http://www. educause. edu/ecar.
22. Kenwright K (2009) Clickers in the classroom. TechTrends 53(1): 74-77.
23. King D, Joshi S (2008) Gender difference in the use of and effectiveness of personal response devices. J Sci Educ Technol 17: 544-552.
24. Kolikant Y, Drane D, Calkins S (2010) "Clickers" as catalyst for transformation of teachers. Coll Teach 58: 127-135.
25. McCurry MK, Martins DC (2009) Teaching undergraduate nursing research: a comparison of traditional and innovative approaches to success with millennial learners. J Nurs Educ 49: 276-279.
26. Prensky M (2001). Digital natives digital immigrants. Retrieved from http://www. marcprensky. com/.
27. Revell S, McCurry MK (2010) Engaging millennial learners: effectiveness of personal response system technology with student nurses in small and large classrooms. J Nurs Educ 49(5): 272-275.
28. Stewart K (2009) Lessons from teaching millennials. Coll Teach 57: 111-117.
29. Stoddard HA, Piquette CA (2010) A controlled study of improvements in student exam performance with the use of an audience response system during medical school lectures. Acad Med 85: S37-S40.
30. Sutherlin AL, Sutherlin GR (2007) The effect of immediate feedback on the achievement of introductory chemistry students using a student handheld response system. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the MidSouth Educational Research Association's annual meeting, Hot Springs, AR.
31. Sutherlin AL, Sutherlin GR (2008) The effect of changing instruction methodologies on the achievement of introduction to organic and biological chemistry course students using a student handheld response system. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the MidSouth Educational Research Association's annual meeting, Knoxville, TN.