Student response systems and learner engagement in large classes

The use of student response systems is becoming more prevalent in higher level education. Evidence on the effectiveness of this technology can be an important resource for tutors seeking to engage with learners and raise the quality of learning experiences. Student response systems have been found to increase student engagement and participation in the classroom, yet few studies examine why this is so. This research seeks to explore the effects of student response systems on student participation in large classes. The methods used included both quantitative and qualitative data. A pre-test/mid-test/post-test design (quantitative approach) was deployed to examine the effects of a classroom response system on interactivity. Students involved in a final year undergraduate business course took part in investigating the use of student response systems from the student perspective. Qualitative data were collected to identify the strengths and weaknesses of using a classroom response system to enhance classroom interaction through semi-structured interviews. This research builds on previous studies by investigating why students become more participatory, interactive and engaged during learning sessions which utilise student response systems. Implications for teaching practice are discussed, and avenues for future research on student response systems and student engagement in large class scenarios are outlined.

[1]  Charles R. Graham,et al.  Empowering or compelling reluctant participators using audience response systems , 2007 .

[2]  M. Oliver,et al.  Electronic Voting Systems for Lectures then and Now: A Comparison of Research and Practice , 2007 .

[3]  Margaret I. Brown,et al.  Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system , 2004, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[4]  Shawn M. Keough.  Clickers in the Classroom , 2012 .

[5]  A. Usher,et al.  Global Higher Education Rankings: Affordability and Accessibility in Comparative Perspective, 2005. , 2005 .

[6]  R. Latessa,et al.  Use of an audience response system to augment interactive learning. , 2005, Family medicine.

[7]  Diane Dancer,et al.  Student involvement in assessment: a project designed to assess class participation fairly and reliably , 2005 .

[8]  K. Rocca,et al.  Student Participation in the College Classroom: An Extended Multidisciplinary Literature Review , 2010 .

[9]  Robin H. Kay,et al.  Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[10]  Michèle Shuster,et al.  Assessment of the effects of student response systems on student learning and attitudes over a broad range of biology courses. , 2007, CBE life sciences education.

[11]  J. C. Flanagan.  Psychological Bulletin THE CRITICAL INCIDENT TECHNIQUE , 2022 .

[12]  S. Davis.  Observations in classrooms using a network of handheld devices , 2003, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[13]  L. Leach,et al.  Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action , 2010 .

[14]  Wendy Beekes.  The ‘Millionaire’ method for encouraging participation , 2006 .

[15]  Michael K. Salemi.  Clickenomics: Using a Classroom Response System to Increase Student Engagement in a Large-Enrollment Principles of Economics Course , 2009 .

[16]  Gerald Bergtrom,et al.  Clicker Sets as Learning Objects , 2006 .

[17]  Eugene Judson,et al.  Learning from Past and Present: Electronic Response Systems in College Lecture Halls , 2002 .

[18]  Jillian Kinzie,et al.  A Tangled Web of Terms: The Overlap and Unique Contribution of Involvement, Engagement, and Integration to Understanding College Student Success , 2009 .

[19]  Jane E Caldwell,et al.  Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips. , 2007, CBE life sciences education.

[20]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[21]  Brenda Bannan-Ritland.  Computer-Mediated Communication, eLearning, and Interactivity: A Review of the Research. , 2002 .

[22]  Alexander W. Astin,et al.  Preventing students from dropping out , 1975 .

[23]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[24]  F. Al-Shamali,et al.  Author Biographies. , 2015, Journal of social work in disability & rehabilitation.

[25]  George D. Kuh.  Assessing What Really Matters to Student Learning Inside The National Survey of Student Engagement , 2001 .

[26]  Amy M. Bippus,et al.  What behaviors reflect involvement in a course?: Students' perceptions and differences between high and low communication apprehensives , 2000 .

[27]  Caroline Elliott,et al.  Using a personal response system in economics teaching , 2003 .

[28]  Tim L. Wentling,et al.  Learning gains associated with annotation and communication software designed for large undergraduate classes , 2007, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[29]  John G. Cullen.  The writing skills course as an introduction to critical practice for larger business undergraduate classes , 2011 .

[30]  Chien Chou,et al.  Interactivity and interactive functions in web-based learning systems: a technical framework for designers , 2003, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[31]  Margaret I. Brown,et al.  Using an electronic voting system in logic lectures: one practitioner's application , 2004, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[32]  Gina Gibbs.  The networked classroom , 2013 .

[33]  M. D. Roblyer,et al.  Design and Use of a Rubric to Assess and Encourage Interactive Qualities in Distance Courses , 2003 .

[34]  A. Astin.  Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. , 1999 .

[35]  Rod Sims,et al.  Promises of Interactivity: Aligning Learner Perceptions and Expectations With Strategies for Flexible and Online Learning , 2003 .

[36]  Andrea Faus,et al.  National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) , 2014 .