A Controlled Study of Clicker-Assisted Memory Enhancement in College Classrooms

Summary: Personal response systems, commonly called ‘clickers’, are widely used in secondary and post-secondary classrooms. Although many studies show they enhance learning, experimental ! ndings are mixed, and methodological issues limit their conclusions. Moreover, prior work has not determined whether clickers affect cognitive change or simply alert students to information likely to be on tests. The present investigation used a highly controlled methodology that removed subject and item differences from the data to explore the effect of clicker questions on memory for targeted facts in a live classroom and to gain a window on the cognitive processes affecting the outcome. We found that in-class clicker questions given in a university psychology class augmented performance on delayed exam questions by 10‐13%. Experimental results and a class survey indicate that it is unlikely that the observed effects can be attributed solely to attention grabbing. Rather, the data suggest the technology invokes the testing effect. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Personal response systems allow instructors to present multiple-choice questions in any classroom equipped with a digital projection system. Students are required to purchase a remote (commonly called a ‘clicker’) that allows them to ‘click in’ responses, which are recorded by a receiver. With the instructor’s remote, a few button clicks allow instant projection of class responses to provide immediate feedback to students and also upload students’ responses to a grade book. Clickers have been used for a variety of educational purposes including teaching case studies (Brickman, 2006; Herried, 2006), replicating published studies in class (Cleary, 2008), and electronic testing (Epstein et al., 2002). On the basis of published reports, however, the most common use appears to be during lectures for assessing students’ comprehension of class material in real time and improving participation and attendance (Beekes, 2006; Poirier & Feldman, 2007; Shih, Rogers, Hart, Phillis, & Lavoie, 2008). Although studies of clicker effectiveness have yielded mixed results (discussed later), the bulk of evidence indicates that the technology is effective for enhancing learning. Most prior studies, however, have only compared clicker classrooms with control classrooms not using clickers. Further, to our knowledge, no published work to date has directly explored the cognition underlying clicker effects. Here, we take a different approach and examine the effect of clicker questions on memory for speci! c bits of factual knowledge in clicker-assisted classrooms. The present experiment was designed to answer two questions. Speci! cally, does clicker use promote learning in the classroom? If so, do the observed improvements re" ect true cognitive change or are the enhancements simply a re" ection of greater emphasis placed on clicker-targeted information? To explain the motivation behind this work, the following section will brie" y review the literature on clicker-assisted learning and methodological concerns that may limit any conclusions that can be made. A discussion of cognitive mechanisms that may explain clicker effects will provide a foundation for the speci! c research questions addressed by the study.

[1]  Henry L. Roediger,et al.  Repeated retrieval during learning is the key to long-term retention , 2007 .

[2]  M. McDaniel,et al.  Test-enhanced learning in the classroom: long-term improvements from quizzing. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[3]  Eric Ribbens Why I like Clicker Personal Response Systems , 2007 .

[4]  Henry L. Roediger,et al.  Examining the Testing Effect with Open-and Closed-book Tests , 2022 .

[5]  M. McDaniel,et al.  Testing the testing effect in the classroom , 2007 .

[6]  S. Raudenbush Statistical analysis and optimal design for cluster randomized trials , 1997 .

[7]  Quintin I. Cutts,et al.  The association between students' use of an electronic voting system and their learning outcomes , 2005, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[8]  Robert S. Feldman,et al.  Promoting Active Learning Using Individual Response Technology in Large Introductory Psychology Classes , 2007 .

[9]  Michele H. Jackson,et al.  The learning environment in clicker classrooms: student processes of learning and involvement in large university‐level courses using student response systems , 2007 .

[10]  A. Koriat How do we know that we know? The accessibility model of the feeling of knowing. , 1993 .

[11]  R. Hambleton,et al.  Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory , 1997 .

[12]  H. Pashler,et al.  When does feedback facilitate learning of words? , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[13]  Meghan D. McAuliffe,et al.  Efficacy of Personal Response Systems (“Clickers”) in Large, Introductory Psychology Classes , 2008 .

[14]  Amy M. Shapiro,et al.  An Empirical Study of Personal Response Technology for Improving Attendance and Learning in a Large Class , 2009 .

[15]  F. Baker The basics of item response theory , 1985 .

[16]  Jeffrey R. Stowell,et al.  Using Student Response Systems (“Clickers”) to Combat Conformity and Shyness , 2010 .

[17]  G. Brosvic,et al.  Immediate Feedback Assessment Technique Promotes Learning and Corrects Inaccurate first Responses , 2002 .

[18]  Jeffrey D. Karpicke,et al.  The Power of Testing Memory Basic Research and Implications for Educational Practice , 2006 .

[19]  R. Bjork,et al.  Illusions of competence in monitoring one's knowledge during study. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[20]  Endel Tulving,et al.  The effects of presentation and recall of material in free-recall learning , 1967 .

[21]  J. Stowell,et al.  Benefits of Electronic Audience Response Systems on Student Participation, Learning, and Emotion , 2007 .

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

[23]  Robert A. Bjork,et al.  Assessing our own competence: Heuristics and illusions. , 1999 .

[24]  Philippe C. Duchastel,et al.  Testing versus review: Effects on retention. , 1982 .

[25]  G. A. Allen,et al.  Effects of recall tests on long-term retention of paired associates , 1969 .

[26]  Jeffrey D. Karpicke,et al.  The effect of type and timing of feedback on learning from multiple-choice tests. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[27]  J. Sassenrath,et al.  Effects of differential feedback from examinations on retention and transfer. , 1965, Journal of educational psychology.

[28]  Philippe C. Duchastel,et al.  Retention of prose following testing with different types of tests , 1981 .

[29]  John D. Bransford,et al.  Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing , 1977 .

[30]  Jeffrey D. Karpicke,et al.  The Critical Importance of Retrieval for Learning , 2008, Science.

[31]  The Case of the Druid Dracula. , 2006 .

[32]  H. Pashler,et al.  The influence of retrieval on retention , 1992, Memory & cognition.

[33]  Elizabeth J Marsh,et al.  Memorial consequences of answering SAT II questions. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

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

[35]  Clyde Freeman Herreid,et al.  "Clicker" Cases: Introducing Case Study Teaching into Large Classrooms , 2006 .

[36]  Kevin C. Almeroth,et al.  Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes , 2009 .

[37]  Anne M. Cleary,et al.  Using Wireless Response Systems to Replicate Behavioral Research Findings in the Classroom , 2008 .

[38]  T. Blaxton Investigating dissociations among memory measures: Support for a transfer-appropriate processing framework. , 1989 .

[39]  Jeffrey D. Karpicke,et al.  Expanding retrieval practice promotes short-term retention, but equally spaced retrieval enhances long-term retention. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[40]  John A. Glover,et al.  The "testing" phenomenon: Not gone but nearly forgotten. , 1989 .

[41]  L. Jacoby On interpreting the effects of repetition: Solving a problem versus remembering a solution , 1978 .

[42]  Jeffrey D. Karpicke,et al.  Test-Enhanced Learning , 2006, Psychological science.

[43]  Henry L. Roediger,et al.  Test format and corrective feedback modify the effect of testing on long-term retention , 2007 .

[44]  K. Szpunar,et al.  Testing during study insulates against the buildup of proactive interference. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[45]  M. Jensen,et al.  Manna from Heaven or “clickers” from Hell: Experiences with an electronic response system , 2005 .