Using a personal response system as an in-class assessment tool in the teaching of basic college chemistry

Since the introduction of personal response systems (PRS) (also referred to as "clickers") nearly a decade ago, their use has been extensively adopted on college campuses, and they are particularly popular with lecturers of large classes. Available evidence supports that PRS offers a promising avenue for future developments in pedagogy, although findings on the advantages of its effective use related to improving or enhancing student learning remain inconclusive. This study examines the degree to which students perceive that using PRS in class as an assessment tool effects their understanding of course content, engagement in classroom learning, and test preparation. Multiple, student-performance evaluation data was used to explore correlations between student perceptions of PRS and their actual learning outcomes. This paper presents the learning experiences of 151 undergraduate students taking basic chemistry classes and incorporating PRS as an in-class assessment tool at the National Chung Hsing University in Taiwan. While the research revealed positive student perceived benefits and effectiveness of PRS use, it also indicated the need for further studies to discover what specific contribution PRS can make to certain learning outcomes of a large chemistry class in higher education.

[1]  Tzy-Ling Chen,et al.  Examination of attitudes towards teaching online courses based on theory of reasoned action of university faculty in Taiwan , 2006, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[2]  Ingo Eilks,et al.  The need for innovative methods of teaching and learning chemistry in higher education – reflections from a project of the European Chemistry Thematic Network , 2010 .

[3]  Ronald E. Rice,et al.  Evaluating a Wireless Course Feedback System: The Role of Demographics, Expertise, Fluency, Competency, and Usage , 2006 .

[4]  Diane M. Bunce,et al.  Comparing the Effectiveness on Student Achievement of a Student Response System versus Online WebCT Quizzes , 2006 .

[5]  Marie Kavanagh,et al.  Click Go the Students, Click-Click-Click: The Efficacy of a Student Response System for Engaging Students to Improve Feedback and Performance , 2009 .

[6]  Manjula D. Sharma,et al.  An investigation of the effectiveness of electronic classroom communication systems in large lecture classes , 2005 .

[7]  Richard H. Hall,et al.  A Student Response System for Increasing Engagement, Motivation, and Learning in High Enrollment Lectures , 2005, AMCIS.

[8]  Debra Filer,et al.  Everyone's Answering: Using Technology to Increase Classroom Participation , 2010, Nursing education perspectives.

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

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

[11]  Coral Marie Hanson.  An Evaluation of a Student Response System Used at Brigham Young University , 2007 .

[12]  Jill A. Marshall,et al.  Classroom Response Systems: A Review of the Literature , 2006 .

[13]  John Barnett,et al.  Implementation of personal response units in very large lecture classes: Student perceptions , 2006 .

[14]  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.

[15]  M. S. Blackman,et al.  It Worked a Different Way , 2002 .

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

[17]  Leon M. Lederman,et al.  The Use and Evolution of an Audience Response System , 2006 .

[18]  William J. Gerace,et al.  Technology-Enhanced Formative Assessment: A Research-Based Pedagogy for Teaching Science with Classroom Response Technology , 2009 .

[19]  Terence M. Hancock,et al.  Use of audience response systems for summative assessment in large classes , 2010 .

[20]  Kirsten Crossgrove,et al.  Using clickers in nonmajors- and majors-level biology courses: student opinion, learning, and long-term retention of course material. , 2008, CBE life sciences education.

[21]  Louis Abrahamson.  A Brief History of Networked Classrooms: Effects, Cases, Pedagogy, and Implications , 2006 .

[22]  Barbara S. Chaparro,et al.  Where's My Clicker? Bringing the Remote into the Classroom - Part II , 2008 .

[23]  Susan N. Kushner Benson,et al.  Developing New Schemas for Online Teaching and Learning: TPACK , 2010 .

[24]  David N. Steer,et al.  Assessing Multimedia Influences on Student Responses Using a Personal Response System , 2012 .

[25]  Scott R. Homan,et al.  Student evaluation of audience response technology in large lecture classes , 2008 .

[26]  Robin Kay,et al.  A strategic assessment of audience response systems used in higher education , 2009 .

[27]  Lei Bao,et al.  Testing a new voting machine question methodology , 2008 .

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

[29]  Loretta L. Jones,et al.  A Review of Literature Reports of Clickers Applicable to College Chemistry Classrooms , 2008 .

[30]  Christina Hoffman,et al.  A clicker for your thoughts: technology for active learning , 2006 .

[31]  Angel Hoekstra,et al.  “A Meeting of Minds” , 2010 .

[32]  E. Mazur,et al.  Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results , 2001 .

[33]  James L. Fitch,et al.  Student feedback in the college classroom: A technology solution , 2004 .