Interdisciplinary Journal of E-learning and Learning Objects Teaching and Learning with Clickers: Are Clickers Good for Students?

Student response systems (clickers) are becoming very popular in classroom instruction. The majority of the published papers investigate how students feel about clickers. There is limited research regarding clickers’ influence on student learning. The purpose of this study is not only to evaluate students’ experiences and perceptions about the use of clickers, but also to find out whether they have a positive impact on student learning. Data from student surveys supplemented by exam grades were used to analyze these goals. Students in two undergraduate courses in the spring of 2011 utilized clickers for review and practice question sessions. Overall, students gave high approval ratings for this technology, particularly in increasing their participation and engagement in lectures. We found no significant difference in the class mean final examination scores for students taught with clickers (treatment group) compared to those taught in a traditional class setting (control group). However, the range of final exam scores and final course grades were smaller for the class with clickers compared to the class without clickers. The treatment group had also smaller variances in terms of both final exam scores and final grades which suggest that the spread of their scores was much closer to the mean compared to the class without the clickers. Based on the findings from survey responses, interviews, and analysis of final grades we found that the use of clickers appears to increase student engagement and achievement compared to traditional lecture format instruction. The implications for using clickers to improve active teaching and learning are discussed.

[1]  R. H. Franke,et al.  The Hawthorne experiments: First statistical interpretation. , 1978 .

[2]  A. Collins,et al.  Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning , 1989 .

[3]  R. Glaser The Reemergence of Learning Theory within Instructional Research. , 1990 .

[4]  Diana Laurillard,et al.  Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology , 1993 .

[5]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Computers as cognitive tools: Learningwith technology, notfrom technology , 1995, J. Comput. High. Educ..

[6]  Robert J. Dufresne,et al.  Classtalk: A classroom communication system for active learning , 1996, J. Comput. High. Educ..

[7]  Eric Mazur,et al.  Peer Instruction: A User's Manual , 1996 .

[8]  Beverly Dolinsky,et al.  An Active Learning Approach to Teaching Statistics. , 2001 .

[9]  Quintin Cutts,et al.  Electronically enhanced classroom interaction , 2002 .

[10]  R. Mayer Rote Versus Meaningful Learning , 2002 .

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

[12]  Nancy E. Perry,et al.  Investigating Teacher-Student Interactions That Foster Self-Regulated Learning , 2002 .

[13]  Maria Meletiou-Mavrotheris Technological Tools in the Introductory Statistics Classroom: Effects on Student Understanding of Inferential Statistics , 2003, Int. J. Comput. Math. Learn..

[14]  E. Wit Who wants to be… The use of a personal response system in statistics teaching , 2003 .

[15]  Wei Pan,et al.  Examining the Effectiveness of Innovative Instructional Methods on Reducing Statistics Anxiety for Graduate Students in the Social Sciences. , 2004 .

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

[17]  Anna Carlin,et al.  Waking the Dead: Using interactive technology to engage passive listeners in the classroom , 2004, AMCIS.

[18]  M. Cole,et al.  Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. L. S. Vygotsky. , 1978 .

[19]  Patricia A. Alexander,et al.  Psychology in Learning and Instruction , 2005 .

[20]  Jeffrey T Johnson,et al.  Creating learner-centered classrooms: use of an audience response system in pediatric dentistry education. , 2005, Journal of dental education.

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

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

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

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

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

[26]  Maria Meletiou-Mavrotheris,et al.  ENHANCING STATISTICS INSTRUCTION IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS: INTEGRATING TECHNOLOGY IN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT , 2009 .

[27]  Michael Lane,et al.  Using Clickers to Support Information Literacy Skills Development and Instruction in First-Year Business Students , 2010, J. Inf. Technol. Educ..

[28]  Kevin Johnson,et al.  Clickers in the Laboratory: Student Thoughts and Views , 2010 .

[29]  Lisa A. Best,et al.  The Effectiveness of Library Instruction: Do Student Response Systems (Clickers) Enhance Learning? , 2010 .

[30]  J. Ducette,et al.  Facilitation of Formative Assessments Using Clickers in a University Physics Course , 2011 .

[31]  Vladimir S. Ageyev Boris Gindis LEARNING IN DOING: SOCIAL, COGNITIVE, AND COMPUTATIONAL PERSPECTIVES , 2011 .