The influence of learning characteristics on evaluation of audience response technology

AUDIENCE RESPONSE TECHNOLOGY (ART) has been widely adopted on college campuses, and prior research indicates that, on average, it receives positive evaluations from students. However, research has not yet examined how characteristics of students as learners influence their responses to ART. The current study examined aptitude for learning, objective learning (i.e., class performance), subjective learning (i.e., self-perceived learning), and conceptualizations of the learning process as influences on students' evaluation of ART. Students who had used ART over the course of a semester in one of three large lecture classes (N=703) completed surveys assessing their learning characteristics, perceptions of ART influence on their attendance, motivation, and learning, liking for ART, and evaluations of the course and instructor. Controlling for course and instructor evaluations, aptitude and objective learning were weakly but negatively associated with evaluations of ART and subjective learning was positively associated with evaluations of ART. Further, different conceptualizations of learning have distinctive associations with ART evaluations. Discussion focuses on the implications of these findings for instructors' use of ART.

[1]  J. Vermunt The regulation of constructive learning processes , 1998 .

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

[3]  J. Poulis,et al.  Physics lecturing with audience paced feedback , 1998 .

[4]  T Eric Schackow,et al.  Audience response system: effect on learning in family medicine residents. , 2004, Family medicine.

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

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

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

[8]  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 .

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

[10]  D. Nicol,et al.  Peer Instruction versus Class-wide Discussion in Large Classes: A comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom , 2003 .

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

[12]  J. Vermunt,et al.  Patterns in Student Learning: Relationships Between Learning Strategies, Conceptions of Learning, and Learning Orientations , 2004 .

[13]  Catherine H. Crouch,et al.  Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom , 2006 .

[14]  R. Mayer,et al.  Animation as an Aid to Multimedia Learning , 2002 .

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

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