Interactivity, active collaborative learning, and learning performance: The moderating role of perceived fun by using personal response systems

Abstract The aims of this study were to examine the relationships between interactivity, active collaborative learning, and students' learning performance and to determine whether these relationships were moderated by the level of fun students experienced when using personal response systems (PRSs). The participants were 247 undergraduate students studying business at a Hong Kong university. The results indicated that active collaborative learning mediated the relationship between interactivity and students' learning performance. Additionally, high levels of fun experienced as a result of using PRSs strengthened the association between interactivity and students’ learning performance.

[1]  Sharon C. Bolton,et al.  Are we having fun yet? A consideration of workplace fun and engagement , 2009 .

[2]  Heshan Sun,et al.  The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance , 2006, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[3]  N. Sharon Hill,et al.  Preference for Anonymous Classroom Participation , 2014 .

[4]  Katherine A. Karl,et al.  Is Fun for Everyone? Personality Differences in Healthcare Providers’ Attitudes toward Fun , 2007, Journal of health and human services administration.

[5]  Francis K. H. Quek,et al.  Fun in Making: Understanding the experience of fun and learning through curriculum-based Making in the elementary school classroom , 2017, Entertain. Comput..

[6]  James Boyle,et al.  Using classroom communication systems to support interaction and discussion in large class settings , 2003 .

[7]  J. Wang,et al.  Enhancing Learning Performance Through Classroom Response Systems: The Effect of Knowledge in a Global Economic Environment , 2018 .

[8]  Michael E. Lantz,et al.  Effectiveness of clickers: Effect of feedback and the timing of questions on learning , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[9]  Joanna K. Hubbard,et al.  The positive effect of in-class clicker questions on later exams depends on initial student performance level but not question format , 2018, Comput. Educ..

[10]  Ilker Etikan,et al.  Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling , 2016 .

[11]  Chun-Yen Chang,et al.  Do we click in the right way? A meta-analytic review of clicker-integrated instruction , 2016 .

[12]  Yogesh Kumar Dwivedi,et al.  Using Clickers in a Large Business Class , 2016 .

[13]  Krishna Bista,et al.  Asian International Students’ College Experience: Relationship between Quality of Personal Contact and Gains in Learning , 2015 .

[14]  Bing Hiong Ngu,et al.  Evaluating a CALL software on the learning of English prepositions , 2006, Comput. Educ..

[15]  Peter Kakela,et al.  Creating a Space to Learn: A Classroom of Fun, Interaction, and Trust , 2006 .

[16]  Curtis J. Bonk,et al.  Communication in a web-based conferencing system: the quality of computer-mediated interactions , 2003, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[17]  Gerald Albaum,et al.  Classroom Questioning with Immediate Electronic Response: Do Clickers Improve Learning?. , 2008 .

[18]  Lorena Blasco-Arcas,et al.  Using clickers in class. The role of interactivity, active collaborative learning and engagement in learning performance , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[19]  William M. Hedgcock,et al.  Clicking Their Way to Success: Using Student Response Systems as a Tool for Feedback , 2014 .

[20]  An empirical examination of antecedents determining students' usage of clickers in a digital marketing module , 2018 .

[21]  Larry Katz,et al.  Considerations for using personal Wi-Fi enabled devices as “clickers” in a large university class , 2017 .

[22]  Jang-Sun Hwang,et al.  Measures of Perceived Interactivity: An Exploration of the Role of Direction of Communication, User Control, and Time in Shaping Perceptions of Interactivity , 2002 .

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

[24]  Dale T. Griffee,et al.  Research Methods in Applied Linguistics , 2007 .

[25]  Y.-H. Wang.  The effectiveness of integrating teaching strategies into IRS activities to facilitate learning , 2017, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[26]  G. Lai,et al.  Clickers in the classroom: a business professor's adoption of a classroom response system , 2015 .

[27]  Jacqueline K. Eastman,et al.  Business Students’ Perceptions, Attitudes, and Satisfaction With Interactive Technology: An Exploratory Study , 2011 .

[28]  Andreas Panayiotidis,et al.  Changing the nature of lectures using a personal response system , 2009 .

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

[30]  Erika Blood,et al.  Using Student Response Systems in Lecture-Based Instruction: Does It Change Student Engagement and Learning? , 2008 .

[31]  Thomas A. Brush,et al.  Student perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors , 2008, Comput. Educ..

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

[33]  Laura A. Voith,et al.  Clicking Toward Better Grades: The Use of Student Response Systems in Social Work Education , 2018 .

[34]  Gillian Lancaster,et al.  Personal Response Systems for Teaching Postgraduate Statistics to Small Groups , 2011 .

[35]  Yogesh Kumar Dwivedi,et al.  A review of literature on the use of clickers in the business and management discipline , 2016 .

[36]  A. Hofman,et al.  Using clickers to facilitate interactive engagement activities in a lecture room for improved performance by students , 2014 .

[37]  Eric Lamm,et al.  Workplace fun: the moderating effects of generational differences , 2009 .

[38]  J. Hair.  Multivariate data analysis , 1972 .

[39]  Dorothy Lucardie,et al.  The Impact of Fun and Enjoyment on Adult's Learning , 2014 .

[40]  Anson Wong.  Classroom Response Systems and Student Performance Improvement: Local Versus International Students , 2016 .

[41]  Loredana Manasia.  Enjoyment of Learning in Upper Secondary Education. An Exploratory Research , 2015 .

[42]  Minjuan Wang,et al.  Designing online courses that effectively engage learners from diverse cultural backgrounds , 2007, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

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

[44]  Dennis M. Shaffer,et al.  Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Personal Response System in the Classroom , 2009 .

[45]  Derek O. Bruff,et al.  Teaching with Classroom Response Systems: Creating Active Learning Environments , 2009 .

[46]  K. Chan,et al.  Prediction of Students’ Use and Acceptance of Clickers by Learning Approaches: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study , 2017 .

[47]  Michael J. Tews,et al.  Does fun promote learning? The relationship between fun in the workplace and informal learning , 2017 .

[48]  George Cheung,et al.  Efficient Use of Clickers: A Mixed-Method Inquiry with University Teachers , 2018 .

[49]  Thierry Volery,et al.  Critical success factors in online education , 2000 .

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

[51]  Nathaniel J. Hunsu,et al.  A meta-analysis of the effects of audience response systems (clicker-based technologies) on cognition and affect , 2016, Comput. Educ..

[52]  Carla Carnaghan,et al.  Using student response systems in the accounting classroom: Strengths, strategies and limitations , 2011 .

[53]  Adrienne Wright,et al.  Using clickers to improve student engagement and performance in an introductory biochemistry class , 2009, Biochemistry and molecular biology education : a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

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

[55]  Adam Finkelstein,et al.  Understanding the effects of professors' pedagogical development with Clicker Assessment and Feedback technologies and the impact on students' engagement and learning in higher education , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[56]  Michael J. Prince,et al.  Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the Research , 2004 .

[57]  Kathy L. Jackson,et al.  Fun in the College Classroom: Examining Its Nature and Relationship with Student Engagement , 2015 .

[58]  Jennifer A. Foote,et al.  The impact of individual and shared clicker use on students' collaborative learning , 2015, Comput. Educ..

[59]  John R. Hollenbeck,et al.  The effects of individual differences and goal origin on goal setting and performance , 1987 .

[60]  Wu-Yuin Hwang,et al.  Pausing the classroom lecture: The use of clickers to facilitate student engagement , 2017 .

[61]  I. M. Kulikovskikh,et al.  Promoting collaborative learning through regulation of guessing in clickers , 2017, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[62]  Jerry Chih-Yuan Sun,et al.  Influence of polling technologies on student engagement: An analysis of student motivation, academic performance, and brainwave data , 2014, Comput. Educ..

[63]  Yuping Liu,et al.  Developing a scale to measure the interactivity of websites , 2003, Journal of Advertising Research.

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

[65]  Amy M. Shapiro,et al.  Clickers can promote fact retention but impede conceptual understanding: The effect of the interaction between clicker use and pedagogy on learning , 2017, Comput. Educ..

[66]  Jolita DUDAITĖ,et al.  The Experience of Teachers in the Application of ActivInspire Interactive Evaluation System in Classroom: A Case of Teachers in Lithuania , 2017, Informatics Educ..

[67]  Denise M. Farag,et al.  Faculty Perceptions of the Adoption and Use of Clickers in the Legal Studies in Business Classroom , 2015 .

[68]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.