Student evaluation of audience response technology in large lecture classes

In the past few years, audience response technology (ART) has been widely adopted on college campuses, and is especially popular among instructors of large lecture classes. Claims regarding ART’s benefits to students have received only limited empirical evaluation, and prior studies exhibit methodological limitations. The current study provides a multi-dimensional evaluation, utilizing a newly-developed measure, the Audience Response Technology Questionnaire (ART-Q). Data were provided at three points during a semester by undergraduate students (n = 854) who used ART in three large lecture university courses. Results indicate moderately positive evaluations of ART on some dimensions (e.g., ease of use, impact on attendance), with less positive evaluations on others (e.g., influence on preparation for class). These evaluations showed some variability across time of semester and course, but were not substantially affected by gender, ethnicity, or year in school. Findings are discussed with respect to the need for future research on instructors’ techniques for using ART and their influence on student perceptions and outcomes.

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

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

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

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

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

[6]  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 .

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

[8]  John B. Dunning,et al.  The influence of learning characteristics on evaluation of audience response technology , 2008, J. Comput. High. Educ..

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

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

[11]  Richard B. Herr Computer Assisted Communication within the Classroom: Interactive Lecturing. , 1994 .

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

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

[14]  B. Whitley Gender Differences in Computer-Related Attitudes and Behavior: A Meta-Analysis , 1997 .

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

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

[17]  Robert F. DeVellis,et al.  Scale Development: Theory and Applications. , 1992 .