The development and validation of the student response system benefit scale

Previous research into the benefits student response systems SRS that have been brought into the classroom revealed that SRS can contribute positively to student experiences. However, while the benefits of SRS have been conceptualized and operationalized into a widely cited scale, the validity of this scale had not been tested. Furthermore, subsequent research found the scale to be unreliable. Therefore, this project used two studies and created a reliable and valid SRS benefit scale. First, iterative exploratory factor analysis EFA was conducted to determine whether the stated conceptual definitions matched the operational definitions reflected in student responses to survey items. The results of this statistical analysis showed an 8-item, two-factor scale demonstrating the benefits of SRS in the large lecture classroom. Study 2 used a new sample for confirmatory factor analysis that confirmed the results of the EFA suggested a good model fit with excellent scale reliability. Implications for future assessment of the benefits of SRS were discussed.

[1]  Adam W. Tyma.  Connecting with What Is Out There!: Using Twitter in the Large Lecture , 2011 .

[2]  R. MacCallum,et al.  Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. , 1996 .

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

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

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

[6]  Vincent Tam,et al.  A Comparison of MCQ Assessment Delivery Methods for Student Engagement and Interaction Used as an in-Class Formative Assessment , 2011 .

[7]  R. Kline.  Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 2nd ed. , 2005 .

[8]  K. Fitzpatrick,et al.  Effect of personal response systems on student perception and academic performance in courses in a health sciences curriculum. , 2011, Advances in physiology education.

[9]  J. Mccroskey,et al.  THE USE AND ABUSE OF FACTOR ANALYSIS IN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH , 1979 .

[10]  K. Rocca,et al.  Student Participation in the College Classroom: An Extended Multidisciplinary Literature Review , 2010 .

[11]  Rex B. Kline,et al.  Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling , 1998 .

[12]  P. Bentler,et al.  Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives , 1999 .

[13]  Implications of Using the Electronic Response System in a Large Class , 2010 .

[14]  Katherine J. Denker.  Student Response Systems and Facilitating the Large Lecture Basic Communication Course: Assessing Engagement and Learning , 2013 .

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

[16]  R. Arnett.  Dialogic Education: Conversation About Ideas and Between Persons , 1992 .

[17]  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 .

[18]  Blair Thompson,et al.  Development of the Parental Academic Support Scale: Frequency, Importance, and Modes of Communication , 2012 .

[19]  Sherwyn P. Morreale,et al.  The Basic Communication Course at Two- and Four-Year U.S. Colleges and Universities: Study VIII—The 40th Anniversary , 2010 .

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

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

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

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