Academic
Exchange Quarterly Spring 2010
ISSN 1096-1453 Volume 14, Issue 1
To cite, use print
source rather than this on-line version which may not reflect
print copy
format
|
This article should not be
reprinted for inclusion in any publication for sale without author's explicit
permission. Anyone may view, reproduce
or store copy of this article for personal, non-commercial use as allowed by
the "Fair Use" limitations (sections 107 and 108) of the U.S. Copyright law. For any other
use and for reprints, contact article's author(s) who may impose usage fee..
See also |
The
Effect of Clickers on Student Learning
Kimo Ah Yun,
California State University, Sacramento
Maureen Lojo, California State University, Sacramento
AhYun,
Ph.D. is Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning and Professor of
Communication Studies, and Lojo, Ph.D. is Professor of Operations Management.
The use of “clickers” or
student handheld response devices in college classrooms is on the rise. The
study reported here examined student attitudes toward the use of these devices
as well as student learning among students (N = 942). Data reveal that students
like these devices and those students in the experimental condition (those
using clickers) outperformed students in the control condition (those not using
clickers) on exams by six percentage points.
Introduction
The use of “clickers” in higher education along with research efforts to document their effectiveness and guide their use is on the rise. Vendors offer promises of improved learning to encourage professors to adopt these systems in their courses, but some researchers question the value they deliver as compared to cheaper lower technology alternatives. At present, there are a growing number of published case studies describing the implementation of clicker systems in college classrooms (Judson & Sawada, 2002; Koenig, 2010; Perkins & Turpen, 2009; Weerts, Millers, & Altice, 2009). Most of these studies survey students to measure their perceptions of the impact of clickers on their motivation (Gauci, Dantas, Williams, & Kemm, 2009), engagement (Weerts, Miller, & Altice, 2009), and/or learning (Perkins & Turpen, 2009). Student response is almost universally positive to clickers (Beckert, Fauth, & Olsen, 2009). However, there are few studies that measure clicker effectiveness using objective learning outcomes, such as student test scores (Berry, 2009; Mayer, Stull, DeLeeuw, Almeroth, Bimber et al., 2009; Shaffer & Collura, 2009)
Clickers (known variously as electronic response systems, audience paced feedback, and personal response devices) are not particularly new, but their use has shifted over the past four decades as the technology has developed. Early systems provided tallies of student responses to multiple choice questions for instructor use. This enabled professors to gauge student understanding and respond accordingly. Results could be shared with students as quick feedback or used to pace the delivery of material. The focus has gradually shifted to promoting student discussion of key conceptual points (Caldwell, 2007; Fies & Marshall, 2006; Judson & Sawada, 2002). Current technology clicker software provides histograms of the aggregated responses and classroom practice typically includes time for students to compare their viewpoints and possibly revise their answers. This “interactive engagement” is now seen as the most important benefit of clickers. (Beatty, Gerace, Leonard, & Dufresne, 2006; Weerts, Miller, & Altice, 2009)
Given the push for more evidence based learning at the university level, a surprising limitation of the current clicker research is that it mostly fails to assess the impact of the use of clickers on student learning. Understanding if clickers do indeed impact student learning is important given that clickers add class costs to the students. As such, to warrant additional class costs, faculty members should be able to point to the added advantages of the use of these devices to justify their use.
The purpose of this article is to (1) test the effect of clicker use on student learning and (2) ascertain student perceptions about how clickers impact their overall satisfaction with the class, perceived interest in the material being covered, cognitive effort they are willing to exert in learning the material, general understanding of the material, and motivation to engage in the learning process.
Hypothesis
As described above, the use of clickers in the classroom provides a host of pedagogical opportunities. For students it can help them to engage with the material, provide opportunities to practice test questions, and generally help them to get them excited about the learning process. For faculty it provides immediate feedback on areas of student learning that require additional attention. Given the proposed benefits of clicker use in engaging students and in providing immediate feedback on student understanding of classroom material, it can be expected that student performance as measured by examination scores will improve when clickers are used. As such, the following hypothesis is proposed.
Hypothesis 1: Students that use clickers will perform better on examinations than those who do not use clickers.
Research
Question
Research has generally shown that students like and enjoy using clickers in the classroom (Beckert, Fauth, & Olsen, 2009). However, one might argue that attitudes toward clicker use differ across majors. For example, physics and electrical engineering students might like clickers, but philosophy and theatre students might not. Since prior research has not examined student populations of Communication Studies and Operations Management students, replication within these populations can address this issue and allow for a broader understanding of student attitudes toward the use of clickers. While a long list of perceived student outcomes could be studied, a review of the current research identifies student satisfaction along with perceptions of increasing interest, cognitive effort, understanding of the material, and motivation to learn the class material as important variables. As such, the following research question is posed.
Research Question 1: Are students satisfied with the use of clickers and do they perceive that clickers increased their interest, cognitive effort, understanding of the material, and motivation to learn the class material?
Method
Participants
Participants included 942 students from a large western university enrolled
in research courses in the areas of Communication Studies and Operations
Management. The mean age of participants was 23.26 years (SD = 3.80); 480 were female (51%), 462
were male (49%). Included in the sample were 565 Caucasian (60%), 76 African
American (8%), 84 Hispanic (9%), 64 Asian (8%), and 153 individuals who listed
their race as other (15%).
Procedures
Participants enrolling into course were selected to either participate
in the experimental (use of an e-Instruction™ clicker) or non-experimental (no
use of clicker) conditions. Data was collected on student grades based on
common test questions on the midterm and final examinations for both sections.
Additionally, for the experimental condition, data was collected on perceptions
about clickers, including multi-item measures that asked them to report on
their satisfaction with the clicker, the degree to which the clicker increased
their interest in learning the course content, their perception of the clicker
increasing their cognitive effort in the class, the ability of the clicker to
boost their understanding of the material, and their raised motivation as the
result of the clicker use in the classroom.
Measures
Satisfaction with clickers. A five-item seven-point Likert type scale that included items such as, “I am satisfied with the use of clickers in this class” and “I am pleased with the use of clickers in this class” was used to measure clicker satisfaction. A confirmatory factor analysis was performed and revealed the items were consistent with a unidimensional factor structure. Further, the reliability for these items was quite high (α = .97). Given the CFA and reliability findings, these five items were summed to form the final clicker satisfaction measure (M = 5.25, SD = 1.60).
Interest in class material. A five-item seven-point Likert type scale that included items such as, “Using clickers made the material we covered in class more interesting” and “I felt more engaged in the class material because clickers were used” was used to measure clicker interest. A confirmatory factor analysis was performed and revealed the items were consistent with a unidimensional factor structure. Further, the reliability for these items was quite high (α = .94). Given the CFA and reliability findings, these five items were summed to form the final clicker interest in the class material measure (M = 5.04, SD = 1.59).
Cognitive effort due to clickers. A five-item seven-point Likert type scale that included items such as, “The clickers caused me to put a lot of mental effort into this class” and “I am pleased with the use of clickers in this class” was used to measure clicker satisfaction. A confirmatory factor analysis was performed and revealed the items were consistent with a unidimensional factor structure. Further, the reliability for these items was quite high (α = .97). Given the CFA and reliability findings, these five items were summed to form the final cognitive effort due to clickers measure (M = 4.67, SD = 1.53).
Understanding
due to clickers. A
five-item seven-point Likert type scale that included items such as, “Clickers
helped me to understand the class material ” and “Clickers assisted my ability
to grasp the material covered in this class” was used to measure clicker use as
a function of understanding. A confirmatory factor analysis was performed and revealed
the items were consistent with a unidimensional factor structure. Further, the
reliability for these items was quite high (α = .96).
Given the CFA and reliability findings, these five items were summed to form
the final understanding due to clickers measure (M
= 4.86, SD = 1.47).
Motivation as a function of clickers. A five-item seven-point Likert type scale that included items such as, “Clickers helped to motivate me in this class ” and “Clickers inspired me to learn the material” was used to measure clicker use as a function of motivation. A confirmatory factor analysis was performed and revealed the items were consistent with a unidimensional factor structure. Further, the reliability for these items was quite high (α = .91). Given the CFA and reliability findings, these five items were summed to form the final motivation as a function of clickers measure (M = 4.66, SD = 1.52).
Results
H1 predicted that participants in the clicker
condition would perform better on examinations than those in the non-clicker
condition. To test this hypothesis, an independent groups design t-test was
performed. For these data, participants in the clicker condition (M = .77, SD
= .10) outperformed participants in the non-clicker condition (M = .71, SD
= .12), t = 5.35 (940), p = < .001, r = .17.
RQ 1 asked about the degree to which
participants were satisfied with the use of clickers and perceived that the
clickers increased their interest, cognitive effort, understanding of the
material and motivation to learn the class material. A one-sample t-test was
performed on each of the outcome variables for the participants in the
experimental condition. Because a seven-point scale was used for each of the
outcome variables, the comparison point was set at the midpoint of the scale to
test for potential differences (scale midpoint = 4). For these data,
significant positive differences were found with respect to satisfaction, t = 17.23 (484), p < .001, interest, t = 14.30 (482), p < .001, cognitive effort, t = 9.57 (475), p < .001, understanding, t
= 12.83 (482), p < .001, and
motivation, t = 9.55 (482), p < .001
Table 1. Student
Attitudes Toward Clicker Use
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mean |
SD |
t |
df |
p |
|
Satisfaction with clickers |
5.25 |
1.60 |
17.23 |
484 |
<.001 |
|
Interest in class material |
5.04 |
1.59 |
14.30 |
482 |
<.001 |
|
Cognitive effort due to clickers |
4.67 |
1.53 |
9.57 |
475 |
<.001 |
|
Understanding due to clickers |
4.86 |
1.47 |
12.83 |
482 |
<.001 |
|
Motivation as a function of clickers |
4.66 |
1.52 |
9.55 |
482 |
<.001 |
Discussion
Findings of this study revealed that the use
of clickers showed a positive impact on overall student learning. Moreover,
students also reported that they were satisfied, and that clickers increased
their interest, cognitive effort, understanding, and motivation. Additionally,
the findings here are consistent with other research that shows that clickers
can serve as a useful pedagogical device (see for example, Berry,
2009; Mayer, Stull, DeLeeuw, Almeroth,
Bimber et al., 2009; Shaffer & Collura, 2009).
Overall, these results are promising in that the spread of clicker use amongst
all levels of education might be having positive impacts on overall student
learning.
The authors, however, caution individuals
from the wholesale generalizing of the results found in this study. As with
most pedagogical tools and strategies, it can be expected that there will be
variation amongst users. Both instructors who were studied here are familiar
with theories of teaching and learning and used the clicker devices because of
their curiosity of how students would respond and their desire to explore ways to
further improve student learning in their courses. As such, the effects found
here might be enhanced given the users of this technology. Quite simply, it is
believed that the technology can have positive effects, but only when it is
applied with considerable forethought on how it can support overall learning
goals. As with the use of other technology based teaching devices and teaching
strategies, there is no reason to expect that clickers uniquely impact student
learning, but instead, clickers coupled with teachers that use them with an
understanding of their affordances can yield a successful outcome.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to (1) test the effect of clicker use on student learning and (2) ascertain student perceptions about how clickers impact their overall satisfaction with the class, perceived interest in the material being covered, cognitive effort they are willing to exert in learning the material, general understanding of the material, and motivation to engage in the learning process. The findings of this study as illustrated above show support for the use of clickers in the classroom. Further research should seek to explore other factors that might affect clicker use in the classroom. For example, additional research might explore the conditions under which the benefits for clicker use in the classroom might be maximized. Considering factors such as the size of the course, level of course (introduction versus advanced) and composition of students (entry versus advanced) all might be fruitful endeavors to fully understand the limits and capabilities of using clickers as a learning tool.
References
Beatty, I.D., Gerace, W.J., Leonard, W.J., Dufresne,
R.J. (2006) Designing Effective
Questions for Classroom
Response System Teaching. American Journal of
Physics, 74, 31-39.
Beckert, T., Fauth,
E., & Olsen, K. (2009). Clicker Satisfaction for Students in Human
Development: Differences
for class type, prior exposure, and student talkativity.
North American Journal of Psychology, 11, 599-611.
Berry, J. (2009).
Technology Support in Nursing Education: Clickers in the Classroom. Nursing
Education
Perspective, 30, 295-298.
Caldwell, J.E. (2007)
Clickers in the Large Classroom: Current Research and Best-
Practice Tips.
CBE – Life Sciences Education, 6, 9-20.
Fies, C. & Marshall, J. (2006) Classroom
Response Systems: A Review of the Literature.
Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 15, 101-109.
Gauici, S., Dantas,
A., Williams, D., @ Kemm, R. (2009). Promoting Student-Centered
Active
Learning in Lectures with
a Personal Response System. Advances in Physiology
Education, 33, 60-71.
Judson, E. & Sawada,
D. (2002) Learning from Past and Present: Electronic Response
Systems in College
Lecture Halls. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and
Science Teaching, 21, 167-181.
Koenig, K. (2010).
Building Acceptance for Pedagogical Reform through Wide-Scale
Implementation of Clickers.
Journal of College Science, 39,
46-50.
Mayer, R., Stull, A., DeLeeuw, K., Almeroth, K., Bimber, B., et al. (2009). Clickers in College
Classrooms: Fostering Learning
with Questioning Methods in Large Lecture Classes. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 34, 51-57.
Perkins, K., & Turpen, C. (2009). Student Perspectives on Using Clickers
in Upper-Division
Physics Courses. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1179,
225-228.
Shaffer, D., & Collura, M. (2009). Evaluating the Effectiveness of a
Personal Response System
in the Classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 36, 273-277.
Weerts, S., Miller, D., & Altice, A. (2009). “Clicker” Technology Promotes Interactivity
in an
Undergraduate Course. Journal of Nutrition Education & Behavior, 41, 227-228.