Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Facilitating student autonomy in large-scale lectures with audience response systems

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Lectures in higher education often address audiences that consist of over one hundred students. In this setting, it is arguably difficult to take into account individual interests of each participant. This may result in low motivation, decreased learning outcomes as well as an overall low effectiveness of lectures. Self-determination theory suggests that perceived autonomy increases intrinsic motivation, which may in turn improve learning outcomes. We therefore propose to foster perceived autonomy among students by introducing elected elements (e.g., practical examples and topics) that students can vote for with an audience response system. To investigate this instructional approach, we conducted a quasi-experimental field study with two groups of participants: One group was given the choice over some content of the lectures while the other group attended an identical course without choice. Results show that providing the choice over elected elements leads to an increase in perceived influence on the course. Students who reported high perceived influence also experienced high intrinsic motivation. Regarding learning outcomes, intrinsically motivated students reported high perceived learning gains, yet there was no association with test performance. Based on these findings, we derive several avenues for future research regarding the use of elected elements in large-scale lectures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ainley, M., & Hidi, S. (2014). Interest and enjoyment. International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 205–227). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alavi, M., Marakas, G. M., & Yoo, Y. (2002). A comparative study of distributed learning environments on learning outcomes. Information Systems Research,13, 404–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrade H, Cizek GJ (eds) (2010) Handbook of Formative Assessment. Routledge

  • Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students’ engagement in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology,72, 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709902158883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beichner, R. J., Saul, J. M., Allain, R. J., Deardorff, D. L., & Abbott, D. S. (2000). Introduction to SCALE-UP: student-centered activities for large enrollment university physics. In: Proceedings of the 2000 annual meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education.

  • Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education,84, 740–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackman, M. S., Dooley, P., Kuchinski, B., & Chapman, D. (2002). It worked a different way. College Teaching,50, 27–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567550209595868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Methodology in the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buil, I., Catalán, S., & Martínez, E. (2016). Do clickers enhance learning? A control-value theory approach. Computers & Education,103, 170–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.10.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caspi, A., & Blau, I. (2008). Social presence in online discussion groups: Testing three conceptions and their relations to perceived learning. Social Psychology of Education,11, 323–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-008-9054-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castillo-Manzano, J. I., Castro-Nuño, M., Sanz Díaz, M. T., & Yñiguez, R. (2015). Does pressing a button make it easier to pass an exam? Evaluating the effectiveness of interactive technologies in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology Online First. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ceylan, N. O. (2015). Fostering learner autonomy. Procedia -Social and Behavioral Sciences,199, 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry,11, 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2013). Intrinsic motivation inventory (IMI). Retrieved from http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/measures/IMI_description.php.

  • Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). An instrument to assess adults’ orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology,73, 642–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist,26, 325–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dlaska, A. (2002). Sites of construction: Language learning, multimedia, and the international engineer. Computers & Education,39, 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(02)00031-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dresel, M., Engelschalk, T. & Grassinger, R. (2012). Kurzbericht über die Konstruktion und Überprüfung einer deutschen Adaption des Fragebogens “Student Evaluation of Educational Quality” (SEEQ) von Marsh (1982, 2007) [Brief Report on the construction and verification of a German adaptation of the SEEQ questionnaire]. Augsburg University, Department of Psychology.

  • Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., et al. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives (pp. 75–146). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents’ achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,21, 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295213003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eison, J. (2010). Using active learning instructional strategies to create excitement and enhance learning. University of South Florida.

  • Ferreira, M., Cardoso, A. P., & Abrantes, J. L. (2011). Motivation and relationship of the student with the school as factors involved in the perceived learning. In: The 2nd international conference on education and educational psychology 2011 (vol. 29, pp. 1707–1714). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.416.

  • Fitch, J. L. (2004). Student feedback in the college classroom: A technology solution. Educational Technology Research and Development,52, 71–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior,26, 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giannakos, M. N. (2013). Enjoy and learn with educational games: Examining factors affecting learning performance. Computers & Education,68, 429–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonyea, R. M. (2005). Self-reported data in institutional research: Review and recommendations. New Directions for Institutional Research,127, 73–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grund, C. K. & Tulis, M. (2017). Using elected elements in large-scale information systems lectures. In: Leimeister, J. M., Brenner, W., & Peters C., eds., Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik (pp. 776–787).

  • Guo, J., Parker, P. D., Marsh, H. W., & Morin, A. J. S. (2015). Achievement, motivation, and educational choices: A longitudinal study of expectancy and value using a multiplicative perspective. Developmental Psychology,51, 1163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guse, D. M., & Zobitz, P. M. (2011). Validation of the audience response system. British Journal of Educational Technology,42, 985–991. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01120.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hew, K. F., Huang, B., Chu, K. W. S., & Chiu, D. K. W. (2016). Engaging Asian students through game mechanics: Findings from two experiment studies. Computers & Education,92–93, 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research,15, 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L-t, & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunsu, N. J., Adesope, O., & Bayly, D. J. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of audience response systems (clicker-based technologies) on cognition and affect. Computers & Education,94, 102–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology,102, 588–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. D., Epler, C. M., Mokri, P., Bryant, L. H., & Paretti, M. C. (2013). The effects of a collaborative problem-based learning experience on students’ motivation in engineering capstone courses. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning,7, 34–71. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jung, I. (2001). Building a theoretical framework of web-based instruction in the context of distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology,32, 525–534. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kena, G., Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., Wang, X., Rathbun, A., Zhang, J., et al. (2015). The condition of education 2015, NCES 2015-144. Washington, DC: U.S Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human Communication Research,30, 411–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00738.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kusurkar, R. A., Ten Cate, T. J., Vos, C. M. P., Westers, P., & Croiset, G. (2013). How motivation affects academic performance: A structural equation modelling analysis. Advances in Health Sciences Education,18, 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-012-9354-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, K. & Söllner, M. (2014). Theory-driven design of a mobile-learning application to support different interaction types in large-scale lectures. In: Proceedings of the 22nd European conference on information systems (ECIS) (pp. 1–12).

  • Little, D. (1990). Autonomy in language learning. In A. Swarbrick (Ed.), Teaching modern languages (pp. 81–87). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundeberg, M. A., Kang, H., Wolter, B., delMas, R., Armstrong, N., Borsari, B., et al. (2011). Context matters: Increasing understanding with interactive clicker case studies. Educational Technology Research and Development,59, 645–671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9182-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacGeorge, E. L., Homan, S. R., Dunning, J. B., Elmore, D., Bodie, G. D., Evans, E., et al. (2008). Student evaluation of audience response technology in large lecture classes. Educational Technology Research and Development,56, 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9053-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W. (1982). SEEQ: A reliable, valid, and useful instrument for collecting students’ evaluations of university teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology,52, 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1982.tb02505.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mega, C., Ronconi, L., & de Beni, R. (2014). What makes a good student? How emotions, self-regulated learning, and motivation contribute to academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology,106, 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss, K., & Crowley, M. (2011). Effective learning in science: The use of personal response systems with a wide range of audiences. Computers & Education,56, 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, D. J., & Boyle, J. T. (2003). Peer instruction versus class-wide discussion in large classes: A comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom. Studies in Higher Education,28, 457–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plant, R. W., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and the effects of self-consciousness, self-awareness, and ego-involvement: An investigation of internally controlling styles. Journal of Personality,53, 435–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1985.tb00375.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priniski, S. J., Hecht, C. A., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2018). Making learning personally meaningful: A new framework for relevance research. The Journal of Experimental Education,86, 11–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1380589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeve, J., Bolt, E., & Cai, Y. (1999). Autonomy-supportive teachers: How they teach and motivate students. Journal of Educational Psychology,91, 537–548. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.3.537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinhardt, W., Sievers, M., Magenheim, J., Kundisch, D., Herrmann, P., Beutner, M., et al. (2012). PINGO: Peer instruction for very large groups. In A. Ravenscroft, S. Lindstaedt, C. D. Kloos, & D. Hernández-Leo (Eds.), 21st century learning for 21st century skills (pp. 507–512). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Renninger, K. A. (2000). Individual interest and its implications for understanding intrinsic motivation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (pp. 373–404). San Diego: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rice, R. E., & Bunz, U. (2006). Evaluating a wireless course feedback system: The role of demographics, expertise, fluency, competency, and usage. Studies in Media & Information Literacy Education,6, 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of Personality,74, 1557–1586. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00420.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlagwein, D. (2015). Students as reviewers and lecturers as editors: The peer review with scaffolded assignments model. In: Leidner, D. & Ross J., eds., Proceedings of the 36th international conference on information systems (ICIS) (pp. 1–9).

  • Sierens, E., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., & Dochy, F. (2009). The synergistic relationship of perceived autonomy support and structure in the prediction of self-regulated learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology,79, 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709908X304398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology,85, 571–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. (2015). Learner autonomy: Origins, approaches, and practical implementation. International Journal of Educational Investigations,2, 82–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snodin, N. S. (2013). The effects of blended learning with a CMS on the development of autonomous learning: A case study of different degrees of autonomy achieved by individual learners. Computers & Education,61, 209–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educational Psychologist,39, 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3902_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stratling, R. (2017). The complementary use of audience response systems and online tests to implement repeat testing: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology,48, 370–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, S. A. J., Brown, M. I., & Draper, S. W. (2004). Using an electronic voting system in logic lectures: One practitioner’s application. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,20, 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00075.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sung, Y.-T., Chang, K.-E., & Liu, T.-C. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students’ learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computers & Education,94, 252–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Always learning (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, G., Jungert, T., Mageau, G. A., Schattke, K., Dedic, H., Rosenfield, S., et al. (2014). A self-determination theory approach to predicting school achievement over time: The unique role of intrinsic motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology,39, 342–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tempelaar, D. T., Niculescu, A., Rienties, B., Gijselaers, W. H., & Giesbers, B. (2012). How achievement emotions impact students’ decisions for online learning, and what precedes those emotions. Internet and Higher Education,15, 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.10.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trenshaw, K. F., Revelo, R. A., Earl, K. A., & Herman, G. L. (2016). Using self determination theory principles to promote engineering students’ intrinsic motivation to learn. International Journal of Engineering Education,32, 1194–1207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tulis, M., & Fulmer, S. (2013). Students’ motivational and emotional experiences and their relationship to persistence during academic challenge in mathematics and reading. Learning and Individual Differences,27, 35–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology,25, 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, K. (2013). What do the numbers say? The influence of motivation and peer feedback on students’ behaviour in online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology,44, 288–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01291.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, K., & Ke, F. (2011). The role of students’ motivation in peer-moderated asynchronous online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology,42, 916–930. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01140.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, M., Tai, M., & Lim, C. P. (2016). The role of e-portfolios in supporting productive learning. British Journal of Educational Technology,47, 1276–1286. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, M. (2016). Chinese university students’ acceptance of MOOCs: A self-determination perspective. Computers & Education,92–93, 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Rohit Valecha, Emmanuel Ayaburi, and Nasim Talebi who helped with the methodological aspects of our data analysis. In addition, we would like to thank Kristina Götz for thoroughly proofreading our manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Augsburg, Universitätsstr. 16, 86159, Augsburg, Germany

    Christian Karl Grund

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

    Maria Tulis

Authors
  1. Christian Karl Grund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Tulis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Karl Grund.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors would like to state that there is no conflict of interest and that this research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Ethical standards

Ethical considerations have been taken into account, participants have been protected and had no disadvantages in any form.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Grund, C.K., Tulis, M. Facilitating student autonomy in large-scale lectures with audience response systems. Education Tech Research Dev 68, 975–993 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09713-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09713-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation