Student evaluation of audience response technology in large lecture classes
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
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.
- Blackman, M. S., Dooley, P., Kuchinski, B., & Chapman, D. (2002). It worked a different way. College Teaching, 50, 27–28. CrossRef
- Boyle, J. T., & Nicol, D. J. (2003). Using classroom communication systems to support interaction and discussion in large class settings. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 11, 43–57.
- Copas, G. M. (2003). Where’s my clicker? Bringing the remote into the classroom. Usability News, 5.
- Copas, G. M., & Del Valle, S. (2004). Where’s my clicker? Bringing the remote into the classroom – Part II. Usability News, 6.
- DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Fitch, J. L. (2004). Student feedback in the college classroom: A technology solution. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 52, 71–81. CrossRef
- Guthrie, R. W., & Carlin, A. (2004). Waking the dead: Using interactive technology to engage passive listeners in the classroom. Paper presented at the Tenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, New York, NY.
- Herr, R. B. (1994). Computer assisted communication within the classroom: Interactive learning. Newark, DE: University of Delaware (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED416821).
- Horowitz, H. M. (1988). Student response systems: Interactivity in a classroom environment. Paper presented at the Sixth Conference of Interactive Instruction Delivery for the Society of Applied Learning Technology.
- Jackson, M. H., & Trees, A. R. (2007). The learning environment in clicker classrooms: Student processes of learning and involvement in large university-level courses using student response systems. Learning, Media, and Technology, 32(1), 21–40. CrossRef
- Latessa, R., & Mouw, D. (2005). Use of an audience response system to augment interactive learning. Family Medicine, 37, 12–14.
- MacGeorge, E. L., Homan, S. R., Dunning, J. B., Elmore, D., Bodie, G. D., Evans, E., et al. (in press). The influence of learning characteristics on evaluation of audience response technology. Journal of Computing in Higher Education.
- Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Animation as an aid to multi-media learning. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 87–99. CrossRef
- 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. CrossRef
- Poulis, J., Massen, C., Robens, E., & Gilbert, M. (1998). Physics lecturing with audience paced feedback. American Journal of Physics, 66(5), 439–441. CrossRef
- Rice, R. E., & Bunz, U. (2006). Evaluating a wireless course feedback system: The role of demographics, expertise, fluency, competency, and usage. Studies in Media and Information Literacy Education, 6(3).
- Schackow, T. E., Chavez, M., Loya, L., & Friedman, M. (2004). Audience response system: Effect on learning in family medicine residents. Family Medicine, 36, 496–504.
- 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. CrossRef
- Ward, D. L. (2003). The Classroom Performance System: The overwhelming research results supporting this teacher tool and methodology. Retrieved December 20, 2004, from http://www.einstruction.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.display&menu=news&content=showArticle&id=66.
- Whitley, B. E. (1997). Gender differences in computer-related attitudes and behavior: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 13, 1–22. CrossRef
- Student evaluation of audience response technology in large lecture classes
Educational Technology Research and Development
Volume 56, Issue 2 , pp 125-145
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer US
- Additional Links
- Audience response technology
- Classroom response system
- Large lecture classes
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Communication, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
- 2. Department of Organizational Leadership and Supervision, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
- 3. Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
- 4. Department of Physics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
- 5. Teaching and Learning Technologies, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
- 6. Department of Communication, University of California, Davis, CA, USA
- 7. Concentrics Research, LLC, Indianapolis, IN, USA