Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating Impact of Small-Group Discussion on Learning Utilizing a Classroom Response System

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Behavioral Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Classroom response systems (also referred to as clickers) can enhance learning outcomes and are generally viewed favorably by students and instructors alike. The current study used an alternating treatments design to examine whether discussing questions in small groups before responding to clicker questions during lecture improved accurate responding on similar questions on unit examinations over clicker questions without the small-group discussion component in two sections of an undergraduate organizational psychology course. The results of the study did not show any clear advantages of small-group discussion in terms of learning outcomes, though students and instructors alike reported enjoying the classroom response system and the discussion intervention. The implications of these findings with respect to previous research are discussed.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Austin, J. L. (2000). Behavioral approaches to college teaching. In J. Austin & J. E. Carr (Eds.), Handbook of applied behavior analysis (pp. 449–472). Reno: Context Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J. L., Lee, M. G., Thibeault, M. D., Carr, J. E., & Bailey, J. S. (2002). Effects of guided notes on university students’ responding and recall of information. Journal of Behavioral Education, 11, 243–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barlow, D. H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change (2nd ed.). Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, I. (2004). Transforming student learning with classroom communication systems. EDUCAUSE Research Bulletin, 2004(3), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bligh, D. (2000). What’s the use of lectures?. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, C. A. (2004). Near real-time assessment of student learning and understanding in biology courses. BioScience, 54(11), 1034–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruff, D. (2009a). Teaching with classroom response systems: Creating active learning environments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruff, D. (2009, May 26). Early versions of clickers? Retrieved June 15, 2009, from http://derekbruff.com/teachingwithcrs/?paged=2

  • Bullock, D. W., LaBella, V. P., Clingan, T., Ding, Z., Stewart, G., & Thibado, P. M. (2002). Enhancing the student-instructor interaction frequency. The Physics Teacher, 40, 30–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnstein, R. A., & Lederman, L. M. (2003). Comparison of different commercial wireless keypad systems. The Physics Teacher, 41, 272–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. Life Sciences Education, 6, 9–20.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carnaghan, C., & Webb, A. (2007). Investigating the effects of student response systems on student satisfaction, learning, and engagement in accounting education. Issues in Accounting Education, 22, 391–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caron, P. R., & Gely, R. (2004). Taking back the law school classroom: Using technology to foster active student learning. Journal of Legal Education, 54, 551–569.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69, 970–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, A. C., & Daniels, J. E. (2004). Performance management: Changing behavior that drives organizational effectiveness. Atlanta: Performance Management Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Draper, S. W., & Brown, M. I. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 20, 81–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., Mestre, J. P., & Wenk, L. (1996). Classtalk: A classroom communication system for active learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 7, 3–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, D. (2005). Clickers in the classroom: How to enhance science teaching using classroom response systems. San Francisco: Pearson/Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg, L. (1990). Multiple-choice and its critics. College Board Review, 157, 12–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felce, A. (2007). A critical analysis of the use of electronic voting systems: Ask the audience. Emirates Journal for Engineering Research, 12, 11–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, K. A., & Paulsen, M. B. (Eds.). (1994). Teaching and learning in the college classroom. Needham Heights: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fies, C. (2005). Classroom response systems: What do they add to an active learning environment? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Austin, Texas.

  • Fies, C., & Marshall, J. (2006). Classroom response systems: A review of the literature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15, 101–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredrick, L. D., & Hummel, J. H. (2004). Reviewing the outcomes and principles of effective instruction. In D. J. Moran & R. W. Malott (Eds.), Evidence based educational methods (pp. 9–21). San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, R., Heward, W. L., & Grossi, T. A. (1994). Effects of response cards on student participation and academic achievement: A systematic replication with inner-city students during whole-class science instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 63–71.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, C. R., Tripp, T. R., Seawright, L., & Joeckel, G. (2007). Empowering or compelling reluctant participators using audience response systems. Active Learning in Higher Education, 8, 233–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haladyna, T. M. (2004). Developing and validating multiple-choice test items (3rd ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works? Change, 30, 27–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C., Connolly, M., Gear, A., & Read, M. (2001). Group integrative learning with group process support technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5), 571–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, R. H., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 53(3), 819–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellum, K. K., Carr, J. E., & Dozier, C. L. (2001). Response-card instruction and student learning in a college classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 101–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lammers, W. J., & Murphy, J. J. (2002). A profile of teaching techniques in the university classroom: A descriptive profile of a US public university. Active Learning in Higher Education, 3, 54–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Len, P. M. (2007). Different reward structures to motivate student interaction with electronic response systems in astronomy. Astronomy Education Review, 5, 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, A. (2009). Using peer instruction and i-clickers to enhance student participation in calculus. Primus, 3, 219–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marmolejo, E. K., Wilder, D. A., & Bradley, L. (2004). A preliminary analysis of the effects of response cards on student performance and participation in an upper division university course. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 405–410.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mazur, E. (1997). Peer Instruction: A user’s manual. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, R. G., Ashar, B. H., & Getz, K. J. (2003). Evaluation of an audience response system for the continuing education of health professionals. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 23, 109–115.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moran, D. J., & Malott, R. W. (Eds.). (2004). Evidence-based educational methods. San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neef, N. A., McCord, B. E., & Ferreri, S. J. (2006). Effects of guided notes versus completed notes during lectures on college students’ quiz performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 123–130.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  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 

  • Paschal, C. B. (2002). Formative assessment in physiology teaching using a wireless classroom communication system. Advances in Physiology Education, 26, 299–308.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Preszler, R. W., Dawe, A., Schuster, C. B., & Schuster, M. (2007). Assessment of student response systems on student learning and attitudes over a broad range of biology courses. Life Sciences Education, 6, 29–41.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reay, N. W., Bao, L., Pengfei, L., Warnakulasooriya, R., & Baugh, G. (2005). Toward an effective use of voting machines in physics lectures. American Journal of Physics, 73, 554–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reay, N. W., Li, P., & Bao, L. (2008). Testing a new voting machine question methodology. American Journal of Physics, 72, 171–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saville, B. K., Zinn, T. E., Neef, N. A., Van Norman, R., & Ferreri, S. J. (2006). A comparison of interteaching and lecture in the college classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 49–61.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, V., & Oliver, M. (2007). Electronic voting systems for lectures then and now: A comparison of research and practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23, 187–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning on achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N., & Su, T. T. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323, 122–124.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69, 21–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stowell, J. R., & Nelson, J. M. (2007). Benefits of electronic audience response systems on student participation, learning, and emotion. Teaching of Psychology, 34, 253–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trees, A. R., & Jackson, M. H. (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, 21–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woelk, K. (2008). Optimizing the use of personal response devices (clickers) in large enrollment introductory courses. Journal of Chemical Education, 85, 1400–1405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yourstone, S. A., Kraye, H. S., & Albaum, G. (2008). Classroom questioning with immediate electronic response: Do clickers improve learning? Decisions Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 6, 75–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Thorhallur O. Flosason

    Present address: Kellogg Company, Battle Creek, MI, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Western Michigan University, 1903 W Michigan Ave, Kalamazoo, MI, 49008-5439, USA

    Thorhallur O. Flosason & Heather M. McGee

  2. Performance Blueprints, Blowing Rock, NC, USA

    Lori Diener-Ludwig

Authors
  1. Thorhallur O. Flosason
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heather M. McGee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lori Diener-Ludwig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heather M. McGee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Flosason, T.O., McGee, H.M. & Diener-Ludwig, L. Evaluating Impact of Small-Group Discussion on Learning Utilizing a Classroom Response System. J Behav Educ 24, 317–337 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-015-9225-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-015-9225-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation