Abstract
From the reports of previous studies, clickers have been recognized as an effective strategy that has a positive impact on learning performance, comparing to lecture. However, it is uncertain that whether it is the clickers themselves or the more general active learning strategies that influences learning performance. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of the two different strategies (clicker vs. peer discussion) that support active learning on learning performance of secondary students. It focused on eighty-eight secondary school female students from four classes who participated in a biology course taught by the same teacher with the same learning content, schedule, presentation slides, and questions. This research randomly selected two classes as the experimental group and the other two classes as the control group. The students in the experimental group were taught with clickers along with lecture, while those in the control group were taught with peer discussion along with lecture. Both groups completed the same tasks. Four lessons were selected in a biology course with the duration of each class about 45 min. The experiment lasted for 4 weeks. Four data collection instruments were used to compare the students’ learning achievements, learning interests, learning attitudes, and cognitive levels. The results showed that (a) there was no significant difference in students’ learning achievements; (b) the experimental group showed higher learning interests than the control group; meanwhile, there was no significant difference in terms of the learning attitudes in between the two groups; and (c) the experimental group showed lower cognitive level than the control group.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Abdu-Raheem, B. O. (2010). Relative effects of problem-solving and discussion methods on secondary school students’ achievements in Social Studies. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, University of Ado-Ekiti, Ado-Ekiti.
Addison, S., Wright, A., & Milner, R. (2009). Using clickers to improve student engagement and performance in an introductory biochemistry class. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education: A Bimonthly Publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 37(2), 84–91.
Auster, E. R., & Wylie, K. K. (2006). Creating active learning in the classroom: A systematic approach. Journal of Management Education, 30, 333–354.
Beatty, I. D. (2005). Transforming student learning with classroom communication systems. arXiv preprint physics/0508129.
Beatty, I. D., Grace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., & Dufense, R. J. (2006). Designing effective questions for classroom response systems teaching. American Journal of Physics, 74(1), 31–39.
Beekes, W. (2006). The ‘millionaire’ method for encouraging participation. Active Learning for Higher Education, 7, 25–36. Retrieved on September 10, 2013 from http://alh.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/7/1/25
Bergtrom, G. (2006). Clicker sets as learning objects. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 2. Available in http://ijklo.org/Volume2/v2p105-110Bergtrom.pdf
Bonwell, C., & Eison, J. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom, ASHEERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School of Education and Higher Education.
Brady, M., Seli, H., & Rosenthal, J. (2013). “Clickers” and metacognition: A quasi-experimental comparative study about metacognitive self-regulation and use of electronic feedback devices. Computers & Education, 65(1), 56–63.
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, 535–541.
Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and beast-practice tips. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9–20.
Chen, J. C., Whittinghill, D. C., & Kadlowec, J. A. (2010). Classes that click: Fast, rich feedback to enhance students’ learning and satisfaction. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(2), 158–169.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
D’Inverno, R., Davis, H., & White, S. (2003). Using a personal response system for promoting student interaction. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 22, 163–169.
Duncan, D. (2006). Clickers: A new teaching aid with exceptional promise. Astronomy Education Review, 5, 70.
Hazel, S. J., Heberle, N., McEwen, M. M., & Adams, K. (2013). Team-based learning increases active engagement and enhances development of teamwork and communication skills in a first-year course for veterinary and animal science undergraduates. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 40(4), 333–341.
Herrmann, A., Reinicke, B., Vetter, R., Yaylacicegi, U., & Grove, N. (2012). uRespond: A classroom response system on the iPad. Annals of the Master of Science in Computer Science and Information Systems at UNC Wilmington, 6(1).
Homme, J., Asay, G., & Morgenstern, B. (2004). Utilisation of an audience response system. Medical Education, 38(5), 575.
Hunsinger, M., Poirier, C. R., & Feldman, R. S. (2008). The roles of personality and class size in student attitudes toward individual response technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2792–2798 (Jones, C., Connolly, M., Gear, A., & Read, M. (2001). Group).
Hwang, G.-J., & Chang, H.-F. (2011). A formative assessment-based mobile learning approach to improving the learning attitudes and achievements of students. Computers & Education, 56(4), 1023–1031.
Kay, R.-H., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 53, 819–827.
Knight, J. K., & Wood, W. B. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology Education, 4(4), 298–310.
Knight, J. K., Wise, S. B., & Southard, K. M. (2013). Understanding clicker discussions: Student reasoning and the impact of instructional cues. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 12(4), 645–654.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.
Lee, J. B., & Bainum, C. K. (2006, April). Do clickers depersonalize the classroom? An evaluation by shy students. In 86th Annual Convention of the Western Psychological Association, Palm Springs, CA.
Martyn, M. (2007). Clickers in the classroom: An active learning approach. Educause Quarterly, 30(2), 71.
Mayer, R. E., Stull, A., DeLeeuw, K., Almeroth, K., Bimber, B., Chun, D., et al. (2009). Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 51–57.
McKeachie, W. J., & Svinicki, M. (2006). Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for College and University teachers. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Meyers, C., & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promoting active learning, strategies for College classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Morling, B., McAuliffe, M., Cohen, L., & D’Lorenzo, T. (2008). Efficacy of personal response systems (“clickers”) in large, introductory psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 35, 45–50.
Poirier, C. R., & Feldman, R. S. (2007). Promoting active learning using individual response technology in large introductory psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 34, 194–196.
Preszler, R. W., Dawe, A., Shuster, C. B., & Shuster, M. (2007). Assessment of the effects of student response systems on student learning and attitudes over a broad range of biology courses. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 29–41.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.
Roblyer, M. D., & Wiencke, W. R. (2003). Design and use of a rubric to assess and encourage interactive qualities in distance courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 17(2), 77–98.
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(2), 187–208.
Smith, M., Wood, W., Adams, W., Wieman, C., Knight, J., Guild, N., et al. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323, 122–124.
Stowell, J. R., & Nelson, J. M. (2007). Benefits of electronic audience response systems on student participation, learning, and emotion. Teaching of Psychology, 34(4), 253–258.
Tai, L. Y. (2011). Integrating the technological dimension into teaching and learning: A sociocultural perspective. Retrieved July 31, 2013, from http://www.cdtl.nus.edu.sg/tech-in-he/pdf/Section2-Article6.pdf
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.
Wood, W. B. (2004). Clickers: A teaching gimmick that works. Developmental Cell, 7, 796–798.
Yen, J.-C., Lee, C.-Y., & Chen, I.-J. (2012). The effects of image-based concept mapping on the learning outcomes and cognitive processes of mobile learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 307–320.
Zhu, E. (2007). Teaching with clickers. Center for Research on Learning and Teaching Occasional Papers, 22, 1–8.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hu, Y., Huang, R. (2015). Effects of Clicker and Peer Discussion on Learning Performance in a Secondary Biology Course. In: Chang, M., Li, Y. (eds) Smart Learning Environments. Lecture Notes in Educational Technology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44447-4_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44447-4_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-44446-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-44447-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)