The influence of learning characteristics on evaluation of audience response technology
- 154 Downloads
- 9 Citations
Abstract
AUDIENCE RESPONSE TECHNOLOGY (ART) has been widely adopted on college campuses, and prior research indicates that, on average, it receives positive evaluations from students. However, research has not yet examined how characteristics of students as learners influence their responses to ART. The current study examined aptitude for learning, objective learning (i.e., class performance), subjective learning (i.e., self-perceived learning), and conceptualizations of the learning process as influences on students' evaluation of ART. Students who had used ART over the course of a semester in one of three large lecture classes (N=703) completed surveys assessing their learning characteristics, perceptions of ART influence on their attendance, motivation, and learning, liking for ART, and evaluations of the course and instructor. Controlling for course and instructor evaluations, aptitude and objective learning were weakly but negatively associated with evaluations of ART and subjective learning was positively associated with evaluations of ART. Further, different conceptualizations of learning have distinctive associations with ART evaluations. Discussion focuses on the implications of these findings for instructors' use of ART.
Keywords
audience respons technology clickers teaching learningPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- Blackman, M.S., Dooley, P., Kuchinski, B., & Chapman, D. (2002). It worked a different way.College Teaching, 50, 27–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fitch, J.L. (2004). Student feedback in the college classroom: A technology solution.Educational Technology, Research and Development, 52, 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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, 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Latessa, R., & Mouw, D. (2005). Use of an audience response system to augment interactive learning.Family Medicine, 37, 12–14.Google Scholar
- Lorenzo, M., Crouch, C.H., & Mazur, E. (2006). Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom.American Journal of Physics, 74, 118–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- MacGeorge, E.L., Homan, S.R., Dunning, J.B., Elmore, D., Bodie, G.D., Evans, E., et al. (in press). Student evaluation of audience response technology in large lecture classes.Educational Technology Research and Development.Google Scholar
- Mayer, R.E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Animation as an aid to multi-media learning.Educational Psychology Review, 14, 87–99.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Poulis, J., Massen, C., Robens, E., & Gilbert, M. (1998). Physics lecturing with audience paced feedback.American Journal of Physics, 66(5), 439–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Purdue's system-wide technology helps students click in to academics. (2004). Retrieved April 15, 2006, from http://www.einstruction.com/index.cmf? fuseaction=news.display&menu=news&content=showArticle&id=84Google Scholar
- Rice, R.E., & Bunz, U. (2006). Evaluating a wireless course feedback systen: The role of demographics, expertise, fluency, competency, and usageStudies in Media and Information Literacy Education, 6(3), http://www.utpress.utoronto.ca/journal/ ejournals/similieGoogle Scholar
- 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.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Vermunt, J.D. (1994).Inventory of learning styles in higher education: Utrecht University, IVLOS—Institute of Education.Google Scholar
- Vermunt, J.D. (1998). The regulation of constructive learning processes.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 149–171.Google Scholar
- Vermunt, J.D., & Vermetten, Y.J. (2004). Patterns in student learning: Relationships between learning strategies, conceptions of learning, and learning orientations.Educational Psychology Review, 16, 359–384.Google Scholar
- Wit, E. (2003). Who wants to be …The use of a personal response system in statistics teaching.MSOR Connections, 3, 14–20.Google Scholar