Student evaluation of audience response technology in large lecture classes
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.
KeywordsAudience response technology Classroom response system Clickers Large lecture classes University
- 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.Google Scholar
- Copas, G. M. (2003). Where’s my clicker? Bringing the remote into the classroom. Usability News, 5.Google Scholar
- Copas, G. M., & Del Valle, S. (2004). Where’s my clicker? Bringing the remote into the classroom – Part II. Usability News, 6.Google Scholar
- DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google 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
- Herr, R. B. (1994). Computer assisted communication within the classroom: Interactive learning. Newark, DE: University of Delaware (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED416821).Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Latessa, R., & Mouw, D. (2005). Use of an audience response system to augment interactive learning. Family Medicine, 37, 12–14.Google Scholar
- 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.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 and Information Literacy Education, 6(3).Google 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
- 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.