Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 56, Issue 2, pp 125–145

Student evaluation of audience response technology in large lecture classes

  • Erina L. MacGeorge
  • Scott R. Homan
  • John B. DunningJr.
  • David Elmore
  • Graham D. Bodie
  • Ed Evans
  • Sangeetha Khichadia
  • Steven M. Lichti
  • Bo Feng
  • Brian Geddes
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Audience response technology Classroom response system Clickers  Large lecture classes  University 

References

  1. Blackman, M. S., Dooley, P., Kuchinski, B., & Chapman, D. (2002). It worked a different way. College Teaching, 50, 27–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Copas, G. M. (2003). Where’s my clicker? Bringing the remote into the classroom. Usability News, 5.Google Scholar
  4. Copas, G. M., & Del Valle, S. (2004). Where’s my clicker? Bringing the remote into the classroom – Part II. Usability News, 6.Google Scholar
  5. DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Fitch, J. L. (2004). Student feedback in the college classroom: A technology solution. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 52, 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Latessa, R., & Mouw, D. (2005). Use of an audience response system to augment interactive learning. Family Medicine, 37, 12–14.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Animation as an aid to multi-media learning. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. Whitley, B. E. (1997). Gender differences in computer-related attitudes and behavior: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 13, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erina L. MacGeorge
    • 1
  • Scott R. Homan
    • 2
  • John B. DunningJr.
    • 3
  • David Elmore
    • 4
  • Graham D. Bodie
    • 1
  • Ed Evans
    • 5
  • Sangeetha Khichadia
    • 5
  • Steven M. Lichti
    • 5
  • Bo Feng
    • 6
  • Brian Geddes
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of CommunicationPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Department of Organizational Leadership and SupervisionPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  3. 3.Department of Forestry and Natural ResourcesPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  4. 4.Department of PhysicsPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  5. 5.Teaching and Learning TechnologiesPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  6. 6.Department of CommunicationUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  7. 7.Concentrics Research, LLCIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations