Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 15–28 | Cite as

Students’ perceptions of clickers as an instructional tool to promote active learning

  • James Oigara
  • Jared KeengweEmail author


The purpose of this study was to evaluate students’ perceptions of clickers as an instructional tool to promote active learning in a Physical Geography undergraduate class. A convenience sample of 24 undergraduate students registered in a physical geography course was assigned clickers to answer chapter quizzes in class for 15 weeks during the semester. Data from student interviews, student surveys, and exam grades were used to analyze the findings. Overall, students were satisfied and gave high approval ratings for the use of clickers, particularly for enhancing their participation and engagement in class lectures. The study findings show that clickers promote student engagement in the teaching and learning process. However, students did not find clickers to be a motivating factor to study more for the course. The implications for the use of clickers as instructional tools to improve active teaching and learning in technology-rich classrooms are also discussed.


Active learning Clickers Interactive technology SMART response system Student response systems Student engagement 


  1. Beatty, I. (2004). Transforming student learning with classroom communication systems. ECAR, 3, 1–13.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.Google Scholar
  3. Buhay, D., Best, L., & McGuire, K. (2010). The effectiveness of library instruction: Do student response systems (clickers) enhance learning? The Canadian Journal of Teaching and Learning, 1(1): Retrieved May 23, 2011 from
  4. Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips. Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1991). Applying the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. New Direction for Teaching, no.47, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  6. DeBourgh, G. (2008). Use of classroom “clickers” to promote acquisition of advanced reasoning skills. Nursing Education in Practice, 8, 76–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DeBourgh, G. (2007). Use of classroom “clickers” to promote acquisition of advanced reasoning skills. Nurse Education in Practice, 8, 76–87.Google Scholar
  8. DeCaprariis, P. P. (1997). Impediments to providing scientific literacy to students in introductory survey courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 45(3), 207–210.Google Scholar
  9. Dolinsky, B. (2001). An active learning approach to teaching statistics. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 55–56.Google Scholar
  10. Draper, S. W., & Brown, W. I. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Draper, S. W., Cargill, J., & Cutts, Q. (2002). Electronically enhanced classroom interaction. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 18(1), 13–23.Google Scholar
  12. Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology for learning and instruction. Boston: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  13. Duncan, D. (2005). Clickers in the classroom: How to enhance science teaching using classroom response systems. San Francisco: Pearson Education/Addison Wesley/Benjamin Cummings.Google Scholar
  14. Fies, C., & Marshall, J. (2006). Classroom response systems: a review of the literature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Glaser, R. (1990). The reemergence of learning theory within instructional research. American Psychologist, 45(1), 29–39.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greer, L., & Heaney, P. J. (2004). Real time analysis of student comprehension: an assessment of electronic student response technology in an introductory earth science course. Journal of Geoscience Education, 52(4), 345–351.Google Scholar
  17. Guthrie, R., & Carlin, A. (2004). Waking the dead: Using interactive technology to engage passive listeners in the classroom. New York: Proceedings of the tenth Americas Conference on Information Systems.Google Scholar
  18. Johnson, J. T. (2005). Creating learner centered classrooms: use of an audience response system in pediatric dentistry education. Journal of Dental Education, 69(3), 378–381.Google Scholar
  19. Johnson, K., & Lillis, C. (2010). Clickers in the laboratory: student thoughts and views. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 5, 139–151.Google Scholar
  20. Jonassen, D. H. (1995). Computers as cognitive tools: learning with technology and not from technology. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 6, 40–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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(2), 167–181.Google Scholar
  22. Kyei-Blankson, L. (2009). Enhancing student learning in a graduate research methods and statistics course with clickers. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 32(4). Retrieved May 23, 2011 from
  23. Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (learning in doing: social, cognitive and computational perspectives). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. MacGeorge, E. L., Homan, S. R., Dunning, J. B., Elmore, D., Bodie, G. D., & Evans, E. (2007). Student evaluation of audience response technology in large lecture classes. Educational Technology Research and Development. doi: 10.1007/s11423-007-9053-6.
  26. Majerich, D., Stull, J., Varnum, S. J., & Ducette, J. P. (2011). Facilitation of formative assessments using clickers in a university physics course. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 7, 12–24.Google Scholar
  27. Maletiou-Mavrotheris, M. (2003). Technological tools in the introductory statistics classroom: effects on student understanding of inferential statistics. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 8(3), 265–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maletiou-Mavrotheris, M., Paparistodemou, E., & Stylianou, D. (2009). Enhancing statistics instruction in elementary schools: integrating technology in professional development. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 6, 57–58.Google Scholar
  29. Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory Into Practice, 41, 226–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McConnell, D., Steer, D., & Owens, K. (2003). Assessment and active learning strategies for introductory geology courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 51(2), 205–216.Google Scholar
  31. Moredich, C., & Moore, E. (2007). Engaging students through the use of classroom response system. Nurse Educator, 32(3), 113–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morling, B., McAuliffe, M., Cohen, L., & DiLorenzo, T. (2008). Efficacy of personal response systems (‘clickers’) in large introductory psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 35(1), 45–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pan, W., & Tang, M. (2004). Examining the effectiveness of innovative instructional methods on reducing Statistics anxiety for graduate students in the social sciences. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(2), 149–159.Google Scholar
  34. Perry, N., VandeKamp, K., Mercer, L., & Nordby, C. (2002). Investigating teacher-student interactions that foster self-regulating learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 5–15.Google Scholar
  35. Pinet, P. R. (1995). Rediscovering geological principles by collaborative learning. Journal of Geoscience Education, 43, 371–376.Google Scholar
  36. Stagg, A., & Lane, M. (2010). Using clickers to support information literacy skills development and instruction in first-year business students. Journal of Information Technology Education, 9, 197–215.Google Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tobias, S. (1990). They’re not dumb, they’re different: Stalking the second tier. Tucson: Research Corporation.Google Scholar
  39. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  40. Wit, E. (2003). Who wants to be … the use of a personal response system in statistics teaching. MSOR Connections, 3(2), 14–20.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationCanisius CollegeBuffaloUSA
  2. 2.Department of Teaching and LearningUniversity of North DakotaGrand ForksUSA

Personalised recommendations