Skip to main content

A Comparative Analysis of the Use of Student Response Devices (“Clickers”) in University Learning Environments at a Large Southeastern University

Abstract

Reforms in STEM education call for the broad implementation of student-centered strategies and instructional technologies support this integration. An instructional technology that has received much attention in the last decade is student responses systems, or “clickers”. There is little literature that has examined the widespread diffusion of clickers and their appropriate use. This cross-sectional survey study explores use of clickers in postsecondary settings across multiple disciplines, how clickers are used, and why faculty chose to use (or not) clickers. Survey responses revealed that clickers were differentially used by faculty based on discipline. Logistic regression determined class size as the only predictor of clicker use. Implications are discussed in terms of providing professional development to impact instructor knowledge and beliefs towards instructional technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  • Auerbach, A. J., & Schussler, E. E. (2016). Instructor use of group active learning in an introductory biology sequence. Journal of College Science Teaching, 45(5), 67–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borrego, M., Froyd, J. E., & Hall, T. S. (2010). Diffusion of engineering education innovations: A survey of awareness and adoption rates in U.S. engineering departments. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(3), 185–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bretz, S. L. (2001). Novak’s theory of education: Human constructivism and meaningful learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(8), 1107–1117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruff, D. (2009). Teaching with classroom response systems: Creating active learning environments. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burstein, R. A., & Lederman, L. M. (2006). The use and evolution of an audience response system. In D. A. Banks (Ed.), Audience response systems in higher education: Applications and cases (pp. 40–52). Hershey, PA: Information Science.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, J. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6, 9–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, F.-H., Looi, C.-K., & Chen, W. (2009). Integrating technology in the classroom: A visual conceptualization of teachers' knowledge, goals, and beliefs. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(5), 470–488.

  • Crossgrove, K., & Curran, K. L. (2008). Using clickers in nonmajors- and majors-level biology courses: Student opinion, learning, and long-term retention of course material. CBE Life Sciences Education, 7, 146–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, P. K., Richardson, A., McDonald, C., & Oprescu, F. (2012). Instructor perceptions of using mobile-phone-based free classroom response system in first-year statistics undergraduate courses. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 43(8), 1041–1056.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, P. K., Richardson, A., McDonald, C., & Oprescu, F. (2013). Mobile-phone-based classroom response systems: Students’ perceptions of engagement and learning in a large undergraduate course. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 44(8), 1160–1174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easton, C. (2009). An examination of clicker technology use in legal education. Journal of Information, Law and Technology, 3. Academic OneFile, retrieved 10 June, 2015.

  • Ebert-May, D. (2011). What we say is not what we do: Effective evaluation of faculty professional development programs. BioScience, 61, 550–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emenike, M. E., & Home, T. A. (2012). Classroom response systems have not “crossed the chasm”: Estimating the numbers of chemistry faculty who use clickers. Journal of Chemical Education, 89, 465–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development 47(4):47–61.

  • Farag, S. P., Park, S., & Kaupins, G. (2015). Faculty perceptions of the adoption and use of clickers in the legal studies in business classroom. Journal of Education for Business, 90(4), 209–2016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feis, C., & Marshall, J. (2006). Classroom responses systems: A review of the literature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 101–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitch, J. L. (2004). Student feedback in the college classroom: A technology solution. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52, 71–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, M., Bell, A., Comerton-Forde, C., Pickering, J., & Blayney, P. (2007). Factors affecting educational innovation with in class electronic responses systems. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(2), 149–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Froyd, J. E., Borrego, M., Cutler, S., Henderson, C., & Prince, M. J. (2013). Estimates of use of research-based instructional strategies in core electrical or computer engineering courses. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(4), 0018–9359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, R. E., Laga, E. E., Leon, J., Villafane, S. M., Stains, M., Murphy, K., & Raker, J. R. (2017). Chasm crossed? Clicker use in postsecondary chemistry education. Journal of Chemical Education, 94(5), 549–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Good, K. C. (2013). Audience response systems in higher education courses: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 10(5), 19–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, K., & Steer, D. N. (2012). Personal response systems and learning: It is the pedagogy that matters, not the technology. Journal of College Science Teaching, 41(5), 80–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, J. H. (2014). Closing the missing links and opening the relationships among the factors: A literature review on the use of clicker technology using the 3P model. Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 150–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., DeHaan, R., Gentile, J., Lauffer, S., Stewart, J., Tilghman, S. M., & Wood, W. B. (2004). Scientific teaching. Science, 304, 521–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, C.R. (2007). An evaluation of a student response system used a Brigham Young University. (master thesis). Retrieved from http://contentdm.lib.by.edu/ETD/image/etd2127.pdf.

  • Henderson, C. (2005). The challenges of instructional change under the best of circumstances: A case study of one college physics instructor. American Journal of Physics, 73(8), 778–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, C., Finkelstein, N., & Beach, A. (2010). Beyond dissemination in college science teaching: An introduction to four core change strategies. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39, 18–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendrson, C., Dancy, M., & Niewiadomska-Bugaj, M. (2012). The use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process? Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 8, 020104.

  • IBM Corp. (2012). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

  • Jin, G., & Bierma, T. (2013). STEM for non-STEM majors: Enhancing science literacy in large classes. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(6), 20–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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), 235–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, R. H., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 53(3), 819–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, G., Hill, V., & Ma, Y. (2015). Clickers in the classroom: A business professor's adoption of a classroom response system. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 18(4), 451–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, J. D., Vinson, E. L., Stetzer, M. R., & Smith, M. K. (2016). A campus-wide investigation of clicker implementation: The status of peer discussion in STEM classes. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 15(1), ar6.

  • Lincoln, D. J. (2009). Student response systems adoption and use in marketing education: A status report. Marketing Education Review, 19(3), 25–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur, J. R. (2013). How will classroom response systems “cross the chasm”? Journal of Chemical Education, 90(3), 273–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur, J. R., & Jones, L. L. (2008). A review of literature reports of clickers applicable to college chemistry classrooms. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9(3), 187–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., Stull, A., DeLeeuw, K., Almeroth, B., Bimber, D., Chun, M., Bulger, J., Campbell, A. K., & Zhang, H. (2009). Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 51–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction. Pearson Higher Education: New York, NY.

  • Milner-Bolotin, M., Antimirova, T., & Petrov, A. (2010). Clickers beyond the first year science classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(2), 14–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, A. M., Dunn, P. K., McDonald, C., & Oprescu, F. (2015). CRiSP: An instrument for assessing student perceptions of classroom response systems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(4), 432–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. (5th Ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

  • Sevian, H., & Robinson, W. E. (2011). Clickers promote learning in all kinds of classes -- small and large, graduate and undergraduate, lecture and lab. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(3), 14–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, M. D., Khachan, J., Chan, B., & O’Byrne, J. (2005). An investigation of the effectiveness of electronic classroom communication systems in large lecture classes. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(2), 137–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, A. M., Mendonca, A. F., & Daraba, A. (2015). "clickers" and HACCP: Educating a diverse food industry audience with technology. Journal of Extension, 53(6), 6TOT6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M. K., Chasteen, S. V., Cole, R., DeChenne-Peters, S. E … .Young, A. M. (2018). Anatomy of STEM teaching in north American universities. Science, 359(6383), 1468–1470.

  • Stowell, J. R. (2015). Use of clickers vs. mobile devices for classroom polling. Computers & Education, 82, 329–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sudman, S. (1985). Mail surveys of reluctant professionals. Evaluation Review, 9, 349–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vickery, T., Rosploch, K., Rahmanian, R., Pilarz, M., & Stains, M. (2015). Research based implementation of peer instruction: A literature review. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14, essay 3.

  • Vincens, Q., & Caspersen, M. E. (2014). Getting more scientists to revamp teaching. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(5), 22–27.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported funded primarily by the Oak Foundation USA and North Carolina Glaxo Smith Klein Foundation with support from the U. S Department of Education and University of North Carolina General Assembly as part of the College STAR (Supporting Transition, Access, and Retention) collaborative project in association with East Carolina University, Appalachian State University, and Fayetteville State University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Grant E. Gardner.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gardner, G.E., Dutta, S., Mulcahy, K. et al. A Comparative Analysis of the Use of Student Response Devices (“Clickers”) in University Learning Environments at a Large Southeastern University. Journal for STEM Educ Res 1, 85–102 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-018-0004-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-018-0004-4

Keywords

  • Higher education
  • Automated response devices
  • Student-centered instructional strategies