Abstract
Clicker interventions can be used to transform the learning environment in large plenary lectures from being lecturer-centered to student-active. Such interventions are conducted with the use of a student response system. In each intervention, the lecturer poses a multiple-choice question to the student group; the students discuss the question with their peers and answer individually using a wireless handheld remote control, called a “clicker.” The student answers are then displayed on a big screen for the students and the lecturer to see. Studies have found that clicker interventions can be used to promote student attention, motivation, retention, and performance. Clicker interventions can also support a formative feedback practice aimed at creating activities that make students’ understanding visible, so that students, together with their peers, can adjust their studying and the lecturer adjust teaching. This chapter gives an overview of research on clicker interventions in lectures in higher education and discusses how such interventions can provide students and lecturers with formative feedback.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Anderson, L. S., Healy, A. F., Kole, J. A., & Bourne, L. E. (2011). Conserving time in the classroom: The clicker technique. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(8), 1457–1462. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2011.593264
Bakhtin, M. M. (2010). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (C. Emerson, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill and Open University Press.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–144.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.
Blood, E. (2012). Student response Systems in the College Classroom: An investigation of short-term, intermediate, and long-term recall of facts. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 20(1), 5–20.
Boscardin, C., & Penuel, W. (2012). Exploring benefits of audience-response systems on learning: A review of the literature. Academic Psychiatry, 36(5), 401–407. Retrieved from <Go to ISI>://WOS:000308454500013 http://psychiatryonline.org/data/Journals/AP/24913/401.pdf. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ap.10080110
Cain, J., Black, E. P., & Rohr, J. (2009). An audience response system strategy to improve student motivation, attention, and feedback. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 73(2). Retrieved from <Go to ISI>://WOS:000265219700001). https://doi.org/10.5688/aj730221
Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE - Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9–20.
Campbell, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2009). Questioning as an instructional method: Does it affect learning from lectures? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(6), 747–759. Retrieved from <Go to ISI>://WOS:000268971400001. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.1513/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+on+7+December+from+10%3A00-15%3A00+BST+%2805%3A00-10%3A00+EDT%29+for+essential+maintenance. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1513
Chien, Y.-T., Chang, Y.-H., & Chang, C.-Y. (2016). Do we click in the right way? A meta-analytic review of clicker-integrated instruction. Educational Research Review, 17, 1–18. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X15000500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.10.003
Cochran-Smith, M., & Villegas, A. M. (2015). Framing lecturer preparation research: An overview of the field. Part 1. Journal of Lecturer Education, 66(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114549072
Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970–977. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1374249
D’Inverno, R., Davis, H., & White, S. (2003). Using a personal response system for promoting student interaction. Teaching mathematics and its applications, 22(4), 163–169.
Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science Education International, 322(6031), 862–864. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201783
Devlin, M., & Samarawickrema, G. (2010). The criteria of effective teaching in a changing higher education context. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(2), 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360903244398
Dewey, J. (1997). Experience and education. New York: Touchstone.
Draper, S. W., & Brown, M. I. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(2), 81–94.
Dysthe, O. (2011). Opportunity spaces for dialogic pedagogy in test-oriented schools: A case study of teaching and learning in high school. In J. White & M. Peters (Eds.), Bakhtinian pedagogy: Opportunities and challenges for research, policy and practice in education across the globe. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing Group.
Egelandsdal, K., & Krumsvik, R. J. (2017a). Clickers and formative feedback at university lectures. Education and Information Technologies, 22(1), 55–74. Retrieved from. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9437-x
Egelandsdal, K., & Krumsvik, R. J. (2017b). Peer discussions and response technology: Short interventions, considerable gains. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 12(01–02), 19–30. Retrieved from http://www.idunn.no/dk/2017/01-02/peer_discussions_and_response_technology_short_interventio
Egelandsdal, K., & Krumsvik, R. J. (2019). Clicker Interventions: Promoting Student Activity and Feedback at University Lectures. In: Tatnall A. (eds) Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60013-0
Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70–120. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312474350
Friesen, N. (2011). The lecture as a transmedial pedagogical form: A historical analysis. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x11404603
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. Retrieved from http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/66/1/10.1119/1.18809. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, UK: Routledge.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
Hrepic, Z., Zollman, D. A., & Rebello, N. S. (2007). Comparing Students’ and Experts’ understanding of the content of a lecture. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(3), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9048-4
Isaacson, R. M., & Fujita, F. (2006). Metacognitive knowledge monitoring and self-regulated learning: Academic success and reflections on learning. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 39–55.
James, M. C., & Willoughby, S. (2011). Listening to student conversations during clicker questions: What you have not heard might surprise you! American Journal of Physics, 79(1), 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3488097
Jonsson, A. (2013). Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(1), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787412467125
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.001
Keough, S. M. (2012). Clickers in the classroom: A review and a replication. Journal of Management Education, 36(6), 822–847. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562912454808
Knight, J. K., Wise, S. B., Rentsch, J., & Furtak, E. M. (2015). Cues matter: Learning assistants influence introductory biology student interactions during clicker-question discussions. CBE Life Sciences Education, 14(4), ar41. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-04-0093
Knight, J. K., Wise, S. B., & Southard, K. M. (2013). Understanding clicker discussions: Student reasoning and the impact of instructional cues. Cbe-Life Sciences Education, 12(4), 645–654. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-05-0090
Knight, J. K., & Wood, W. B. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology Education, 4(4), 298–310. Retrieved from <Go to ISI>://MEDLINE:16341257. https://doi.org/10.1187/05-06-0082
Kolikant, Y. B.-D., Drane, D., & Calkins, S. (2010). “Clickers” as catalysts for transformation of teachers. College Teaching, 58(4), 127–135.
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.77.6.1121
Krumsvik, R. J. (2012). Feedback clickers in plenary lectures: A new tool for formative assessment? In L. Rowan & C. Bigum (Eds.), Transformative approaches to new technologies and student diversity in futures oriented classrooms: Future proofing education (pp. 191–216). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Krumsvik, R. J. (2014). Forskningsdesign og Kvalitative Metode. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Krumsvik, R. J., & Ludvigsen, K. (2012). Formative E-assessment in plenary lectures. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 7(01).
Lantz, M. E. (2010). The use of 'Clickers' in the classroom: Teaching innovation or merely an amusing novelty? Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 556–561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.014
Ludvigsen, K., & Krumsvik, R. J. (Forthcoming). Behind the scenes: Bringing student voices to the lecture
Ludvigsen, K., Krumsvik, R. J., & Furnes, B. (2015). Creating formative feedback spaces in large lectures. Computers & Education, 88(0), 48–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.04.002
Mayer, R. E., Stull, A., DeLeeuw, K., Almeroth, K., Bimber, B., Chun, D., … Zhang, H. (2009). Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.04.002
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mazur, E. (2009). Farewell, lecture? Science, 323(5910), 50–51. Retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5910/50.short. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1168927
McDonough, K., & Foote, J. A. (2015). The impact of individual and shared clicker use on students’ collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 86, 236–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.08.009
Ness, I. J., & Riese, H. (2015). Openness, curiosity and respect: Underlying conditions for developing innovative knowledge and ideas between disciplines. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 6, 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.03.001
Ness, I. J., & Søreide, G. E. (2014). The room of opportunity: Understanding phases of creative knowledge processes in innovation. Journal of Workplace Learning, 26(8), 545–560. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-10-2013-0077
Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.
Nielsen, K. L., Hansen, G., & Stav, J. B. (2016). How the initial thinking period affects student argumentation during peer instruction: Students’ experiences versus observations. Studies in Higher Education, 41(1), 124–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.915300
Novak, G., & Patterson, E. (2010). An introduction to just-in-time-teaching (JiTT). In S. Simkins & M. Maier (Eds.), Just-in-time teaching: Across the disciplines, across the academy. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1997). The big picture: Language and learning in hundreds of English lessons. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), Opening dialogue. New York: Lecturers College Press.
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. Retrieved from <Go to ISI>://WOS:000226629800009.
Rao, S. P., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2000). Peer instruction improves performance on quizzes. Advances in Physiology Education, 24(1), 51–55.
Risko, E. F., Anderson, N., Sarwal, A., Engelhardt, M., & Kingstone, A. (2012). Everyday attention: Variation in mind wandering and memory in a lecture. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(2), 234–242. Retrieved from. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1814
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory. Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(3), 181–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x
Rush, B. R., Hafen, M., Biller, D. S., Davis, E. G., Klimek, J. A., Kukanich, B., … White, B. J. (2010). The effect of differing audience response system question types on student attention in the veterinary medical classroom. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 37(2), 145–153. Retrieved from <Go to ISI>://WOS:000279723700007. http://utpjournals.metapress.com/content/n942321151651876/?genre=article&id=doi%3a10.3138%2fjvme.37.2.145. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.37.2.145
Samuelsson, M. & Ness, I. J. (Forthcoming). How to turn democratic deliberations into productive processes of co-operation – a response to “Deliberating public policy with adolescents”.
Sanderson, B. (2017). Brandon Sanderson discusses the past and future of the Stormlight archive/interviewer: A. Moher. New York, NY: Barnes & Noble Sci-Fi and Fantasy blogg.
Schell, J., Lukoff, B., & Mazur, E. (2013). Catalyzing learner engagement using cutting-edge classroom response systems in higher education. In C. Wankel (Ed.), Increasing student engagement and retention using classroom technologies: Classroom response systems and mediated discourse technologies (pp. 233–261). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475–522. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1604_4
Scott, P. H., Eduardo, F. M., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605–631. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20131
Shapiro, A. M., & Gordon, L. T. (2012). A controlled study of clicker-assisted memory enhancement in college classrooms. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(4), 635–643. Retrieved from <Go to ISI>://WOS:000306401100017. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.2843/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+on+7+December+from+10%3A00-15%3A00+BST+%2805%3A00-10%3A00+EDT%29+for+essential+maintenance. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2843
Shapiro, A. M., & Gordon, L. T. (2013). Classroom clickers offer more than repetition: Converging evidence for the testing effect and confirmatory feedback in clicker-assisted learning. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 2(1), 15–30.
Shapiro, A. M., Sims-Knight, J., O'Rielly, G. V., Capaldo, P., Pedlow, T., Gordon, L., & Monteiro, K. (2017). Clickers can promote fact retention but impede conceptual understanding. Computers in Education, 111(C), 44–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.017
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189.
Smith, E. L., Rice, K. L., Woolforde, L., & Lopez-Zang, D. (2012). Transforming engagement in learning through innovative technologies: Using an audience response system in nursing orientation. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 43(3), 102–103. https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20120223-47
Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N., & Su, T. T. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept q. Science, 323(5910), 122–124. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165919
Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Krauter, K., & Knight, J. K. (2011). Combining peer discussion with instructor explanation increases student learning from in-class concept questions. Cbe-Life Sciences Education, 10(1), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-08-0101
Sun, J. C.-Y. (2014). Influence of polling technologies on student engagement: An analysis of student motivation, academic performance, and brainwave data. Computers & Education, 72(0), 80–89. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131513002959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.010
Vickrey, T., Rosploch, K., Rahmanian, R., Pilarz, M., & Stains, M. (2015). Research-based implementation of peer instruction: A literature review. Cbe-Life Sciences Education, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-11-0198
Wieman, C. (2007). Why not try a scientific approach to science education? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 39(5), 9–15. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3200/CHNG.39.5.9-15. https://doi.org/10.3200/CHNG.39.5.9-15
Wood, A. K., Galloway, R. K., Hardy, J., & Sinclair, C. M. (2014). Analyzing learning during peer instruction dialogues: A resource activation framework. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 10(2), 020107.
Yoder, J. D., & Hochevar, C. M. (2005). Encouraging active learning can improve students’ performance on examinations. Teaching of Psychology, 32(2), 91–95. Retrieved from <Go to ISI>://WOS:000228768600002. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3202_2
Zingaro, D., & Porter, L. (2014). Peer instruction in computing: The value of instructor intervention. Computers & Education, 71, 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.015
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Egelandsdal, K., Ludvigsen, K., Ness, I.J. (2019). Clicker Interventions in Large Lectures in Higher Education. In: Spector, M., Lockee, B., Childress, M. (eds) Learning, Design, and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_147-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_147-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-17727-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-17727-4
eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education