Skip to main content
Log in

Gender Differences in the Use and Effectiveness of Personal Response Devices

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The use of personal response devices (or “clickers”) in the classroom has increased in recent years. While few quantitative studies on the effectiveness of clickers have been published, it is generally reported that clickers have been well-received by the students who use them. Two separate populations (Winter 2006 and Spring 2006) of engineering students were given clickers to use during a general chemistry class. Clicker use was compared to student grades for each course. During both terms, a higher percentage of female students than male students “actively participated” in the lectures, where active participation was defined as answering more than 75% of the clicker questions over the course of the term. Active male students earned final grades about 10 points higher than non-active male students. Active female students, however, scored only about 5 points higher than non-active female students. Student learning was assessed by comparing performance on exam questions and clicker questions with similar content. Students who answered clicker questions correctly were 11–13% more likely to answer the corresponding exam questions correctly than were students who did not answer the clicker question. In this paper, we demonstrate the effectiveness of clicker use in the classroom and examine gender differences associated with this use.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adelman C (1998) Women and men of the engineering path: a model for analyses of undergraduate careers. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker JR (1981) Differential treatment of females and males in mathematics classes. J Res Math Educ 12:40–53. doi:10.2307/748657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker B, Chang L (1986) Measurement of science achievement and its role in gender differences. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA

  • Bunce DM, VandenPlas JR, Havanki KL (2006) Comparing the effectiveness on student achievement of a student response system versus online WebCT quizzes. J Chem Educ 83:488–493

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnstein R, Lederman L (2001) Using wireless keypads in lecture classes. Phys Teach 39:3–11. doi:10.1119/1.1343420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll RG (1998) Current and future impact of technology on physiology education. Adv Physiol Educ 275:8–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen M (1986) Gender and computers: the beneficial effects of experience on attitudes. J Educ Comput Res 2:265–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen JC, Owusu-Ofori S, Pai D, Toca-McDowell E, Wang S-L, Waters CK (1996) A study of female academic performance in mechanical engineering. Frontiers in education conference FIE ’96, 26th Annual Conference, Proceedings, vol 2, pp 779–782

  • Coley RJ (2001) Differences in the gender gap: comparisons across racial/ethnic groups in education and work. Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Crouch C, Mazur E (2001) Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results. Am J Phys 69:970–977. doi:10.1119/1.1374249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowley K, Callanan MA, Tenenbaum HR, Allen E (2001) Parents explain more often to boys than to girls during shared scientific thinking. Psych Sci 12:258–261. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis JL, Davis H (2007) Perceptions of career and technology and training and development students regarding basic personal computer knowledge and skills. Coll Stud J 41:69–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Draper S, Brown M (2004) Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. J Comput Assist Learn 20:81–94. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00074.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Draper S, Cargill J, Cutts Q (2002) Electronically enhanced classroom interaction. Aust J Educ Technol 18:13–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebert-May D, Brewer C, Allred S (1997) Innovation in large lectures—teaching for active learning. Bioscience 47:601–607. doi:10.2307/1313166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott C (2003) Using a personal response system in economics teaching. Int Rev Econ Educ 1:80–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Enoch Y, Soker Z (2006) Age, gender, ethnicity and the digital divide: university students’ use of web-based instruction. Open Learn 21:99–110. doi:10.1080/02680510600713045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman M, Blayney P (2005) Promoting interactive in-class learning environments: a comparison of an electronic response system with a traditional alternative. In: Cheung SL (ed) Innovation for student engagement in economics. Proceedings of the eleventh Australasian teaching economics conference. Sydney, Australia, pp 23–34

  • Freeman M, Blayney P, Ginns P (2006) Anonymity and in class learning: the case for electronic response systems. Aust J Educ Technol 22:568–580

    Google Scholar 

  • Geary DC, DeSoto MC (2001) Sex differences in spatial abilities among adults from the United States and China. Evol Cogn 7:172–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Grandy J (1994) Gender and ethnic differences among science and engineering majors: experiences, achievements, and expectations. Educational Testing Services, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern DF, Benbow CP, Geary DC, Gur RC, Shibley Hyde J, Gernsbacher MA (2007) The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychol Sci Publ Interest 8:1–51. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2007.00032.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hake RR (1998) Interactive engagement vs. traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am J Phys 66:64–74. doi:10.1119/1.18809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland DC, Eisenhart MA (1990) Educated in romance: women, achievement, and college culture. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Johns M, Schmander T, Martens A (2005) Teaching stereotype threat as a means of improving women's math performance. Psychol Sci 16: 175–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahl SR, Fleming ML, Malone MR (1982) Sex-related differences in pre-college science: findings of the science meta-analysis project. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY

  • Koohang A (2004) Students’ perceptions toward the use of the digital library in weekly web-based distance learning assignments portion of a hybrid program. Br J Educ Technol 35:617–626. doi:10.1111/j.0007-1013.2004.00418.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight JK, Wood WB (2005) Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biol Educ 4:298–310. doi:10.1187/05-06-0082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lei J, Zhao Y (2007) Technology uses and student achievement: a longitudinal study. Comp Educ 49:284–296. doi:10.16/j.compedu.2005.06.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzo M, Crouch CH, Mazur E (2006) Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom. Am J Phys 74:118–122. doi:10.1119/1.2162549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martens RL, Valcke MMA, Portier SJ (1997) Interactive learning environments to support independent learning: the impact of discernability of embedded support devices. Comp Educ 28:185–197. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(97)84657-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe M, Heal A, White A (2001) Integration of group response systems into teaching. In: Danson M, Eabry C (eds) Fifth International CAA Conference Proceedings, Loughborough University

  • McIlwee JS, Robinson JG (1992) Women in engineering: gender, power and work culture. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Moffat SD, Hampson E, Hatzipantelis M (1998) Navigation in a “virtual” maze: sex differences and correlation with psychometric measures of spatial ability in humans. Evol Hum Behav 19:73–87. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(97)00104-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences (2007) Beyond bias and barriers: fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn DM, Spencer SJ (2001) The interference of stereotype threat with women's generation of mathematical problem-solving strategies. J Soc Issues 57:55–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roeser RW, Eccles JS, Sameroff AJ (2000) School as a context of early adolescents’ academic and social-emotional development: a summary of research findings. Elem Sched J 100:443–471. doi:10.1086/499650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shashaani L (1994) Gender differences in computer experience and its influence on computer attitudes. J Educ Comput Res 11:347–367

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepardson DP, Pizzini EL (1994) Gender, achievement, and perception toward science activities. Sched Sci Math 94:188–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson V, Oliver M (2002) Using electronic voting systems in lectures. UCL internal report. (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/learningtechnology/assessment/ElectronicVotingSystems.pdf). Accessed 9 August 2008

  • Simpson V, Oliver M (2007) Electronic voting systems for lectures then and now: a comparison of research and practice. Aust J Educ Technol 23:187–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake JE, Nickens SD (2005) Adolescent girls’ and boys’ science peer relationships and perceptions of the possible self as scientist. Sex Roles 52:1–12. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-1189-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steele J (2003) Children’s gender stereotypes about math: the role of stereotype stratification. J Appl Soc Psychol 33:2587–2606. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb02782.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanner K, Allen D (2005) Approaches to biology teaching and learning: understanding the wrong answers-teaching toward conceptual change. Cell Biol Educ 4:112–117. doi:10.1187/cbe.05-02-0068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenenbaum HR, Snow CE, Roach KA, Kurland B (2005) Talking and reading science: longitudinal data on sex differences in mother–child conversations in low-income families. Appl Dev Psychol 26:1–19. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2004.10.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thacker BA (2003) Recent advances in classroom physics. Rep Prog Phys 66:1833–1864. doi:10.1088/0034-4885/66/10/R07

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas M, Hughes SG, Hart PM, Schollar J, Keirie K, Griffith GW (2001) Group project work in biotechnology and its impact on key skills. J Biol Educ 35:133–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner RC, Lindsay HA (2003) Gender differences in cognitive and noncognitive factors related to achievement in organic chemistry. J Chem Educ 80:563–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wit E (2003) Who wants to be… the use of a personal response system in statistics teaching. MSOR Connect 3:14–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Zerega ME (1986) Late adolescent sex differences in science learning. Sci Educ 40:447–460

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Y (2005) Distance learning receptivity: are they ready yet? Q Rev Dist Educ 6:45–55

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding from the Maryanoff Summer Research Program at Drexel University paid for the participation of S. Joshi. The authors would like to acknowledge two anonymous reviewers, whose comments significantly improved this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel B. King.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

King, D.B., Joshi, S. Gender Differences in the Use and Effectiveness of Personal Response Devices. J Sci Educ Technol 17, 544–552 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9121-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9121-7

Keywords

Navigation