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.
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
Becker JR (1981) Differential treatment of females and males in mathematics classes. J Res Math Educ 12:40–53. doi:10.2307/748657
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
Burnstein R, Lederman L (2001) Using wireless keypads in lecture classes. Phys Teach 39:3–11. doi:10.1119/1.1343420
Carroll RG (1998) Current and future impact of technology on physiology education. Adv Physiol Educ 275:8–11
Chen M (1986) Gender and computers: the beneficial effects of experience on attitudes. J Educ Comput Res 2:265–281
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
Crouch C, Mazur E (2001) Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results. Am J Phys 69:970–977. doi:10.1119/1.1374249
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
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
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
Draper S, Cargill J, Cutts Q (2002) Electronically enhanced classroom interaction. Aust J Educ Technol 18:13–23
Ebert-May D, Brewer C, Allred S (1997) Innovation in large lectures—teaching for active learning. Bioscience 47:601–607. doi:10.2307/1313166
Elliott C (2003) Using a personal response system in economics teaching. Int Rev Econ Educ 1:80–86
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
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
Geary DC, DeSoto MC (2001) Sex differences in spatial abilities among adults from the United States and China. Evol Cogn 7:172–177
Grandy J (1994) Gender and ethnic differences among science and engineering majors: experiences, achievements, and expectations. Educational Testing Services, Princeton, NJ
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
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
Holland DC, Eisenhart MA (1990) Educated in romance: women, achievement, and college culture. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Johns M, Schmander T, Martens A (2005) Teaching stereotype threat as a means of improving women's math performance. Psychol Sci 16: 175–178
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
Knight JK, Wood WB (2005) Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biol Educ 4:298–310. doi:10.1187/05-06-0082
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Shashaani L (1994) Gender differences in computer experience and its influence on computer attitudes. J Educ Comput Res 11:347–367
Shepardson DP, Pizzini EL (1994) Gender, achievement, and perception toward science activities. Sched Sci Math 94:188–193
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
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
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
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
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
Thacker BA (2003) Recent advances in classroom physics. Rep Prog Phys 66:1833–1864. doi:10.1088/0034-4885/66/10/R07
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
Turner RC, Lindsay HA (2003) Gender differences in cognitive and noncognitive factors related to achievement in organic chemistry. J Chem Educ 80:563–568
Wit E (2003) Who wants to be… the use of a personal response system in statistics teaching. MSOR Connect 3:14–20
Zerega ME (1986) Late adolescent sex differences in science learning. Sci Educ 40:447–460
Zhang Y (2005) Distance learning receptivity: are they ready yet? Q Rev Dist Educ 6:45–55
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
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9121-7