Clicker Interventions: Promoting Student Activity and Feedback at University Lectures
“(…) Context is not always everything, but it colors everything” (Pajares 2005, p. 342), and in academia, the frames and contexts for teaching activities set much of the premise for how we carry out our teaching activities. What is realistic to do in small student groups can be completely unrealistic to do in large student classes. Therefore, Cleveland (2002) and Denker (2013) distinguish among “small” classrooms (30 students or fewer), “medium” classrooms (40 to 100 students), “large” classrooms (100 to 150 students), and “mega” classrooms (200 students or more). In higher education, medium or large lectures often involve less dialogue and communication between students and teachers, and several studies have found that traditional lecturing in such lectures...
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Anderson LS, Healy AF, Kole JA, Bourne LE (2011) Conserving time in the classroom: the clicker technique. Q J Exp Psychol 64(8):1457–1462. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2011.593264
Beatty ID, Gerace WJ (2009) Technology-enhanced formative assessment: a research-based pedagogy for teaching science with classroom response technology. J Sci Educ Technol 18(2):146–162. https://doi.org/10.2307/23036186
Biggs J, Tang C (2011) Teaching for quality learning at university, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill/Open University Press, Maidenhead
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. Educ Assess Eval Account 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. J Technol Teach Educ 20(1):5–20
Bloxham S, Campbell L (2010) Generating dialogue in assessment feed back: exploring the use of interactive cover sheets. Assess Eval High Educ 35(3):291–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003650045
Boekaerts M, Corno L (2005) Self-regulation in the classroom: a perspective on assessment and intervention. Appl Psychol 54(2):199–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00205.x
Boscardin C, Penuel W (2012) Exploring benefits of audience-response systems on learning: a review of the literature. Acad Psychiatry 36(5):401–407. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ap.10080110
Boud D, Molloy E (2013) Rethinking models of feed back for learning: the challenge of design. Assess Eval High Educ 38(6):698–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.691462
Cain J, Black EP, Rohr J (2009) An audience response system strategy to improve student motivation, attention, and feed back. Am J Pharm Educ 73(2). https://doi.org/10.5688/aj730221
Campbell J, Mayer RE (2009) Questioning as an instructional method: does it affect learning from lectures? Appl Cogn Psychol 23(6):747–759. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1513
Carless D, Salter D, Yang M, Lam J (2010) Developing sustainable feed back practices. Stud High Educ 36(4):395–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075071003642449
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. Educ Res Rev 17:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.10.003
Clark W (2006) Academic Charisma and the origins of the research university. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Clark I (2012) Formative assessment: assessment is for self-regulated learning. Educ Psychol Rev 24(2):205–249
Clark RC, Mayer RE (2011) E-learning and the science of instruction, 3rd edn. Pfeiffer, San Francisco
Cleveland LG (2002) That’s not a large class; it’s a small town: How do I manage. In: Stanley CA, Porter ME (eds) Engaging large classes: Strategies and techniques for college faculty. Bolton, MA: Anker, pp 16–27
Cochran-Smith M, Villegas AM (2015) Framing teacher preparation research: an overview of the field, part 1. J Teach Educ 66(1):7–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114549072
Crouch CH, Mazur E (2001) Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results. Am J Phys 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. Teach Math Appl 22(4):163–169
Deci EL, Koestner R, Ryan RM (1999) A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychol Bull 125(6):627–668. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627
Denker KJ (2013) Student response systems and facilitating the large lecture basic communication course: Assessing engagement and learning, communication teacher 27(1):50–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2012.730622
Deslauriers L, Schelew E, Wieman C (2011) Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Sci Educ Int 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. High Educ Res Dev 29(2):111–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360903244398
Dewey J (1997) Experience and education. Touchstone, New York
Đonlagić S, Kurtić A (2016) The role of higher education in a knowledge economy. In: Ateljević J, Trivić J (eds) Economic development and entrepreneurship in transition economies: issues, obstacles and perspectives. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 91–106
Draper SW, Brown MI (2004) Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. J Comput Assist Learn 20(2):81–94
Egelandsdal K, Krumsvik RJ (2017a) Clickers and formative feed back at university lectures. Educ Inf Technol 22(1):55–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9437-x
Egelandsdal K, Krumsvik RJ (2017b) Peer discussions and response technology: short interventions, considerable gains. Nordic J Digit Lit 12(01–02):19–30
Egelandsdal K, Krumsvik RJ (Forthcoming) Clicker interventions at university lectures and the feed back gap. Forthcoming submitted to Journal
Eisenstein EL (1997) The printing press as an agent of change: communications and cultural transformation in early-modern Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Evans C (2013) Making sense of assessment feed back in higher education. Rev Educ Res 83(1):70–120. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312474350
Fies C, Marshall J (2006) Classroom response systems: a review of the literature. J Sci Educ Technol 15(1):101–109
Friesen N (2011) The lecture as a transmedial pedagogical form: a historical analysis. Educ Res 40(3):95–102. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x11404603
George ES (2006) Positioning higher education for the knowledge based economy. High Educ 52(4):589–610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-005-0955-0
Goffman E (1981) Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA
Hake RR (1998) Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am J Phys 66(1):64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809
Hattie J (2009) Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analysis relating to achievement. Routledge, London
Hattie J, Gan M (2011) Instruction based on feed back. In: Mayer RE, Alexander PA (eds) Handbook of research on learning and instruction. Routledge, New York, pp 249–271
Hattie J, Timperley H (2007) The power of feed back. Rev Educ Res 77(1):81–112
Higgins R, Hartley P, Skelton A (2001) Getting the message across: the problem of communicating assessment feed back. Teach High Educ 6(2):269–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510120045230
Hrepic Z, Zollman DA, Rebello NS (2007) Comparing students’ and experts’ understanding of the content of a lecture. J Sci Educ Technol 16(3):213–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9048-4
Ilgen D, Davis C (2000) Bearing bad news: reactions to negative performance feed back. Appl Psychol 49(3):550–565. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00031
Isaacson RM, Fujita F (2006) Metacognitive knowledge monitoring and self-regulated learning: academic success and reflections on learning. J Scholarship Teach Learn 6(1):39–55
James MC, Willoughby S (2011) Listening to student conversations during clicker questions: what you have not heard might surprise you! Am J Phys 79(1):123–132. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3488097
Jonsson A (2013) Facilitating productive use of feed back in higher education. Act Learn High Educ 14(1):63–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787412467125
Kay RH, LeSage A (2009) Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: a review of the literature. Comput Educ 53(3):819–827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.001
Keough SM (2012) Clickers in the classroom: a review and a replication. J Manag Educ 36(6):822–847. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562912454808
Kirschner PA, Martens RL, Strijbos JW (2004) CSCL in higher education? In: Strijbos J-W, Kirschner PA, Martens RL (eds) What we know about CSCL: and implementing it in higher education. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 3–30
Kluger AN, DeNisi A (1996) The effects of feed back interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feed back intervention theory. Psychol Bull 119(2):254–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
Kluger AN, Van Dijk D (2010) Feedback, the various tasks of the doctor, and the feedforward alternative. Med Educ 44(12):1166–1174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03849.x
Knight JK, Wood WB (2005) Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biol Educ 4(4):298–310. https://doi.org/10.1187/05-06-0082
Knight JK, Wise SB, Rentsch J, Furtak EM (2015) Cues matter: learning assistants influence introductory biology student interactions during clicker-question discussions. CBE Life Sci Educ 14(4):ar41. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-04-0093
Kolikant YB-D, Drane D, Calkins S (2010) “Clickers” as catalysts for transformation of teachers. Coll Teach 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. J Pers Soc Psychol 77(6):1121–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.77.6.1121
Krumsvik RJ (2012) Feedback clickers in plenary lectures: a new tool for formative assessment? In: Rowan L, Bigum C (eds) Transformative approaches to new technologies and student diversity in futures oriented classrooms: future proofing education. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 191–216
Krumsvik RJ, Ludvigsen K (2012) Formative E-assessment in plenary lectures. Nordic J Digit Lit 7(01):36–54
Kvernbekk T (2011) Til forelesningens forsvar. In: Kvernbekk T (ed) Humaniorastudier i pedagogikk. Pedagogisk filosofi og historie. Abstrakt forlag AS, Oslo, pp 203–226
Lantz ME (2010) The use of ‘clickers’ in the classroom: teaching innovation or merely an amusing novelty? Comput Hum Behav 26(4):556–561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.014
Ludvigsen K, Egelandsdal K (2016) Formativ E-vurdering i høyere utdanning. In: Krumsvik RJ (ed) Digital læring i skole og lærerutdanning. Universitetsforlaget AS, Bergen, pp 256–273
Ludvigsen K, Krumsvik RJ, Furnes B (2015) Creating formative feed back spaces in large lectures. Comput Educ 88(0):48–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.04.002
Mayer RE, 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. Contemp Educ Psychol 34(1):51–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.04.002
Mazur E (1997) Peer instruction: a user’s manual. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River
Mazur E (2009) Farewell, lecture? Science 323(5910):50–51. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1168927
Nelson MM, Schunn CD (2009) The nature of feed back: how different types of peer feed back affect writing performance. Instr Sci 37(4):375–401
Nicol D (2009) Assessment for learner self-regulation: enhancing achievement in the first year using learning technologies. Assess Eval High Educ 34(3):335–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930802255139
Nicol D, Macfarlane-Dick D (2006) Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feed back practice. Stud High Educ 31(2):199–218
Nielsen KL, Hansen G, Stav JB (2016) How the initial thinking period affects student argumentation during peer instruction: students’ experiences versus observations. Stud High Educ 41(1):124–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.915300
Pajares F (2005) Self-efficacy during childhood and adolescence – implications for teacher and parents. In: Pajares F, Urdan T (eds) Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, pp 339–367
Price M, Handley K, Millar J, O’Donovan B (2010) Feedback: all that effort, but what is the effect? Assess Eval High Educ 35(3):277–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903541007
Prince M (2004) Does active learning work? A review of the research. J Eng Educ 93(3):223–231
Rao SP, DiCarlo SE (2000) Peer instruction improves performance on quizzes. Adv Physiol Educ 24(1):51–55
Risko EF, Anderson N, Sarwal A, Engelhardt M, Kingstone A (2012) Everyday attention: variation in mind wandering and memory in a lecture. Appl Cogn Psychol 26(2):234–242. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1814
Roediger HL, Karpicke JD (2006) The power of testing memory. Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspect Psychol Sci 1(3):181–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x
Rush BR, Hafen M, Biller DS, Davis EG, Klimek JA, Kukanich B, ⋯, White BJ (2010) The effect of differing audience response system question types on student attention in the veterinary medical classroom. J Vet Med Educ 37(2):145–153. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.37.2.145
Sadler DR (1989) Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instr Sci 18(2):119–144. https://doi.org/10.2307/23369143
Sadler DR (2010) Beyond feed back: developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assess Eval High Educ 35(5):535–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903541015
Schwartz DL, Bransford JD (1998) A time for telling. Cogn Instr 16(4):475–522. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1604_4
Shapiro AM, Gordon LT (2012) A controlled study of clicker-assisted memory enhancement in college classrooms. Appl Cogn Psychol 26(4):635–643. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2843
Shapiro AM, Gordon LT (2013) Classroom clickers offer more than repetition: converging evidence for the testing effect and confirmatory feed back in clicker-assisted learning. J Teach Learn Technol 2(1):15–30
Shapiro AM, Sims-Knight J, O’Rielly GV, Capaldo P, Pedlow T, Gordon L, Monteiro K (2017) Clickers can promote fact retention but impede conceptual understanding. Comput Educ 111(C):44–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.017
Shute VJ (2008) Focus on formative feed back. Rev Educ Res 78(1):153–189
Skagen K (2000) Forelesningens muligheter. Tema: forelesning. Uniped 22
Smith MK, Wood WB, Adams WK, Wieman C, Knight JK, Guild N, Su TT (2009) Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science 323(5910):122–124. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165919
Smith MK, Wood WB, Krauter K, Knight JK (2011) Combining peer discussion with instructor explanation increases student learning from in-class concept questions. CBE Life Sci Educ 10(1):55–63. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-08-0101
Smith EL, Rice KL, Woolforde L, Lopez-Zang D (2012) Transforming engagement in learning through innovative technologies: using an audience response system in nursing orientation. J Contin Educ Nurs 43(3):102–103. https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20120223-47
Sun JC-Y (2014) Influence of polling technologies on student engagement: an analysis of student motivation, academic performance, and brainwave data. Comput Educ 72(0):80–89. 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 Sci Educ 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-11-0198
Wieman C (2007) Why not try a scientific approach to science education? Change Mag High Learn 39(5):9–15. https://doi.org/10.3200/CHNG.39.5.9-15
Wood AK, Galloway RK, Hardy J, Sinclair CM (2014) Analyzing learning during peer instruction dialogues: a resource activation framework. Phys Rev Spec Top Phys Educ Res 10(2):020107
Yoder JD, Hochevar CM (2005) Encouraging active learning can improve students’ performance on examinations. Teach Psychol 32(2):91–95. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3202_2
Yorke M (2003) Formative assessment in higher education: moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. High Educ 45(4):477–501. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1023967026413
Zingaro D, Porter L (2014) Peer instruction in computing: the value of instructor intervention. Comput Educ 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., 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_189-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60013-0_189-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-60013-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-60013-0
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Computer SciencesReference Module Computer Science and Engineering
Publish with us
Chapter history
-
Latest
Clicker Interventions: Promoting Student Activity and Feedback at University Lectures- Published:
- 05 June 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60013-0_189-2
-
Original
Clicker Interventions: Promoting Student Activity and Feedback at University Lectures- Published:
- 12 April 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60013-0_189-1