| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
||||||
|
||||||||
Articles |
Department of Biology, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003-8001
Submitted September 14, 2006; Revised December 18, 2006; Accepted December 20, 2006
Monitoring Editor: Marshall Sundberg
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Educational technology provides many opportunities for enhancing communication and increasing interactivity within science courses. It can be used to support individualized learning activities, thereby opening up time in lecture courses for interactive sessions. For example, electronic student response systems have been used to quiz students at the beginning of lectures to encourage students to carefully read the textbook so that the basic information in the text does not need to be repeated in lecture (Paschal, 2002; Knight and Wood, 2005). However, the most exciting potential of educational technology is to facilitate interactions between students and instructors and among students (Jensen et al., 2002; Novak, 2002; Wood, 2004). In this study, we have investigated wireless student response systems that may enhance student-to-instructor interactions by providing instructors with immediate formative assessments of students' understanding (Paschal, 2002). Additionally, these systems may facilitate cooperative learning among students (Dufresne et al., 1996).
In a thorough review of student response systems, including current wireless systems (clickers) as well as earlier wired systems, Judson and Sawada (2002) concluded that three decades of studies have consistently documented positive student evaluations of the use of student response systems in lecture courses. They found that when used in the stimulus–response, operant conditioning, approach to learning prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s, students claimed student response systems increased their level of interest and their learning; however, this increased interest was not reflected in measures of student performance. When coupled with constructivist, student-centered learning strategies in physics, the use of wireless student response systems (clickers) has been associated with measurable conceptual gains. Judson and Sawada (2002) also concluded that it was simply too early to tell whether clickers would enhance learning in other sciences, but they recommended that this technology should be used to promote student-centered learning. Since the review of Judson and Sawada (2002), the use of clickers to promote learning in biology has produced mixed results. Knight and Wood (2005) increased student learning by using peer instructors and clickers to facilitate cooperative learning in a developmental biology course. Studies of the use of clickers in microbiology (Suchman et al., 2006) and physiology (Paschal, 2002) describe some encouraging trends, but they did not find clearly significant effects of clickers on students' exam performance. Currently, there is strong evidence that students have positive opinions about the use of clickers in biology courses; however, the effects of clickers on student learning remain unclear.
In this study, we have explored student opinions regarding the use of clickers and the effects of the frequency of clicker use on student performance. A challenge of using student-centered teaching methods, such as clickers, is that the application of these methods should be centered on and responsive to the learning environment of each group of students. Each method needs to be compatible with the students' approach to learning, the instructor's teaching style, and the course content. We investigated the robustness of using clickers by evaluating their effectiveness across six biology courses ranging from freshman- to senior-level classes. We also explored how students' opinions about this technology vary in association with their course grades and with their preference for studying individually or cooperatively. In addition to investigating students' opinions about the use of clickers in biology courses, we investigated the impact of clickers on students' exam performance. This impact was tested by systematically varying the frequency of clicker questions among lectures within six biology courses and comparing this variation in clicker question frequency to students' performance on exam questions from lectures associated with different numbers of clicker questions. This comparison allowed us to determine whether the frequency of clicker use within a course influenced students' performance on exams as well as whether this influence was consistent across courses.
Student response systems enable each student with a uniquely registered clicker to answer questions posed by the instructor by sending his or her response to the receiver attached to the instructor's computer. This approach engages each student as he or she commits to the answer and has the potential to provide a dramatic improvement over the traditional approach of the instructor orally posing a question and waiting while most students passively watch the few who are willing to respond. The instructor can immediately display a histogram of the class responses while maintaining the anonymity of each individual's answer. Projecting the histogram of class responses allows students to gain a better understanding of their class, and it provides the instructor with an immediate measure of students' understanding of a topic. The instructor can use this rapid formative assessment to move on if most students understand; if students are confused, the class can break into a discussion or a review. When clickers are used to stimulate discussion and cooperative problem solving, they may enhance meaningful learning in lecture courses of any size (Judson and Sawada, 2002). We often allowed students to discuss the problem before transmitting their individual answers to clicker questions; we also used the histogram of students' responses as a catalyst to trigger discussion. Therefore, our lectures that included more clicker questions also incorporated more interactions and cooperative learning among students. We have evaluated the hypothesis that students learn more effectively during these higher clicker frequency, more interactive lectures. Specifically, we tested the prediction that average student scores on exam questions will increase with low, medium, to high frequencies of clicker use in corresponding lectures.
|
METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Biology Courses and Student Response Units
The six biology courses participating in this study included four lower-division courses (Biology 101, 111, 211, and 219) and two upper-division courses (Biology 311 and 377). Table 1 describes the demographic characteristics of each course. Biology 101 is a nonmajors introductory biology course that uses an issues-based approach to help students develop an understanding of the application of scientific knowledge to personal and societal issues. Although this is a freshman-level course, many of the students in Biology 101 are not freshmen. Biology 111 and 211 are introductory biology courses that include science majors as well as students with a professional need for training in biology, such as the prenursing students in Biology 211. Biology 219 is an introductory microbiology course specifically developed to meet the needs of allied health (prenursing and related fields) majors. Biology 311 is an upper-division general microbiology course targeting, but not limited to, science majors. Last, Biology 377 is a cell biology course composed primarily of senior biology, microbiology, and biochemistry majors. Biology 101, 211, and 219 were taught by the same instructor. This instructor had used clickers in three courses before this study. Biology 111 and Biology 311 were taught by instructors who were using clickers for the first time. The instructor of Biology 377 had used clickers in one course before this study.
|
The eInstruction software recorded each student's response to each question. After class, instructors set each correct answer at 100% of the possible points, each incorrect answer at 80%, and unanswered questions at 0%. Although all courses were using the wireless response units by the second week of classes, students did not receive credit for their responses until near the time of the first exam. This delay in assigning credit to clicker responses was made to provide students with sufficient time to purchase and register their clickers. The proportion of total course points associated with clicker points varied among courses from 8.5 to 19% (Biology 101, 10.4%; 111, 19.23%; 211, 9.6%; 219, 8.5%; 311, 10.9%; and 377, 13.5%).
Survey
This study evaluated the responses of approximately 550 students (the number of responses varied slightly between questions) to 12 multiple-choice questions about the use of wireless student response units in biology courses (AppendixA in the Supplemental Material includes the text of each question and its answer categories). These questions included three questions about students' overall impression of clickers, three questions exploring students' impressions of specific benefits of using clickers, three questions related to students' recommendations regarding how instructors should use clickers, and two questions asking about the frequencies of technical problems students experienced while using clickers. One question asked whether students prefer to study individually or cooperatively while preparing for exams; responses to this question as well as course and students' course grades were used to explore variation in students' opinions about the use of clickers.
The students were introduced to the survey in lecture, and the survey was posted on the course websites 7 d before finals week. The survey was left open for 2 wk. Both announcements in lecture and a preamble at the entrance to the surveys in the websites explained that participation in the surveys was completely voluntary and that responses would be reported at the population, rather than individual student, level. Students' participation rates (percentage of students taking the final exam who completed the clicker survey) ranged from 60 to 85% (Biology 101, 60.7%; 111, 72.5%; 211, 61.3%; 219, 80.0%; 311, 84.5%; and 377, 84.7%).
Analytical Methods: Survey Responses among Courses.
For each of the 12 survey questions, stepwise chi-square contingency table analyses were used to compare the distribution of students' answers across courses. Because very few students chose the more negative responses to some questions, these answer categories had to be pooled to maintain adequate subsample sizes for the chi-square analyses. AppendixA in the Supplemental Material indicates which survey answer categories were pooled during the analyses. The first step of each of these analyses asked whether the distribution of students' responses across the answer categories differed among the six courses. If the answers to a survey question were not significantly different among the six courses, the pooled answers across all courses were described. If the distribution of answers differed among courses, the course with the most divergent distribution of answers was removed, and the course by answer interaction of the remaining five courses was analyzed. This stepwise removal of courses was repeated until the remaining courses were not significantly different; the answers of these remaining courses were then pooled and described. If more than one course had been removed during this initial sequence of contingency table analyses, the stepwise process was repeated starting with the removed courses to determine whether they differed in students' responses to the survey question. If students' responses to a question separated into two groups corresponding to lower- and upper-division courses, a follow-up analysis limited to students who earned an "A" grade was conducted. Probability values equal to or <0.01 were considered significant in these stepwise contingency table analyses of the survey questions across courses. Because of the many factors that may influence differences in students' responses among courses, we used the 0.01 
level to focus on larger, more meaningful, differences in the distribution of students' answers among courses.
The two upper-division courses were the only courses using Macintosh computers; these computers were found to be less compatible with eInstruction software. Therefore, consideration of differences by academic level in students' responses to survey questions was confounded by the increased number of in-class problems by using clickers in upper-division courses. When the chi-square contingency table analyses of students' responses by course grouped responses to a survey question into upper- and lower-division courses, post hoc log-linear analyses were used to compare the amount of variation in students' responses to the survey questions that was associated with academic level to that which was associated with the frequency of in-class problems by using clickers. The log-linear models were based on three-way tables of student survey responses by academic level (upper- or lower-division course) and by the frequency of in-class problems by using clickers (no problems, 1 or 2 problems, 3 or more problems). The fit of the full log-linear models including the three-way interaction as well as all two-way interactions and main effects was estimated with a chi-square value. The fit of these full models was compared with that of the models after removing the two-way interactions involving students' responses by academic level; the full models also were compared with that of the models after removing the two-way interactions involving students' responses by the frequency of in-class problems (Systat Software, Inc., 2002). The magnitude of the change in the fit of the models was used as an indication of the amount of variation in students' responses associated with academic level in comparison with that associated with in-class problems.
Analytical Methods: Survey Responses by Student Grades.
To determine whether students' opinions about the use of clickers differed among students receiving different course grades, it was first necessary to determine whether grades represented similar performance categories relative to peers across the six courses. Before the analyses of the relationships between grades and survey responses, stepwise chi-square contingency table analyses also were used to determine which courses had roughly similar grade ("A," "B," "C," "D," and "F") distributions and so could be included in the same analysis of the relationships between student survey opinions and their course grades. This initial analysis used the more rigorous value of 0.01, because the goal was to group courses with roughly similar grade distributions rather than to identify all differences in grades across courses. After grouping courses with similar grade distributions, for those groups with sufficient subsample sizes, simple chi-square contingency table analyses were used to determine whether students' answers to survey questions differed by course grades. The more standard level of 0.05 was used in this analysis because any significant differences by grade in students' responses to survey questions was of interest.
Analytical Methods: Survey Responses by Exam Study Preference.
Simple chi-square contingency table analyses ( = 0.05) also were used to determine whether variation in responses to the survey question asking whether students preferred to study for exams individually or cooperatively was associated with variation in students' responses to survey questions about clickers.
Effects of Clicker Frequency on Content Acquisition
The number of clicker questions asked in each lecture was systematically varied to evaluate the effects of the frequency of clicker questions on students' ability to answer associated exam questions. Within each course, students experienced low-, medium-, and high-clicker lectures. The number of clicker questions associated with these three levels was set within each course, but it was allowed to vary slightly between courses so that each instructor could use clickers at frequencies that were within his or her comfort level (Biology 101, 211, 219, and 311: low-clicker frequency lectures, 0–2 clicker questions; medium, 3–4 questions; high, 5–6; Biology 111: low, 0–1; medium, 2–3; high, 4–6; and Biology 377: low, 0–1; medium, 2; high, 3–5). To avoid biasing variation in clicker frequency in a pattern that might covary with students' performance, such as lecture topic, day of the week, or proximity to exams, clicker frequencies followed a temporal Latin square design. For example, if there were nine lectures before an exam, the clicker level of the first lecture would be randomly determined (e.g., medium) and the remaining lectures of a course with Monday, Wednesday, and Friday lectures would follow a pattern similar to a 3 x 3 Su Do Ku puzzle (e.g., week 1: medium, high, low; week 2: high, low, medium; and week 3: low, medium, high). Four courses (Biology 101, 111, 211, and 219) followed this pattern throughout the semester with the minor exception of setting 1 of the Latin squares in each course so that a low (no-clicker) day coincided with a guest lecture. Instructors of the remaining two courses (Biology 311 and 377) found that following a predetermined clicker level interfered with developing optimal lectures for each topic. Although the instructors of these two courses continued to vary clicker frequency, they did not follow a predetermined sequence. During the set of lectures before exam 1 of each course, students were purchasing and registering clickers, and the instructors and students were adjusting to the use of clickers. The experiment began after exam 1 and ran through the last week of the semester.
Analytical Methods: Content Acquisition
The effect of variation in the frequency of clicker questions on students' exam performance across all courses was evaluated with an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The dependent variable was the percentage of students who correctly answered multiple-choice exam questions tied to specific lectures. The analyses included questions from the second midterm exams through noncomprehensive questions in the final exams. Across all courses, the analysis of exams included 659 exam questions. The ANOVA used three main effects to investigate variation in students' performance across these exam questions: 1) course (6 different biology courses), 2) exams (exams 2, 3, and 4), and 3) number of clicker questions in associated lecture (low, medium, or high). This analysis also included each two-way interaction term that included the effects of clickers: 1) clicker by exam, which determined whether the effects of clickers on scores varied among exams; and 2) clicker by course, which determined whether the effects of clickers on exam scores varied among courses. Although the main effect of clickers in the ANOVA was used to determine whether exam scores significantly differed among the three levels of clicker use, polynomial contrasts were used to ask more specific questions. These contrasts evaluated the significance of linear and quadratic variation among the mean exam question scores of the three clicker levels. The linear contrast determined whether there was a significant linear increase (or decrease) in exam scores associated with low-, medium-, and high-clicker use. This linear contrast was the statistical test most closely associated with our hypothesis that content acquisition increases with increased use of clickers. The quadratic contrast determined if exam scores significantly varied among clicker levels in a curved quadratic pattern.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
|
2 = 8.39, df = 2, p = 0.015; recommend to a friend, 2 = 17.85, df = 2, p < 0.001; cost of clickers, 2 = 8.22, df = 2, p = 0.016). For each of these three questions, the responses of "A" students were similar to those illustrated for the entire classes in Figure 1.
|
|
Averaged across all courses, 70% of students agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that using clickers improved their understanding of course material; only 6% of students disagreed with this statement. Students in the microbiology course for allied health majors (Biology 219) had a significantly more positive response to this question (Table 2, Benefits of clickers, analysis of "The clickers helped me understand and/or learn ..."). Ninety-two percent of these students claimed that using clickers improved their understanding of course content (Figure 2C combining strongly agree and agree responses of Biology 219 students).
How Should We Use Clickers? Students in the most advanced course in this study, Biology 377, had a different distribution of answers regarding the optimal number of clicker questions in a lecture than did students in the other five courses (Table 2, How should we use clickers?, analysis of "How many clicker questions do you recommend ..."). A majority of students in all courses recommended three or four questions per lecture (Figure 3A). A majority of the remaining students in Biology 377 preferred one to two questions over five to six questions; in contrast, a majority of the remaining students in Biology 101–311 preferred five to six questions over one to two questions (Figure 3A). Although the percentage of the total course grade derived from clicker questions varied among the courses, there was no significant variation among courses in students' satisfaction with the number of points associated with clicker questions (Table 2, How should we use clickers?, analysis of "The number of clicker points is ..."). Overall, 71% of the students agreed with the number of points allocated to clicker questions in their particular course.
|
Mechanical Problems with Registering, Paying for, and Using Clickers. Students in Biology 111, the course with the highest proportion of freshmen (Table 1), had significantly more problems with Web-based registration and payment than did students in the other courses (Table 2, Problems with clicker use, analysis of "Did you have any problems registering your clicker?"). Nearly one-third of Biology 111 students had problems registering or paying for their clickers (Figure 4A). In the other courses, 84% of students had no problems registering or paying for their clickers (Figure 4A). There also were significant differences among courses in the frequency of students who had problems in class with their clickers (Table 2, Problems with clicker use, analysis of "... problems getting your clicker to work in class?"). This category includes problems with students' individual wireless response units or with the instructors' receivers and associated software. More students experienced these problems in our two upper-division courses; students in Biology 219 had the fewest in-class problems using clickers (Figure 4B).
|
|
2 = 86.47, df = 20, p < 0.001). Stepwise removal of courses revealed that the two microbiology courses (Biology 219 and 311) had similar grade distributions (2 = 4.42, df = 2, p = 0.110; "C," "D," and "F" grade categories were pooled to maintain sufficient subsample sizes). Analyses of the remaining courses (Biology 101, 111, 211, and 377) found that their grade distributions significantly differed (2 = 52.40, df = 12, p < 0.001) until Biology 377 was removed. The remaining three courses (Biology 101, 111, and 211) had similar grade distributions (2 = 1.74, df = 8.00, p < 0.011). These analyses identified three groups with similar course grade distributions: group 1: Biology 101, 111, and 211; group 2: Biology 219 and 311; and group 3: Biology 377. Only group 1 had sufficient numbers of students across all grades to allow contingency table analyses of associations between grades and students' responses to survey questions. Therefore, the following analyses of the associations between grades and survey answers were limited to students from Biology 101, 111, and 211.
General Value.
Students' opinion of the overall value of clickers differed by their course grade (2 = 15.90, df = 8, p = 0.044). The percentage of students who felt that clickers were a distraction or were detrimental to the class gradually increased as grades decreased, although it never reached >15% of students in a grade category (Figure 5A). A majority of students claimed that clickers were a great addition to their course in each grade category, except for students who failed the course (Figure 5A, category labeled "bad"). However, when asked whether they would recommend a course using clickers to a friend, student responses did not vary by their course grade (2 = 6.37, df = 8, p = 0.606). There also was no difference among students in the five different grade categories in their assessment of the cost of clickers (2 = 12.97, df = 8, p = 0.113).
|
2 = 11.20, df = 12, p = 0.512). Students' opinions of the effect of clicker use on their attendance did vary by their course grades (2 = 30.7, df = 12, p = 0.002). The percentage of students who strongly agreed that clickers motivated them to attend lecture increased from "A" to "D" students; as the percentage who claimed they would have attended anyway declined, these trends reversed with students who failed the course (Figure 5B). Students' opinions of the influence of clickers on their ability to learn the course material also varied by grade (2 = 21.40, df = 12, p = 0.045). Whereas 25–30% strongly agreed that clickers helped them learn across all grades, the number of students who simply agreed that clickers helped them learn declined with their course grade (Figure 5C).
How Should We Use Clickers?
Students' recommendations regarding the number of clicker questions that we should ask in each lecture varied by grade (2 = 24.28, df = 8, p = 0.002). Students who earned an "A" in Biology 101, 111, or 211 more consistently (81%) recommended three or four clicker questions, whereas students in each of the "B" through "F" grade categories had increasingly more diverse recommendations (Figure 5D). Students' recommendations regarding the proportion of course points associated with clickers did not vary by grade (2 = 11.62, df = 8, p = 0.169). Students' preference for answering clicker questions individually or after discussion with classmates also did not vary by their course grade (2 = 9.63, df = 8, p = 0.292).
Mechanical Problems with Registering, Paying for, and Using Clickers.
Although the proportion of students who had problems registering or paying for their clickers online did not vary by course grade (2 = 8.90, df = 8, p = 0.351), the frequency of problems using clickers in class did vary across course grades (2 = 16.42, df = 8, p = 0.037). Students who failed the class were more than twice as likely to claim that they had trouble using their clickers in three or more lectures. Nearly one third of these students had this type of problem in three or more lectures.
Survey Responses by Study Preference
A slight majority (55%) of students preferred to study individually for exams. Many students (42%) preferred to study in groups of two or three students. Very few students (3%) preferred to study for exams with four or more students. Because so few students preferred to study in larger groups, when analyzing the relationships between exam study preference and responses to the clicker survey, we collapsed the study preference responses into two categories: 1) prefer to study individually and 2) prefer to study cooperatively. Students' responses to each of the three questions assessing their general impression of clickers did not vary between students who preferred to study for exams individually and those who preferred to study cooperatively (overall value: 2 = 3.02, df = 2, p = 0.221; recommend clickers: 2 = 2.36, df = 2, p = 0.307; and cost: 2 = 1.12, df = 2, p = 0.571). Students' responses to each of the questions exploring specific benefits of clickers also did not vary by exam study preference (interest: 2 = 1.23, df = 3, p = 0.746; attendance: 2 = 3.15, df = 3, p = 0.370; and understanding: 2 = 0.363, df = 3, p = 0.948). Students' recommendations regarding the number of clicker questions and the number of points associated with clickers did not vary between students who preferred to study for exams individually and those who preferred to study with other students (number of questions: 2 = 1.06, df = 3, p = 0.787; points: 2 = 4.85, df = 2, p = 0.088). However, students who preferred to study individually for exams also were more likely to prefer to answer clicker questions without discussion than were students who preferred to study cooperatively for exams (2 = 23.82, df = 2, p < 0.001). Of students who preferred to study individually, 29.8% also preferred to answer clicker questions without discussion; of students who preferred to study cooperatively for exams, only 13.4% preferred to answer clicker questions without discussion.
Content Acquisition
The significance of the effects of course, exams, and clickers on scores on exam questions is shown in Table 4. The ANOVA was run across all courses as well as separately for lower- and upper-division courses. The test of the main effect of clickers on exam scores, which asks whether exam scores differed among the three clicker levels, was significant when all courses were included in the analysis, was significant when only lower-division courses were included, and was inconclusive when only the two upper-division courses were included (Table 4, Analyses of clickers). The linear contrasts of the effects of clickers on exam scores asked the more specific question of whether there was a consistent linear change in exam scores from low-, to medium-, to high-clicker lectures. When considered across all courses as well as separately for lower- and upper-division courses, there was a significant linear increase in exam scores across the three levels of clicker frequencies (Table 4, Analyses of linear contrast of clickers; and Figure 6). Although exam scores generally differed among courses, the positive linear relationship between clicker frequency and exam scores was consistent across all courses (Table 4, analyses of Clickers x course).
|
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Although upper-division students may be hesitant to embrace more interactive instruction methods, they may be the students most in need of the type of learning associated with these methods. There is often a disconnect between students' perceptions of the course learning objectives (based on experience taking term-recognition exams) and the instructor's expectations of the level of student learning (Bloom, 1956; NRC, 2000; Zoller, 2000). As students progress from introductory to advanced science courses, they are expected to learn at increasingly difficult levels progressing from term recognition and simple memorization to synthesis and interpretation. Unfortunately, this transition may not be clearly previewed to students. Therefore, students attempt to apply strategies sufficient for accomplishing tasks associated with lower-order learning skills to more challenging learning tasks in upper-division courses. In longitudinal analyses of student exam performance in Pathophysiology and Therapeutics in a Doctor of Pharmacy program, Slain et al. (2004) found that students did not perform better on simple memorization questions when the course was taught using clickers to encourage discussion than when the course was taught by the same instructors without clickers; however, they did perform better on analytical questions when the course was taught using clickers. This difference in the impact of interactive learning methods on lower- and higher-order learning is not limited to advanced students. In a convincing analysis of the effects of cooperative learning on ninth-grade earth science students, Chang and Mao (1999) found that cooperative learning did not improve students' performance on questions requiring only lower-level cognitive skills, but cooperative learning did improve student performance on higher-level questions. Our survey results suggest that upper-division students who have successfully progressed through science courses, many of which are taught using traditional methods, are less enthusiastic about new pedagogical methods associated with increasing interactions in the lecture course. However, if they avoid adopting cooperative learning methods and continue to apply traditional study methods to the more challenging expectations of advanced courses, and ultimately to professional positions, they may struggle with the higher-order thinking skills required to be successful in these courses and positions. We suggest that the solution to this dilemma is the consistent use of interactive learning strategies throughout the curriculum with a concurrent emphasis on the development of, and assessment of, higher-level thinking skills.
Although the positive effect of clickers on student performance was consistent across all courses, a higher proportion of students in the microbiology course for allied health majors (Biology 219) correctly thought that using clickers improved their understanding. This course is primarily composed of prenursing students who hope not only to pass their required microbiology course but also to learn the material well enough to pass the National Council Licensure Examination. This strong extrinsic motivation of prenursing students to succeed in the course may be paired with less confidence in their ability to learn science than is typical of science majors. Interactive teaching methods, such as the use of clickers, may be particularly effective at improving the confidence level, as well as the performance, of nonscience majors who are under strong pressure to succeed in a science course. Instructors may need to introduce and present the use of clickers differently depending on the nature of their course: students in upper-division science courses may need more convincing that the effective use of clickers will improve their grades than students in lower-division science courses, and students in applied science courses may be most receptive. Fortunately, we found only minor differences of opinion about the use of clickers when students were categorized by their course grade, or by their preference for studying individually or cooperatively. Instructors may need to present clickers differently between courses; however, they will be received in a similar manner by most students within each course.
Although we found differences among courses in students' opinions about the use of clickers, clickers improved student performance in all courses. Students in both lower- and upper-division courses performed significantly better on exam questions associated with high-clicker-use lectures than on exam questions associated with low clicker use (Figure 6). This conclusion adds a new level of specificity to our understanding of the effects of clicker use on student performance. Latitudinal comparisons of concurrent sections of courses taught with and without wired student response units have found no improvement on exam performance associated with the use of this technology (Bessler and Nisbet, 1971; Casanova, 1971; Brown, 1972). As Judson and Sawada (2002) point out, classrooms in the 1970s, such as those in the latitudinal studies discussed above, tended to use wired student response units to enhance student-to-instructor communication, but not to enhance discussion and cooperative learning among students. More recent longitudinal studies comparing courses taught with clickers to the same courses taught without clickers have shown significant conceptual gains associated with clicker use (Knight and Wood, 2005); significant gains limited to specific courses and question types (Slain et al., 2004); and no significant differences in performance, but some encouraging trends in the face of confounding factors (Paschal, 2002). The strength of these latitudinal and longitudinal comparisons is that they evaluate the total effect of a course innovation on student performance; the limitation is that they do not necessarily isolate the effects of a specific method, such as clickers. By varying clicker frequency within courses, our experimental design was not confounded by extraneous factors contributing to variation in student performance between sections of a course in latitudinal comparisons and between semesters in longitudinal comparisons. However, the fine scale of our comparisons did not allow us to consider course-level effects of the use of clickers on student performance due to factors such as improved overall attendance or student attitudes. In spite of excluding these course-level impacts of using clickers, but perhaps due to the increased specificity of our experimental design, we found that increased clicker use across a variety of biology courses resulted in improved performance on exam questions. Although our study experimentally demonstrated that increased use of clickers is associated with increased learning, this study was not designed to reveal the underlying mechanism of this effect. However, establishing this relationship helps set the stage for investigations of more mechanistic hypotheses. For example, this positive impact of clicker use on student learning may be due to a variety of factors associated with using clickers: increased student engagement associated with each student committing to an answer rather than many passively waiting while a few students answer verbal questions; higher attention levels due to more periodic breaks from lecture; immediate formative assessments benefiting both instructors and students throughout the lectures; and increased discussion among students and between students and the instructor of concepts that students find challenging. Our study also reveals variation in students' impression of clickers, although not in the effects of clickers on their learning, between courses. Future research could investigate explanations of these differences among courses. For example, if the lower overall impression of clickers expressed by upper-division students is due to presenting them with a change in pedagogy when they have been successful in more traditionally taught courses, then this difference should attenuate as students who have been introduced to these methods in their lower-division courses begin to move into the upper-division courses. Students' impression of clickers also may be influenced by class size, causing students in large lower-division courses to express particularly strong preferences for the use of clickers. The strong preference for clicker use shown by students in our microbiology course for allied health majors suggests that the nature of students' motivation and their attitudes toward science may influence their responses to the use of clickers in science classrooms. Although the mechanisms that mediate the impacts of clickers on student learning are not well established, we recommend using clickers to improve student attitudes and learning.
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Bessler, W. C., and Nisbet, J. J. (1971). The use of an electronic response system in teaching biology. Sci. Educ. 55, 275–284.[CrossRef]
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives—The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, New York: David McKay.
Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates (1998). Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America's Research Universities, Stony Brook, NY: SUNY. http://naples.cc.suny.sb.edu/pres/boyer.nsf (accessed 11 January 2007).
Brown, J. D. (1972). An evaluation of the Spitz student response system in teaching a course in logical and mathematical concepts. J. Exp. Educ. 40, 12–20.
Casanova, J. (1971). An instructional experiment in organic chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 48, 453–455.
Chang, C. Y., and Mao, S. L. (1999). The effects on students' cognitive achievement when using the cooperative learning method in earth science classrooms. Sch. Sci. Math. 99, 374–379.
Cue, N. (1998). A universal learning tool for classrooms? In: Proceedings of the First Quality in Teaching and Learning Conference. Hong Kong, SAR, China. http://celt.ust.hk/ideas (accessed 11 January 2007).
Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., Mestre, J. P., and Wenk, L. (1996). Classtalk: a classroom communication system for active learning. J. Comp. High. Educ. 7, 3–47.
Elliott, C. (2003). Using a personal response system in economics teaching. Int. Rev. Econ. Educ. 1, 80–86.
Hatch, J., Jensen, M., and Moore, R. (2005). Manna from heaven or "clickers" from hell. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 34, 36–39.
Jensen, M., Moore, R., and Hatch, J. (2002). Electronic cooperative quizzes. Am. Biol. Teach. 64, 169–174.[CrossRef]
Judson, E., and Sawada, D. (2002). Learning from the past and present: electronic response systems in college lecture halls. J. Comput. Math. Sci. Teach. 21, 167–181.
Knight, J. K., and Wood, W. G. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biol. Educ. 4, 298–310.[CrossRef][Medline]
Klionsky, D. J. (2001). Constructing knowledge in the lecture hall. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 31, 246–251.
National Research Council (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind Experience, and School, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
NRC (2003). Bio 2010, transforming undergraduate education for future research biologists, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: the essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Sci. Educ. 86, 548–571.[CrossRef]
Paschal, C. B. (2002). Formative assessment in physiology teaching using a wireless classroom communication system. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 26, 299–308.
Rao, S. P., and DiCarlo, S. E. (2000). Peer instruction improves performance on quizzes. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 24, 51–55.
Roy, H. (2003). Studio vs. interactive lecture demonstration—effects on student learning. Bioscience 29, 3–6.[CrossRef]
Slain, D., Abate, M., Hodges, B. M., Stamatakis, M. K., and Wolak, S. (2004). An interactive response system to promote active learning in the doctor of pharmacy curriculum. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 68, 1–9.
Smith, A. C., Stewart, R., Shields, P., Hayes-Klosteridis, J., Robinson, P., and Yuan, R. (2005). Introductory biology courses: a framework to support active learning in large enrollment introductory science courses. Cell Biol. Educ. 4, 143–156.[CrossRef][Medline]
Suchman, E., Uchiyama, K., Smith, R., and Bender, K. (2006). Evaluating the impact of a classroom response system in a microbiology course. Microbiol. Educ. 7, 3–11.
Systat Software, Inc (2002). SYSTAT 10.2, Statistics I, Point Richmond, CA: Systat Software, Inc.
Udovic, D., Morris, D., Dickman, A., Postlethwait, J., and Wetherwax, P. (2002). Workshop biology: demonstrating the effectiveness of active learning in an introductory biology course. Bioscience 52, 272–281.[CrossRef]
Tessier, J. (2004). Using peer teaching to promote learning in biology. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 33, 16–19.
Wood, W. B. (2004). Clickers: a teaching gimmick that works. Dev. Cell. 7, 796–798.
Zoller, U. (2000). Teaching tomorrow's college science courses—are we getting it right? J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 29, 409–414.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  K. Crossgrove and K. L. Curran Using Clickers in Nonmajors- and Majors-Level Biology Courses: Student Opinion, Learning, and Long-Term Retention of Course Material CBE Life Sci Educ, March 1, 2008; 7(1): 146 - 154. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
