\Clicker_Research_Proposal02.doc
September 29, 2011
The Daily Pop Quiz: Teaching and Learning with Clickers
by
Craig Leonard Brians
cbrians@vt.edu
Victoria Dounoucos
victd91@vt.edu
Chelsea Hickey
hickeyc@vt.edu
Alison Higgins
ahiggins11@vt.edu
Department of Political Science
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24061
Paper prepared for presentation at the Conference on Higher Education Pedagogy,
February 8th-10th, in Blacksburg, VA
The Daily Pop Quiz: Teaching and Learning with Clickers
Abstract:
In recent years, technology has gained a firm foothold in higher education
classrooms. The student response system (i.e., clickers) is among the most
common teaching technologies incorporated into classrooms today. Given
clickers’ growing popularity over the last decade dozens of studies in fields
ranging from biology to physics to political science have sought to evaluate
clickers’ effects on learning. Whereas much previous research focuses on
subjective effects attributed to clickers, this study empirically examines potential
mechanisms by which clickers may result in higher student exam achievement,
and perhaps even promote learning. Through a combination of student survey
data and experimental research, this study teases-out the avenues for increased
student performance when using clickers in large classes. The results suggest
that more motivated learners react differently to clickers than do those students
who simply seek a passing course grade.
Literature Review:
In recent years, technology has gained a firm foothold in higher education
classrooms. The student response system (i.e., clickers) is among the most
common teaching technologies incorporated into classrooms today (Immerwahr
2009; Winograd & Cheesman 2007). These personal devices permit students to
contribute their individual opinions and quiz responses in real-time during class.
Given clickers’ growing popularity over the last decade, particularly among those
teaching large enrollment courses, dozens of studies in fields ranging from
biology to physics to political science have sought to evaluate clickers’ effects on
learning (e.g., Beavers 2010; El-Rady 2006; Salemi 2008; Stuart, Brown, &
Draper 2004; Winograd and Cheesman 2007). Previous research generally falls
into one of three categories: (1) examples of pedagogical techniques, (2) user
perception studies, and (3) quasi-experimental tests of knowledge change.
Nearly every study identifies benefits from incorporating clickers into the
classroom; however, the causal link between “clicking” and these claimed
benefits is left unexamined.
Methodology:
To address the causal mechanism void in the literature, this paper explicitly
studies several competing hypotheses, each seeking to explain exam score
improvement (or even learning gains) from clicker use. Exploring this
relationship in large classes (i.e., 80 to 300 students), this study empirically
examines these potential mechanisms using a range of data: quantitative and
qualitative student surveys, experimentally comparing (individual-level) in-class
clicker question performance to exam question performance, and focus group
responses.
2
Data Analysis and Results:
We find that clickers improve students’ performance through several
mechanisms: (1) enhanced pre-class preparation, (2) more consistent class
attendance, (3) increased classroom participation and attention, (4) opportunity
to practice timed testing, and (5) signaling high-priority course content.
Additionally, these processes appear to operate simultaneously and interactively,
although with different intensities for different students, depending upon a
student’s initial motivation level.
Discussion/Conclusion:
Broadly, we find that most students in a course using clickers (1) place greater
value on attendance and therefore retain more knowledge to use on exams, (2)
are more likely to look at the readings before class, and (3) demonstrate greater
course satisfaction. Using clickers also appears to reduce student distractions in
a large lecture course, due to the need to pay attention to frequent, interactive
questioning.
3