Advertisement

Using audience response systems to amplify student learning in political science: a case study of electoral systems teaching

  • Louise Thompson
Teaching and Learning
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

Audience response systems (ARS) are now a very widespread technological teaching tool within political science, being used as either an opinion polling or an assessment tool in the classroom. This article presents a case study of an in-class demonstration using an ARS within an electoral systems and voting behaviour module to illustrate how these systems can be used in more innovative pedagogical ways to produce ‘teachable moments’ which facilitate high-level learning outcomes. It argues that political scientists should further emphasise the integration of pedagogical knowledge with technology and content knowledge to embed ARS technology within a more transformative learning process in order to amplify students’ understanding of political science concepts and aid the progression of learning.

Keywords

Clickers Audience response systems Polling software Technology 

References

  1. Anckar, C. 1997. Determinants of Disproportionality and Wasted Votes. Electoral Studies 16(4): 501–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, L.S., A.F. Healy, J.A. Kole, and L.E. Bourne. 2013. The Clicker Technique: Cultivating Efficient Teaching and Successful Learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology 27(2): 222–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archambault, L.M., and J.H. Barnett. 2010. Revisiting Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Exploring the TPACK Framework. Computers & Education 55: 1656–1662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beatty, I. 2004. Transforming Student Learning with Classroom Communication System. Educause Center for applied research: Research Bulletin 2004(3). Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0508/0508129.pdf. Accessed 30 January 2017.
  5. Beatty, I.D., and W.J. Gerace. 2009. Technology Enhanced Formative Assessment: A Research Based Pedagogy for Teaching Science with Classroom Response Technology. Journal of Science Education Technology 18: 146–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beatty, I.D., W.J. Gerace, W.J. Leonard, and R.J. Dufresne. 2006. Designing Effective Questions for Classroom Response System Teaching. American Journal of Physics 74(31): 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Birch, S. 2003. Two Round Electoral Systems and Democracy. Comparative Political Studies 36(3): 319–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Collins, L. 2007. Livening up the Classroom: Using Audience Response Systems to Promote Active Learning. Informatics Education 26(1): 81–88.Google Scholar
  9. Crouch, C., A.P. Fagan, J.P. Callan, and E. Mazur. 2004. Classroom Demonstrations: Learning Tools or Entertainment? American Journal of Physics 72: 835–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Damron, D., and J. Mott. 2005. Creating an Interactive Classroom: Enhancing Student Engagement and Learning in Political Science Courses. Journal of Political Science Education 1: 367–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dangel, H.L., and C.X. Wang. 2008. Student Response Systems in Higher Education: Moving Beyond Linear Teaching and Surface Learning. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange 1(1): 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Daniel, J.S. 1996. Mega-Universities and Knowledge Media: Technology Solutions for Higher Education. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  13. DeBourgh, G.A. 2008. Use of Classroom ‘clickers’ to Promote Acquisition of Advanced Reasoning Skills. Nurse Education in Practice 8(2): 76–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elgie, R. 1997. Two Ballot Majority Electoral Systems. Representation 34(2): 89–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Evans, H.K. 2012. Making Politics “Click”: The Costs and Benefits of Using Clickers in an Introductory Political Science Course. Journal of Political Science Education 8: 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farrell, D.M. 2011. Electoral Systems: A Comparative Introduction. 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gormley-Heenan, C., and K. McCartan. 2009. Making it Matter: Teaching and Learning in Political Science using an Audience Response System. European Political Science 8: 379–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gross, J.L. 2002. Seeing is Believing: Classroom Demonstrations as Scientific Inquiry. Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online 1: 3–6.Google Scholar
  19. Holland, L., P. Schwartz-Shea, and J.M.J. Yim. 2013. Adapting Clicker Technology to Diversity Courses: New Research Insights. Journal of Political Science Education 9: 273–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hosseini, Z. 2014. Development of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge through Constructionist Activities. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 182: 98–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kinchin, I. 2012. Avoiding Technology-Enhanced Non-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology 43(2): 43–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koehler, M.J., and P. Mishra. 2009. What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education 9(1): 60–70.Google Scholar
  23. Koehler, M.J., P. Mishra, and W. Cain. 2013. What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education 193(3): 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lasry, N. 2008. ARSs or Flashcards: Is There Really a Difference? The Physics Teacher 46: 242–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lijphart, A. 1990. The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws. American Political Science Review 84(2): 481–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lijphart, A., and B. Grofman. 1984. Choosing an Electoral System. In Choosing an Electoral System: Issues and Alternatives, ed. A. Lijphart and B. Grofman, 3–14. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  27. Loep, E.D. 2018. Beyond Polls: Using Science and Student Data to Stimulate Learning. Journal of Political Science Education 14(1): 17–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mostert, M., and L. Quinn. 2009. Using ICTs in Teaching and Learning; Reflections on Professional Development of Academic Staff. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT 5(5): 72–84.Google Scholar
  29. Niederhauser, D.S., and T. Stoddart. 2001. Teachers’ Instructional Perspectives and Use of Education Software. Teaching and Teacher Education 17(1): 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shelton, C. 2016. Giving up Technology and Social Media: Why Lecturers Stop Using Technology in Teaching. Technology, Pedagogy & Education 26(3): 303–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shulman, L.S. 1986. Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher 15(2): 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Simelane, S., and P.M. Skhosana. 2012. Impact of Clicker Technology in a Mathematics Course. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal 4(3): 279–292.Google Scholar
  33. Sobel, K., and M.G. Grotti. 2012. Using the TPACK Framework to Facilitate Decision Making on Instructional Technologies. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship 24(4): 255–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ulbig, S.G. 2016. I Like the Way this Feels: Using Classroom Response System Technology to Enhance Tactile Learners. Introductory American Government Experience’, Journal of Political Science Education 12(1): 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Velasco, M., and G. Cavdar. 2013. Teaching Large Classes with Clickers: Results from a Teaching Experiment in Comparative Politics. Political Science and Politics 46(4): 823–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Watling, S. 2009. Technology enhanced learning: a new digital divide? In The Future of Higher Education: Policy, Pedagogy and the Student Experience, ed. L. Bell, H. Stevenson, and M. Neary, 83–96. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Consortium for Political Research 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SurreyGuildfordUK
  2. 2.Department of PoliticsThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations