Abstract
Many studies over the past 20 years have described the advantages, for both students and instructors, of using clickers to ask conceptual questions in science classrooms. In biology courses, which students may view as content-heavy, clickers can be particularly helpful in encouraging students to apply their knowledge and analyze new scenarios. As an instructor, asking clicker questions that are aligned with learning goals, challenge student thinking, inspire student discussion, and provide information to monitor student learning are all rewarding practices. However, it can take instructors many rounds of iteration to see this reward, and often they are unsure how to best write and implement clicker questions. In this chapter, we highlight the evidence-based practices that can help instructors use clickers effectively in biology classrooms. Specifically, we describe how to ask clicker questions to encourage student engagement and learning, and we provide guidance about how to write conceptual questions that encourage thinking and discussion. We also discuss evidence about student learning during clicker questions and conclude with practical advice about implementation.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. Washington, DC.
Armbruster, P., Patel, M., Johnson, E., & Weiss, M. (2009). Active learning and student- centered pedagogy improve student attitudes and performance in introductory biology. CBE Life Sciences Education, 8, 203–213.
Balta, N., & Awedh, M. H. (2017). The effect of student collaboration in solving physics problems using an online interactive response system. European Journal of Educational Research, 6, 385–394.
Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society (pp. 56–64). New York: Worth Publishers.
Blasco-Arcas, L., Buil, I., Hernández-Ortega, B., & Sese, F. J. (2013). Using clickers in class. The role of interactivity, active collaborative learning and engagement in learning performance. Computers in Education, 62, 102–110.
Brazeal, K. R., Brown, T. L., Couch, B. A., & Brickman, P. (2016). Characterizing student perceptions of and buy-in toward common formative assessment techniques. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15, ar73.
Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). Feedback enhances the positive effects and reduces the negative effects of multiple-choice testing. Memory & Cognition, 36, 604–616.
Chasteen, S. V., Perkins, K. K., Beale, P. D., Pollock, S. J., & Wieman, C. E. (2011). A thoughtful approach to instruction: Course transformation for the rest of us. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40, 24–30.
Crossgrove, K., & Curran, K. L. (2008). Using clickers in nonmajors- and majors-level biology courses: Student opinion, learning, and long-term retention of course material. CBE Life Sciences Education, 7, 146–154.
Duncan, D. (2004). Clickers in the classroom: How to enhance science teaching using classroom response system. San Francisco: Pearson Education.
Eddy, S. L., Brownell, S. E., Wenderoth, M. P., & Allen, D. (2014). Gender gaps in achievement and participation in multiple introductory biology classrooms. CBE Life Sciences Education, 13, 478–492.
Freeman, S., O’Connor, E., Parks, J. W., Cunningham, M., Hurley, D., Haak, D., Dirks, C., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2007). Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6, 132–139.
Grady, D. (2009). Healthy one day, dying the next: A medical race. New York Times.
Hodges, L. C., Anderson, E. C., Carpenter, T. S., Cui, L., Gierasch, T. M., Leupen, S., Nanes, K. M., & Wagner, C. R. (2015). Using Reading quizzes in STEM classes—The what, why, and how. Journal of College Science Teaching, 45, 49–55.
Hoefnagels, M., & Taylor, M. S. (2016). “Boost your evolution IQ”: An evolution misconceptions game. CourseSource, 3.
Howard, A. R. (2014). Using plants to explore the nature & structural complexity of life. The American Biology Teacher, 76, 444–448.
Hubbard, J. K., & Couch, B. A. (2018). The positive effect of in-class clicker questions on later exams depends on initial student performance level but not question format. Computers in Education, 120, 1–12.
Hubbard, J. K., Shizuka, D., & Couch, B. A. (2016). Knowing your own: A classroom case study using the scientific method to investigate how birds learn to recognize their offspring. CourseSource, 3.
Hubbs, N. B., Parent, K. N., & Stoltzfus, J. R. (2017). Models in the biology classroom: An in- class modeling activity on meiosis. The American Biology Teacher, 79, 482–491.
James, M. C. (2006). The effect of grading incentive on student discourse in peer instruction. American Journal of Physics, 74, 689.
Knight, J. K., & Wood, W. B. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology Education, 4, 298–310.
Knight, J. K., Wise, S. B., & Southard, K. M. (2013a). Understanding clicker discussions: Student reasoning and the impact of instructional cues. CBE Life Sciences Education, 12, 645–654.
Knight, J. K., Wood, W. B., & Smith, M. K. (2013b). What’s downstream? A set of classroom exercises to help students understand recessive epistasis †. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education JMBE, 14, 197–205.
Knight, J. K., Wise, S. B., Rentsch, J., Furtak, E. M., & Momsen, J. (2015). Cues matter: Learning assistants influence introductory biology student interactions during clicker-question discussions. CBE Life Sciences Education, 14, ar41.
Knight, J. K., Wise, S. B., Sieke, S., & Abraham, J. K. (2016). Group random call can positively affect student in-class clicker discussions. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15, ar56.
Lane, E. S., & Harris, S. E. (2015). A new tool for measuring student behavioral engagement in large university classes. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44, 83–91.
Lasry, N. (2008). Clickers or flashcards: Is there really a difference? Physics Teacher, 46, 242–244.
Lewin, J. D., Vinson, E. L., Stetzer, M. R., & Smith, M. K. (2016). A campus-wide investigation of clicker implementation: The status of peer discussion in STEM classes. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15, ar6.
Lieu, R., Wong, A., Asefirad, A., & Shaffer, J. F. (2017). Improving exam performance in introductory biology through the use of Preclass Reading guides. CBE Life Sciences Education, 16, ar46.
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
McDonnel, L. M., & Klenz, J. (2015). Teaching genetic linkage and recombination through mapping with molecular markers. CourseSource, 2.
Metzger, K. (2014). Homologous chromosomes? Exploring human sex chromosomes, sex determination and sex reversal using bioinformatics approaches. CourseSource, 1.
Morrell, L. J., & Joyce, D. A. (2015). Interactive lectures: Clickers or personal devices? F1000Research, 4, 64.
Newman, D. L., & Wright, L. K. (2017). Meiosis: A play in three acts, Starring DNA Sequence. CourseSource, 4.
Niven, J. E. (2008). Evolution: Convergent eye losses in fishy circumstances. Current Biology, 18, R27–R29.
Otero, V., Pollock, S., & Finkelstein, N. (2010). A physics department’s role in preparing physics teachers: The Colorado learning assistant model. American Journal of Physics, 78, 1218.
Pelletreau, K. N., Andrews, T., Armstrong, N., Bedell, M. A., Dastoor, F., Dean, N., Erster, S., & Fata- Hartley, C., Guild, N., Greig, H., et al. (2016). A clicker-based case study that untangles student thinking about the processes in the central dogma. CourseSource, 3.
Pelletreau, K. N., Knight, J. K., Lemons, P. P., McCourt, J. S., Merrill, J. E., Nehm, R. H., Prevost, L. B., Urban-Lurain, M., Smith, M. K., & Ledbetter, M. L. (2018). A faculty professional development model that improves student learning, encourages active-learning instructional practices, and works for Faculty at Multiple Institutions. CBE Life Sciences Education, 17, es5.
Perez, K. E., Strauss, E. A., Downey, N., Galbraith, A., Jeanne, R., & Cooper, S. (2010). Does displaying the class results affect student discussion during peer instruction? CBE Life Sciences Education, 9, 133–140.
Preszler, R. W., Dawe, A., Shuster, C. B., Shuster, M., & Sundberg, M. (2007). Assessment of the effects of student response systems on student learning and attitudes over a broad range of biology courses. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6, 29–41.
Rowe, M. B. (1974). Wait-time and rewards as instructional variables, their influence on language, logic, and fate control: Part one-wait-time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11, 81–94.
Rowe, M. B. (1978). Wait, Wait, Wait…. School Science and Mathematics, 78, 207–216.
Sarvary, M. A., & Gifford, K. M. (2017). The benefits of a real-time web-based response system for enhancing engaged learning in classrooms and public science events. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education JUNE Publication FUN Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience, 15, E13–E16.
Schell, J. A., & Butler, A. C. (2018). Insights from the science of learning can inform evidence- based implementation of peer instruction. Frontiers in Education, 3.
Shi, J., Knight, J. K., Chun, H., Guild, N. A., & Martin, J. M. (2017). Using pre-assessment and in-class questions to change student understanding of molecular movements. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 18.
Simon, B., & Taylor, J. (2009). What is the value of course-specific learning goals? Journal of College Science Teaching, 39, 52–57.
Smith, M. (2012). A fishy way to discuss multiple genes affecting the same trait. PLoS Biology, 10, e1001279.
Smith, M. K., & Merrill, S. (2014). Why do some people inherit a predisposition to Cancer? A small group activity on cancer genetics. CourseSource, 1.
Smith, M. K., & Perkins, K. K. (2010). “At the end of my course, students should be able to …”: The benefits of creating and using effective learning goals. Microscope, 3.
Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N., & Su, T. T. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323, 122–124.
Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Krauter, K., & Knight, J. K. (2011). Combining peer discussion with instructor explanation increases student learning from in-class concept questions. CBE Life Sciences Education, 10, 55–63.
Smith, M. K., Toth, E., Borges, K., Dastoor, F., Johnson, J., Jones, E. H., Nelson, P., Page, J., Pelletreau, K. N., Prentiss, N., et al. (2018). Using place-based economically relevant organisms to improve student understanding of the roles of carbon dioxide, sunlight, and nutrients in photosynthetic organisms. CourseSource, 5.
Solomon, E. D., Repice, M. D., Mutambuki, J. M., Leonard, D. A., Cohen, C. A., Luo, J., Frey, R. F., & Brame, C. (2018). A mixed-methods investigation of clicker implementation styles in STEM. CBE Life Sciences Education, 17, ar30.
Summers, M. M., Couch, B. A., Knight, J. K., Brownell, S. E., Crowe, A. J., Semsar, K., Wright, C. D., Smith, M. K., & Batzli, J. (2018). EcoEvo-MAPS: An ecology and evolution assessment for introductory through advanced undergraduates. CBE Life Sciences Education, 17, ar18.
Tanner, K. D. (2013). Structure matters: Twenty-one teaching strategies to promote student engagement and cultivate classroom equity. CBE Life Sciences Education, 12, 322–331.
Trenchmann, E., Smith, M., Pelletrau, K. N., & Summers, M. M. (2017). An active-learning lesson that targets student understanding of population growth in ecology. CourseSource, 4.
Turpen, C., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2009). Not all interactive engagement is the same: Variations in physics professors’ implementation of Peer Instruction. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 5, 020101.
Turpen, C., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2010). The construction of different classroom norms during Peer Instruction: Students perceive differences. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 6, 020123.
Vandegrift, E. V. H., & Dawson, S. (2016). Sex and gender: What does it mean to be female or male? CourseSource, 3, 1–6.
Vicens, Q., & Caspersen, M. E. (2014). Getting more scientists to revamp teaching. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43, 22–27.
Wood, W. B. (2004). Clickers: A teaching gimmick that works. Developmental Cell, 7, 796–798.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Smith, M.K., Knight, J.K. (2020). Clickers in the Biology Classroom: Strategies for Writing and Effectively Implementing Clicker Questions That Maximize Student Learning. In: Mintzes, J.J., Walter, E.M. (eds) Active Learning in College Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33600-4_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33600-4_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-33599-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-33600-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)