Abstract
Although clickers are often invoked as a simple strategy for incorporating active learning into STEM classrooms, actual clicker implementations are complex and highly varied. This chapter sheds light on the spectrum of clicker implementation styles that have been observed in STEM classrooms at our institution and elsewhere and explores the decision-making processes that underlie those styles. In service of these goals, we draw on a combination of sources, including the education research literature, a mixed-methods study conducted by our research group, and professional experience as instructors, researchers, and faculty developers. The chapter concludes with guiding principles to help STEM practitioners make informed choices about how and when to incorporate clickers into their courses.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Arjoon, J. A., Xu, X., & Lewis, J. E. (2013). Understanding the state of the art for measurement in chemistry education research: Examining the psychometric evidence. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(5), 536–545. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed3002013.
Brewer, C. A., & Smith, D. (Eds.). (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. http://visionandchange.org/files/2011/03/Revised-Vision-and-Change-Final-Report.pdf.
Bruck, A. D., & Towns, M. H. (2009). Analysis of classroom response system questions via four lenses in a general chemistry course. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10(4), 291–295. https://doi.org/10.1039/b920834h.
Bunce, D. M., Flens, E. A., & Neiles, K. Y. (2010). How long can students pay attention in class? A study of student attention decline using clickers. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(12), 1438–1443. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed100409p.
Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-12-0205.
Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative. (2013). What not to do: Practices that should be avoided when implementing active learning. Retrieved from: http://www.cwsei.ubc.ca/resources/instructor_guidance.htm
Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative (CWSEI) and The Science Education Initiative at the University of Colorado (CU-SEI). (2017). Clicker resource guide: An instructor’s guide to the effective use of personal response systems (clickers) in teaching. Retrieved from http://www.cwsei.ubc.ca/resources/clickers.htm
Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823.
Cleary, A. M. (2008). Using wireless response systems to replicate behavioral research findings in the classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 35(1), 42–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280701826642.
Duncan, D. (2008). Tips for successful “Clicker” use. Retrieved from http://www.cwsei.ubc.ca/resources/files/Tips_for_Successful_Clicker_Use_Duncan.pdf
Ebert-May, D., Derting, T. L., Hodder, J., Momsen, J. L., Long, T. M., & Jardeleza, S. E. (2011). What we say is not what we do: Effective evaluation of faculty professional development programs. Bioscience, 61(7), 550–558. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.7.9.
Fisher, B. A., & Frey, R. F. (2015). Using documentary tools to foster the practice of scholarly teaching. The National Teaching & Learning Forum, 24(2), 4–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/ntlf.30016.
Frey, R. F., Fisher, B. A., Solomon, E. D., Leonard, D. A., Mutambuki, J. M., Cohen, C. A., Luo, J., & Pondugula, S. (2016). A visual approach to helping instructors integrate, document, and refine active learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 45(5), 20.
Gardner, G. E., Dutta, S., Mulcahy, K., Tabakova, V., Majewski, D., Reid, J. W., & Jia, Z. (2018). A comparative analysis of the use of student response devices (“clickers”) in university learning environments at a large southeastern university. Journal of STEM Education Research., 1, 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-018-0004-4.
Hora, M. T. (2015). Towards a descriptive science of teaching: How the teaching dimensions observation protocol illuminates the dynamic and multi-dimensional nature of active learning modalities in postsecondary classrooms. Science Education, 99(5), 783–818. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21175.
Hora, M. T., Oleson, A., & Ferrare, J. J. (2013). Teaching dimensions observation protocol (TDOP) user’s manual. Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
Knight, J. K., & Wood, W. B. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology Education, 4(4), 298–310. https://doi.org/10.1187/05-06-0082.
Knight, J. K., Wise, S. B., & Southard, K. M. (2013). Understanding clicker discussions: Student reasoning and the impact of instructional cues. CBE Life Sciences Education, 12(4), 645–654. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-05-0090.
Knight, J. K., Wise, S. B., Rentsch, J., & Furtak, E. M. (2015). Cues matter: learning assistants influence introductory biology student interactions during clicker-question discussions. CBE Life Sciences Education, 14(4), ar41. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-04-0093.
Lasry, N., Charles, E., Whittaker, C., & Lautman, M. (2009). When talking is better than staying quiet. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1179(1), 181–184. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3266709.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
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(1), ar6. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-10-0224.
Martyn, M. (2007). Clickers in the classroom: An active learning approach. Educause Quarterly, 30(2), 71.
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
National Academy of Sciences. (2015). Reaching students: What research says about effective instruction in undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, DC: NAS.
Olson, S., & Riordan, D. R. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (Report to the President). Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
Porter, L., Bailey-Lee, C., Simon, B., & Zingaro, D. (2011). Peer instruction: Do students really learn from peer discussion in computing? In ICER ‘11: Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 45–52). New York: ACM Press.
Repice, M. D., Sawyer, R. K., Hogrebe, M. C., Brown, P. L., Luesse, S. B., Gealy, D. J., & Frey, R. F. (2016). Talking through the problems: A study of discourse in peer-led small groups. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(3), 555–568. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5rp00154d.
Roediger, H. L., III, & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003.
Sawada, D., Piburn, M. D., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching observation protocol. School Science and Mathematics, 102(6), 245–253.
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(5910), 122–124. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165919.
Smith, M. K., Trujillo, C., & Su, T. T. (2011). The benefits of using clickers in small-enrollment seminar-style biology courses. CBE Life Sciences Education, 10(1), 14–17. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-09-0114.
Smith, M. K., Jones, F. H., Gilbert, S. L., & Wieman, C. E. (2013). The classroom observation protocol for undergraduate STEM (COPUS): A new instrument to characterize university STEM classroom practices. CBE Life Sciences Education, 12(4), 618–627. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-08-0154.
Solomon, E. D., Repice, M. D., Mutambuki, J., M., Leonard, D. A., Cohen, C. A., Luo, J., & Frey, R. F. (2018). A mixed-methods investigation of clicker implementation styles in STEM. CBE Life Sciences Education, 17(2), ar30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-08-0180.
Stains, M., & Vickrey, T. (2017). Fidelity of implementation: An overlooked yet critical construct to establish effectiveness of evidence-based instructional practices. CBE Life Sciences Education, 16(1), rm1. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0113.
Turpen, C., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2009). Not all interactive engagement is the same: Variations in physics professors’ implementations of peer instruction. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 6(1), 020123. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.020101.
Turpen, C., Dancy, M., & Henderson, C. (2010). Faculty perspectives on using peer instruction: A national study. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1289(1), 325–328. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3515235.
Turpen, C., Dancy, M., & Henderson, C. (2016). Perceived affordances and constraints regarding instructors’ use of peer instruction: Implications for promoting instructional change. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1), 010116. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010116.
Vickrey, T., Rosploch, K., Rahmanian, R., Pilarz, M., & Stains, M. (2015). Research-based implementation of peer instruction: A literature review. CBE Life Sciences Education, 14(1), es3. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-11-0198.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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
Fink, A., Frey, R.F. (2020). Clicker Implementation Styles in STEM. 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_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33600-4_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-33599-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-33600-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)