This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Anderson LS, Healy AF, Kole JA, Bourne LE (2011) Conserving time in the classroom: the clicker technique. Q J Exp Psychol 64(8):1457–1462. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2011.593264
Beatty ID, Gerace WJ (2009) Technology-enhanced formative assessment: a research-based pedagogy for teaching science with classroom response technology. J Sci Educ Technol 18(2):146–162. https://doi.org/10.2307/23036186
Biggs J, Tang C (2011) Teaching for quality learning at university, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill/Open University Press, Maidenhead
Black P, Wiliam D (1998) Inside the Black box: raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan 80(2):139–144
Black P, Wiliam D (2009) Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educ Assess Eval Account 21(1):5–31
Blood E (2012) Student response systems in the college classroom: an investigation of short-term, intermediate, and long-term recall of facts. J Technol Teach Educ 20(1):5–20
Bloxham S, Campbell L (2010) Generating dialogue in assessment feed back: exploring the use of interactive cover sheets. Assess Eval High Educ 35(3):291–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003650045
Boekaerts M, Corno L (2005) Self-regulation in the classroom: a perspective on assessment and intervention. Appl Psychol 54(2):199–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00205.x
Boscardin C, Penuel W (2012) Exploring benefits of audience-response systems on learning: a review of the literature. Acad Psychiatry 36(5):401–407. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ap.10080110
Boud D, Molloy E (2013) Rethinking models of feed back for learning: the challenge of design. Assess Eval High Educ 38(6):698–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.691462
Cain J, Black EP, Rohr J (2009) An audience response system strategy to improve student motivation, attention, and feed back. Am J Pharm Educ 73(2). https://doi.org/10.5688/aj730221
Campbell J, Mayer RE (2009) Questioning as an instructional method: does it affect learning from lectures? Appl Cogn Psychol 23(6):747–759. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1513
Carless D, Salter D, Yang M, Lam J (2010) Developing sustainable feed back practices. Stud High Educ 36(4):395–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075071003642449
Chien Y-T, Chang Y-H, Chang C-Y (2016) Do we click in the right way? A meta-analytic review of clicker-integrated instruction. Educ Res Rev 17:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.10.003
Clark W (2006) Academic Charisma and the origins of the research university. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Clark I (2012) Formative assessment: assessment is for self-regulated learning. Educ Psychol Rev 24(2):205–249
Clark RC, Mayer RE (2011) E-learning and the science of instruction, 3rd edn. Pfeiffer, San Francisco
Cleveland LG (2002) That’s not a large class; it’s a small town: How do I manage. In: Stanley CA, Porter ME (eds) Engaging large classes: Strategies and techniques for college faculty. Bolton, MA: Anker, pp 16–27
Cochran-Smith M, Villegas AM (2015) Framing teacher preparation research: an overview of the field, part 1. J Teach Educ 66(1):7–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114549072
Crouch CH, Mazur E (2001) Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results. Am J Phys 69(9):970–977. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1374249
D’Inverno R, Davis H, White S (2003) Using a personal response system for promoting student interaction. Teach Math Appl 22(4):163–169
Deci EL, Koestner R, Ryan RM (1999) A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychol Bull 125(6):627–668. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627
Denker KJ (2013) Student response systems and facilitating the large lecture basic communication course: Assessing engagement and learning, communication teacher 27(1):50–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2012.730622
Deslauriers L, Schelew E, Wieman C (2011) Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Sci Educ Int 322(6031):862–864. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201783
Devlin M, Samarawickrema G (2010) The criteria of effective teaching in a changing higher education context. High Educ Res Dev 29(2):111–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360903244398
Dewey J (1997) Experience and education. Touchstone, New York
Đonlagić S, Kurtić A (2016) The role of higher education in a knowledge economy. In: Ateljević J, Trivić J (eds) Economic development and entrepreneurship in transition economies: issues, obstacles and perspectives. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 91–106
Draper SW, Brown MI (2004) Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. J Comput Assist Learn 20(2):81–94
Egelandsdal K, Krumsvik RJ (2017a) Clickers and formative feed back at university lectures. Educ Inf Technol 22(1):55–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9437-x
Egelandsdal K, Krumsvik RJ (2017b) Peer discussions and response technology: short interventions, considerable gains. Nordic J Digit Lit 12(01–02):19–30
Egelandsdal K, Krumsvik RJ (Forthcoming) Clicker interventions at university lectures and the feed back gap. Forthcoming submitted to Journal
Eisenstein EL (1997) The printing press as an agent of change: communications and cultural transformation in early-modern Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Evans C (2013) Making sense of assessment feed back in higher education. Rev Educ Res 83(1):70–120. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312474350
Fies C, Marshall J (2006) Classroom response systems: a review of the literature. J Sci Educ Technol 15(1):101–109
Friesen N (2011) The lecture as a transmedial pedagogical form: a historical analysis. Educ Res 40(3):95–102. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x11404603
George ES (2006) Positioning higher education for the knowledge based economy. High Educ 52(4):589–610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-005-0955-0
Goffman E (1981) Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA
Hake RR (1998) Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am J Phys 66(1):64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809
Hattie J (2009) Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analysis relating to achievement. Routledge, London
Hattie J, Gan M (2011) Instruction based on feed back. In: Mayer RE, Alexander PA (eds) Handbook of research on learning and instruction. Routledge, New York, pp 249–271
Hattie J, Timperley H (2007) The power of feed back. Rev Educ Res 77(1):81–112
Higgins R, Hartley P, Skelton A (2001) Getting the message across: the problem of communicating assessment feed back. Teach High Educ 6(2):269–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510120045230
Hrepic Z, Zollman DA, Rebello NS (2007) Comparing students’ and experts’ understanding of the content of a lecture. J Sci Educ Technol 16(3):213–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9048-4
Ilgen D, Davis C (2000) Bearing bad news: reactions to negative performance feed back. Appl Psychol 49(3):550–565. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00031
Isaacson RM, Fujita F (2006) Metacognitive knowledge monitoring and self-regulated learning: academic success and reflections on learning. J Scholarship Teach Learn 6(1):39–55
James MC, Willoughby S (2011) Listening to student conversations during clicker questions: what you have not heard might surprise you! Am J Phys 79(1):123–132. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3488097
Jonsson A (2013) Facilitating productive use of feed back in higher education. Act Learn High Educ 14(1):63–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787412467125
Kay RH, LeSage A (2009) Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: a review of the literature. Comput Educ 53(3):819–827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.001
Keough SM (2012) Clickers in the classroom: a review and a replication. J Manag Educ 36(6):822–847. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562912454808
Kirschner PA, Martens RL, Strijbos JW (2004) CSCL in higher education? In: Strijbos J-W, Kirschner PA, Martens RL (eds) What we know about CSCL: and implementing it in higher education. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 3–30
Kluger AN, DeNisi A (1996) The effects of feed back interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feed back intervention theory. Psychol Bull 119(2):254–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
Kluger AN, Van Dijk D (2010) Feedback, the various tasks of the doctor, and the feedforward alternative. Med Educ 44(12):1166–1174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03849.x
Knight JK, Wood WB (2005) Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biol Educ 4(4):298–310. https://doi.org/10.1187/05-06-0082
Knight JK, Wise SB, Rentsch J, Furtak EM (2015) Cues matter: learning assistants influence introductory biology student interactions during clicker-question discussions. CBE Life Sci Educ 14(4):ar41. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-04-0093
Kolikant YB-D, Drane D, Calkins S (2010) “Clickers” as catalysts for transformation of teachers. Coll Teach 58(4):127–135
Kruger J, Dunning D (1999) Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol 77(6):1121–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.77.6.1121
Krumsvik RJ (2012) Feedback clickers in plenary lectures: a new tool for formative assessment? In: Rowan L, Bigum C (eds) Transformative approaches to new technologies and student diversity in futures oriented classrooms: future proofing education. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 191–216
Krumsvik RJ, Ludvigsen K (2012) Formative E-assessment in plenary lectures. Nordic J Digit Lit 7(01):36–54
Kvernbekk T (2011) Til forelesningens forsvar. In: Kvernbekk T (ed) Humaniorastudier i pedagogikk. Pedagogisk filosofi og historie. Abstrakt forlag AS, Oslo, pp 203–226
Lantz ME (2010) The use of ‘clickers’ in the classroom: teaching innovation or merely an amusing novelty? Comput Hum Behav 26(4):556–561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.014
Ludvigsen K, Egelandsdal K (2016) Formativ E-vurdering i høyere utdanning. In: Krumsvik RJ (ed) Digital læring i skole og lærerutdanning. Universitetsforlaget AS, Bergen, pp 256–273
Ludvigsen K, Krumsvik RJ, Furnes B (2015) Creating formative feed back spaces in large lectures. Comput Educ 88(0):48–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.04.002
Mayer RE, Stull A, DeLeeuw K, Almeroth K, Bimber B, Chun D, ⋯, Zhang H (2009) Clickers in college classrooms: fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes. Contemp Educ Psychol 34(1):51–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.04.002
Mazur E (1997) Peer instruction: a user’s manual. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River
Mazur E (2009) Farewell, lecture? Science 323(5910):50–51. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1168927
Nelson MM, Schunn CD (2009) The nature of feed back: how different types of peer feed back affect writing performance. Instr Sci 37(4):375–401
Nicol D (2009) Assessment for learner self-regulation: enhancing achievement in the first year using learning technologies. Assess Eval High Educ 34(3):335–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930802255139
Nicol D, Macfarlane-Dick D (2006) Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feed back practice. Stud High Educ 31(2):199–218
Nielsen KL, Hansen G, Stav JB (2016) How the initial thinking period affects student argumentation during peer instruction: students’ experiences versus observations. Stud High Educ 41(1):124–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.915300
Pajares F (2005) Self-efficacy during childhood and adolescence – implications for teacher and parents. In: Pajares F, Urdan T (eds) Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, pp 339–367
Price M, Handley K, Millar J, O’Donovan B (2010) Feedback: all that effort, but what is the effect? Assess Eval High Educ 35(3):277–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903541007
Prince M (2004) Does active learning work? A review of the research. J Eng Educ 93(3):223–231
Rao SP, DiCarlo SE (2000) Peer instruction improves performance on quizzes. Adv Physiol Educ 24(1):51–55
Risko EF, Anderson N, Sarwal A, Engelhardt M, Kingstone A (2012) Everyday attention: variation in mind wandering and memory in a lecture. Appl Cogn Psychol 26(2):234–242. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1814
Roediger HL, Karpicke JD (2006) The power of testing memory. Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspect Psychol Sci 1(3):181–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x
Rush BR, Hafen M, Biller DS, Davis EG, Klimek JA, Kukanich B, ⋯, White BJ (2010) The effect of differing audience response system question types on student attention in the veterinary medical classroom. J Vet Med Educ 37(2):145–153. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.37.2.145
Sadler DR (1989) Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instr Sci 18(2):119–144. https://doi.org/10.2307/23369143
Sadler DR (2010) Beyond feed back: developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assess Eval High Educ 35(5):535–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903541015
Schwartz DL, Bransford JD (1998) A time for telling. Cogn Instr 16(4):475–522. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1604_4
Shapiro AM, Gordon LT (2012) A controlled study of clicker-assisted memory enhancement in college classrooms. Appl Cogn Psychol 26(4):635–643. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2843
Shapiro AM, Gordon LT (2013) Classroom clickers offer more than repetition: converging evidence for the testing effect and confirmatory feed back in clicker-assisted learning. J Teach Learn Technol 2(1):15–30
Shapiro AM, Sims-Knight J, O’Rielly GV, Capaldo P, Pedlow T, Gordon L, Monteiro K (2017) Clickers can promote fact retention but impede conceptual understanding. Comput Educ 111(C):44–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.017
Shute VJ (2008) Focus on formative feed back. Rev Educ Res 78(1):153–189
Skagen K (2000) Forelesningens muligheter. Tema: forelesning. Uniped 22
Smith MK, Wood WB, Adams WK, Wieman C, Knight JK, Guild N, Su TT (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 MK, Wood WB, Krauter K, Knight JK (2011) Combining peer discussion with instructor explanation increases student learning from in-class concept questions. CBE Life Sci Educ 10(1):55–63. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-08-0101
Smith EL, Rice KL, Woolforde L, Lopez-Zang D (2012) Transforming engagement in learning through innovative technologies: using an audience response system in nursing orientation. J Contin Educ Nurs 43(3):102–103. https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20120223-47
Sun JC-Y (2014) Influence of polling technologies on student engagement: an analysis of student motivation, academic performance, and brainwave data. Comput Educ 72(0):80–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.010
Vickrey T, Rosploch K, Rahmanian R, Pilarz M, Stains M (2015) Research-based implementation of peer instruction: a literature review. CBE Life Sci Educ 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-11-0198
Wieman C (2007) Why not try a scientific approach to science education? Change Mag High Learn 39(5):9–15. https://doi.org/10.3200/CHNG.39.5.9-15
Wood AK, Galloway RK, Hardy J, Sinclair CM (2014) Analyzing learning during peer instruction dialogues: a resource activation framework. Phys Rev Spec Top Phys Educ Res 10(2):020107
Yoder JD, Hochevar CM (2005) Encouraging active learning can improve students’ performance on examinations. Teach Psychol 32(2):91–95. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3202_2
Yorke M (2003) Formative assessment in higher education: moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. High Educ 45(4):477–501. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1023967026413
Zingaro D, Porter L (2014) Peer instruction in computing: the value of instructor intervention. Comput Educ 71:87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.015
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Egelandsdal, K., Krumsvik, R.J. (2019). Clicker Interventions: Promoting Student Activity and Feedback at University Lectures. In: Tatnall, A. (eds) Encyclopedia of Education and Information Technologies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60013-0_189-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60013-0_189-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-60013-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-60013-0
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Computer SciencesReference Module Computer Science and Engineering
Publish with us
Chapter history
-
Latest
Clicker Interventions: Promoting Student Activity and Feedback at University Lectures- Published:
- 05 June 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60013-0_189-2
-
Original
Clicker Interventions: Promoting Student Activity and Feedback at University Lectures- Published:
- 12 April 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60013-0_189-1