Advertisement

Clicker Interventions in Large Lectures in Higher Education

  • Kjetil EgelandsdalEmail author
  • Kristine Ludvigsen
  • Ingunn Johanne Ness
Living reference work entry

Abstract

Clicker interventions can be used to transform the learning environment in large plenary lectures from being lecturer-centered to student-active. Such interventions are conducted with the use of a student response system. In each intervention, the lecturer poses a multiple-choice question to the student group; the students discuss the question with their peers and answer individually using a wireless handheld remote control, called a “clicker.” The student answers are then displayed on a big screen for the students and the lecturer to see. Studies have found that clicker interventions can be used to promote student attention, motivation, retention, and performance. Clicker interventions can also support a formative feedback practice aimed at creating activities that make students’ understanding visible, so that students, together with their peers, can adjust their studying and the lecturer adjust teaching. This chapter gives an overview of research on clicker interventions in lectures in higher education and discusses how such interventions can provide students and lecturers with formative feedback.

Keywords

Clickers Student response systems Dialogue Sociocultural Lectures Higher education 

References

  1. Anderson, L. S., Healy, A. F., Kole, J. A., & Bourne, L. E. (2011). Conserving time in the classroom: The clicker technique. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(8), 1457–1462.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2011.593264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakhtin, M. M. (2010). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (C. Emerson, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  3. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill and Open University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–144.Google Scholar
  5. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blood, E. (2012). Student response Systems in the College Classroom: An investigation of short-term, intermediate, and long-term recall of facts. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 20(1), 5–20.Google Scholar
  7. Boscardin, C., & Penuel, W. (2012). Exploring benefits of audience-response systems on learning: A review of the literature. Academic Psychiatry, 36(5), 401–407. Retrieved from <Go to ISI>://WOS:000308454500013 http://psychiatryonline.org/data/Journals/AP/24913/401.pdf.  https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ap.10080110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cain, J., Black, E. P., & Rohr, J. (2009). An audience response system strategy to improve student motivation, attention, and feedback. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 73(2). Retrieved from <Go to ISI>://WOS:000265219700001).  https://doi.org/10.5688/aj730221
  9. Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE - Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Campbell, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2009). Questioning as an instructional method: Does it affect learning from lectures? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(6), 747–759. Retrieved from <Go to ISI>://WOS:000268971400001. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.1513/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+on+7+December+from+10%3A00-15%3A00+BST+%2805%3A00-10%3A00+EDT%29+for+essential+maintenance.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1513
  11. 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. Educational Research Review, 17, 1–18. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1747938X15000500.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.10.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cochran-Smith, M., & Villegas, A. M. (2015). Framing lecturer preparation research: An overview of the field. Part 1. Journal of Lecturer Education, 66(1), 7–20.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114549072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970–977.  https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1374249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. D’Inverno, R., Davis, H., & White, S. (2003). Using a personal response system for promoting student interaction. Teaching mathematics and its applications, 22(4), 163–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science Education International, 322(6031), 862–864.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Devlin, M., & Samarawickrema, G. (2010). The criteria of effective teaching in a changing higher education context. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(2), 111–124.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360903244398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dewey, J. (1997). Experience and education. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
  18. Draper, S. W., & Brown, M. I. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(2), 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dysthe, O. (2011). Opportunity spaces for dialogic pedagogy in test-oriented schools: A case study of teaching and learning in high school. In J. White & M. Peters (Eds.), Bakhtinian pedagogy: Opportunities and challenges for research, policy and practice in education across the globe. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  20. Egelandsdal, K., & Krumsvik, R. J. (2017a). Clickers and formative feedback at university lectures. Education and Information Technologies, 22(1), 55–74. Retrieved from.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9437-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Egelandsdal, K., & Krumsvik, R. J. (2017b). Peer discussions and response technology: Short interventions, considerable gains. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 12(01–02), 19–30. Retrieved from http://www.idunn.no/dk/2017/01-02/peer_discussions_and_response_technology_short_interventioCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70–120.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312474350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Friesen, N. (2011). The lecture as a transmedial pedagogical form: A historical analysis. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 95–102.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x11404603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. Retrieved from http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/66/1/10.1119/1.18809.  https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hrepic, Z., Zollman, D. A., & Rebello, N. S. (2007). Comparing Students’ and Experts’ understanding of the content of a lecture. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(3), 213–224.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9048-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Isaacson, R. M., & Fujita, F. (2006). Metacognitive knowledge monitoring and self-regulated learning: Academic success and reflections on learning. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 39–55.Google Scholar
  30. James, M. C., & Willoughby, S. (2011). Listening to student conversations during clicker questions: What you have not heard might surprise you! American Journal of Physics, 79(1), 123–132.  https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3488097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jonsson, A. (2013). Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(1), 63–76.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787412467125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kay, R. H., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 53(3), 819–827.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Keough, S. M. (2012). Clickers in the classroom: A review and a replication. Journal of Management Education, 36(6), 822–847.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562912454808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.15-04-0093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.13-05-0090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Knight, J. K., & Wood, W. B. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology Education, 4(4), 298–310. Retrieved from <Go to ISI>://MEDLINE:16341257.  https://doi.org/10.1187/05-06-0082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kolikant, Y. B.-D., Drane, D., & Calkins, S. (2010). “Clickers” as catalysts for transformation of teachers. College Teaching, 58(4), 127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.77.6.1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Krumsvik, R. J. (2012). Feedback clickers in plenary lectures: A new tool for formative assessment? In L. Rowan & C. Bigum (Eds.), Transformative approaches to new technologies and student diversity in futures oriented classrooms: Future proofing education (pp. 191–216). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Krumsvik, R. J. (2014). Forskningsdesign og Kvalitative Metode. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.Google Scholar
  41. Krumsvik, R. J., & Ludvigsen, K. (2012). Formative E-assessment in plenary lectures. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 7(01).Google Scholar
  42. Lantz, M. E. (2010). The use of 'Clickers' in the classroom: Teaching innovation or merely an amusing novelty? Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 556–561.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ludvigsen, K., & Krumsvik, R. J. (Forthcoming). Behind the scenes: Bringing student voices to the lectureGoogle Scholar
  44. Ludvigsen, K., Krumsvik, R. J., & Furnes, B. (2015). Creating formative feedback spaces in large lectures. Computers & Education, 88(0), 48–63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.04.002
  45. Mayer, R. E., 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. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 51–57.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.04.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  47. Mazur, E. (2009). Farewell, lecture? Science, 323(5910), 50–51. Retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5910/50.short.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1168927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McDonough, K., & Foote, J. A. (2015). The impact of individual and shared clicker use on students’ collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 86, 236–249.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.08.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ness, I. J., & Riese, H. (2015). Openness, curiosity and respect: Underlying conditions for developing innovative knowledge and ideas between disciplines. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 6, 29–39.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.03.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ness, I. J., & Søreide, G. E. (2014). The room of opportunity: Understanding phases of creative knowledge processes in innovation. Journal of Workplace Learning, 26(8), 545–560.  https://doi.org/10.1108/JWL-10-2013-0077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nielsen, K. L., Hansen, G., & Stav, J. B. (2016). How the initial thinking period affects student argumentation during peer instruction: Students’ experiences versus observations. Studies in Higher Education, 41(1), 124–138.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.915300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Novak, G., & Patterson, E. (2010). An introduction to just-in-time-teaching (JiTT). In S. Simkins & M. Maier (Eds.), Just-in-time teaching: Across the disciplines, across the academy. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.Google Scholar
  54. Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1997). The big picture: Language and learning in hundreds of English lessons. In M. Nystrand (Ed.), Opening dialogue. New York: Lecturers College Press.Google Scholar
  55. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. Retrieved from <Go to ISI>://WOS:000226629800009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rao, S. P., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2000). Peer instruction improves performance on quizzes. Advances in Physiology Education, 24(1), 51–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Risko, E. F., Anderson, N., Sarwal, A., Engelhardt, M., & Kingstone, A. (2012). Everyday attention: Variation in mind wandering and memory in a lecture. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(2), 234–242. Retrieved from.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory. Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(3), 181–210.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rush, B. R., Hafen, M., Biller, D. S., Davis, E. G., Klimek, J. A., Kukanich, B., … White, B. J. (2010). The effect of differing audience response system question types on student attention in the veterinary medical classroom. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 37(2), 145–153. Retrieved from <Go to ISI>://WOS:000279723700007. http://utpjournals.metapress.com/content/n942321151651876/?genre=article&id=doi%3a10.3138%2fjvme.37.2.145.  https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.37.2.145
  60. Samuelsson, M. & Ness, I. J. (Forthcoming). How to turn democratic deliberations into productive processes of co-operation – a response to “Deliberating public policy with adolescents”.Google Scholar
  61. Sanderson, B. (2017). Brandon Sanderson discusses the past and future of the Stormlight archive/interviewer: A. Moher. New York, NY: Barnes & Noble Sci-Fi and Fantasy blogg.Google Scholar
  62. Schell, J., Lukoff, B., & Mazur, E. (2013). Catalyzing learner engagement using cutting-edge classroom response systems in higher education. In C. Wankel (Ed.), Increasing student engagement and retention using classroom technologies: Classroom response systems and mediated discourse technologies (pp. 233–261). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475–522.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1604_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Scott, P. H., Eduardo, F. M., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605–631.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Shapiro, A. M., & Gordon, L. T. (2012). A controlled study of clicker-assisted memory enhancement in college classrooms. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(4), 635–643. Retrieved from <Go to ISI>://WOS:000306401100017. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.2843/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+on+7+December+from+10%3A00-15%3A00+BST+%2805%3A00-10%3A00+EDT%29+for+essential+maintenance.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2843
  66. Shapiro, A. M., & Gordon, L. T. (2013). Classroom clickers offer more than repetition: Converging evidence for the testing effect and confirmatory feedback in clicker-assisted learning. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 2(1), 15–30.Google Scholar
  67. Shapiro, A. M., Sims-Knight, J., O'Rielly, G. V., Capaldo, P., Pedlow, T., Gordon, L., & Monteiro, K. (2017). Clickers can promote fact retention but impede conceptual understanding. Computers in Education, 111(C), 44–59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Smith, E. L., Rice, K. L., Woolforde, L., & Lopez-Zang, D. (2012). Transforming engagement in learning through innovative technologies: Using an audience response system in nursing orientation. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 43(3), 102–103.  https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20120223-47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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 q. Science, 323(5910), 122–124.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 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(1), 55–63.  https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-08-0101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sun, J. C.-Y. (2014). Influence of polling technologies on student engagement: An analysis of student motivation, academic performance, and brainwave data. Computers & Education, 72(0), 80–89. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131513002959.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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).  https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-11-0198
  74. Wieman, C. (2007). Why not try a scientific approach to science education? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 39(5), 9–15. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3200/CHNG.39.5.9-15.  https://doi.org/10.3200/CHNG.39.5.9-15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wood, A. K., Galloway, R. K., Hardy, J., & Sinclair, C. M. (2014). Analyzing learning during peer instruction dialogues: A resource activation framework. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 10(2), 020107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Yoder, J. D., & Hochevar, C. M. (2005). Encouraging active learning can improve students’ performance on examinations. Teaching of Psychology, 32(2), 91–95. Retrieved from <Go to ISI>://WOS:000228768600002.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3202_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zingaro, D., & Porter, L. (2014). Peer instruction in computing: The value of instructor intervention. Computers & Education, 71, 87–96.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kjetil Egelandsdal
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kristine Ludvigsen
    • 2
  • Ingunn Johanne Ness
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Psychology, Centre for the Sciences of Learning & Technology (SLATE)University of BergenBergenNorway
  2. 2.Faculty of Psychology, Department of EducationUniversity of BergenBergenNorway

Section editors and affiliations

  • Konrad Morgan
    • 1
  • Kaushal Kumar Bhagat
    • 2
  • Şebnem Feriver
    • 3
  1. 1.EduvateHavantUK
  2. 2.Centre for Educational TechnologyIndian Institute of Technology, KharagpurKharagpurIndia
  3. 3.Department of Elementary and Early Childhood EducationMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations