Towards A Systematic Pedagogy-Oriented Model of CRS Research: Efficacy of Classroom Response System-Facilitated Peer Instruction in Psychology Lecture Classes.
Masters thesis, Concordia University.
- Accepted Version
The main purpose of this mixed method study is 1) to investigate to what extent students perceive the way Classroom Response System-facilitated Peer Instruction (CRS-PI) is used as a positive influence on their learning and engagement; 2) to examine if some student characteristics, namely age, academic level, course performance, preferences for learning, and assumptions about lecture courses affect their perceived value of CRS-PI; 3) to elicit what students like best about CRS-PI and what they think is in need of improvement. Results suggest that student evaluations are highly positive on all five subscales of Learning and Engagement, namely Mastery of Subject Matter (MSM), Metacognition, Motivation, Enjoyment and Involvement (grand means being 4.08, 4.03, 3.53, 4.39 and 3.98, respectively). Multiple regression tests show age as a negative predictor for only one (MSM) of the five subscales, but academic level for all subscales but one (MSM). Course performance does not predict students’ perceived usefulness of CRS use on any subscales. The most consistent predictor of student perceptions is their assumptions about how lecture courses should be taught. Preference for traditional lecture style is negatively associated with perceived usefulness of CRS-PI. Participants’ verbal comments corroborate their quantitative evaluations, showing overwhelmingly positive attitudes. Results are discussed in light of relevant research literature and the detailed description of how CRS-PI is used in the study. It is the hope of this paper to inspire a pedagogy-oriented holistic approach to CRS research and teaching.
|Divisions:||Concordia University > Faculty of Arts and Science > Education|
|Item Type:||Thesis (Masters)|
|Date:||8 September 2011|
|Thesis Supervisor(s):||Venkatesh, Vivek|
|Keywords:||Classroom Response System, CRS, PI, CRS-PI, clickers, CRS-based instruction, student perceptions, upper-division psychology courses|
|Deposited On:||21 Nov 2011 14:35|
|Last Modified:||05 Nov 2016 01:36|
References:Beatty, I. (2004). Transforming student learning with classroom communication systems. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB0403.pdf
Beatty, I. D., & Gerace, W. J. (2009). Technology-enhanced formative assessment: A research-based pedagogy for teaching science with classroom response technology. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 18, 146-162.
Beatty, I. D., Leonard, W. J., Gerace, W. J., & Dufresne, R. J. (2006a). Question driven instruction: Teaching science (well) with an audience response system. In D. A. Banks (Ed.), Audience response systems in higher education: Applications and cases (pp. 96–115). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
Beatty, I., Gerace, W., Leonard, W., & Dufresne, R. (2006b). Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching. American Journal of Physics, 74(1), 31-39.
Bennett. C., Foreman-Peck L., & Higgins, C. (1996). Researching into Teaching Methods in Colleges and Universities. London: Kogan Page.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80 (2), 139-148.
Bligh, D. (1998). What’s the use of lectures? Exeter: Intellect.
Bloom B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Co Inc.
Bode, M., Drane, D., Kolikant, Y. B., & Schuller, M. (2009). A clicker approach to teaching calculus. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 56(2), 253-256.
Boyle, J., & Nicol, D. (2003). Using classroom communication systems to support interaction and discussion in large class settings. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 11(3), 43-57.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.
Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9-20.
Campbell, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2009). Questioning as an instructional method: Does it affect learning from lectures? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 747-759.
Carnaghan, C., & Webb, A. (2007). Investigating the effects of group response systems on student satisfaction, learning, and engagement in accounting education. Issues in Accounting Education, 22(3), 391-409.
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.
Collins, L. (2007). Livening up the classroom: Using audience response systems to promote active learning. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 26(1), 81-88.
Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970-977.
Crouch, C. H., Watkins, J., Fagen, A. P., & Mazur, E. (2007). Peer instruction: Engaging students one-on-one, all at once. Retrieved from http://www.compadre.org/Repository/document/ServeFile.cfm?DocID=241&ID=4990
Cutts, Q., Carbone, A., & van Haaster, K. (2004). Using an electronic voting system to promote active reflection on coursework feedback. Retrieved from http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~quintin/papers/ICCE04QC.pdf
Cutts, Q., Kennedy, G., Mitchell, M., & Draper, S. (2004). Maximising dialogue in lectures using group response systems. Retrieved from http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~quintin/papers/cate2004.pdf
Dangel, H. L., & Wang, C. X. (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.
DeBourgh, G. A. (2008). Use of classroom "clickers" to promote acquisition of advanced reasoning skills. Nurse Education in Practice, 8(2), 76-87.
Draper, S. W. (1998). Niche-based success in CAL. Computers and Education, 30, 5-8.
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.
Dufresne, R. J., Wenk, L., Mestre, J. P., Gerace, W. J., & Leonard, W. J. (1996). Classtalk: A classroom communication system for active learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 7, 3-47.
Duncan, D. (2006). Clickers: A new teaching aid with exceptional promise. Astronomy Education Review, 5(1), 70-88.
Dweck, C. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Elwood. J., & Klenowski, V. (2002). Creating communities of shared practice: The challenges of assessment use in learning and teaching. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27 (3), 243–256.
Fan, K. Y. D., & van Blink, C. D. (2006). A comparison and evaluation of personal response systems in introductory computer programming. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/Resources/Acomparisonandevaluationofpers/162634
Fisher, C. M. (2006). Automated classroom response systems: Implications for sexuality education and research. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 1(4), 23-31.
Frand, J. L. (2000). The Information-Age mindset. EDUCAUSE Review, 35 (5), 14-20.
Freeman, M., & Blayney, P. (2005). Promoting interactive in-class learning environments: A comparison of an electronic response system with a traditional alternative. Retrieved from http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/199/1/03%20Freeman%20Blayney.pdf
Freeman, M., Blayney, P., & Ginns, P. (2006). Anonymity and in class learning: The case for electronic response systems. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(4), 568-580.
Gauci, S. A., Dantas, A. M., Williams, D. A., & Kemm, R. E. (2009). Promoting student-centered active learning in lectures with a personal response system. Advances in Physiology Education, 33, 60-71.
Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning? Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3-31.
Gibbs. G., & Jenkins, A. (1992). Teaching large classes in higher education: How to maintain quality with reduced resources. London: Kogan Page.
Graham, C. R., Tripp, T. R., Seawright, L., & Joeckel, G. L. (2007). Empowering or compelling reluctant participators using audience response systems. Active Learning in Higher Education, 8(3), 233-258.
Hake, 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, 64-74.
Harlen, W., & Crick, R. D. (2003). Testing and motivation for learning. Assessment in Education, 10(2), 169-207.
Henderson, C., & Rosenthal, A. (2006). Reading questions: Encouraging students to read the text before coming to class. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35 (7), 46-50.
Hobson, E. H. (2004). Getting students to read: Fourteen tips. IDEA Paper, 40, 1-6. Retrieved from http://www.theideacenter.org/sites/default/files/Idea_Paper_40.pdf
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhammer, G. (1992). Force Concept Inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30(3), 141-158.
Hoekstra, A. (2008). Vibrant student voices: Exploring effects of the use of clickers in large college courses. Learning, Media, & Technology, 33(4), 329-341.
Homme, J., Asay, G., & Morgenstern, B. (2004). Utilisation of an audience response system. Medical Education, 38 (5), 575.
Hayamizu, T. (1997). Between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Examination of reasons for academic study based on the theory of internalization. Japanese Psychological Research, 39, 98–108.
Jackson, M. H. & Trees, A. R. (2003). Clicker implementation and assessment. Retrieved from http://www-plan.cs.colorado.edu/pltools/pubs/F03clickers.pdf
James, M. C. (2006). The effect of grading incentive on student discourse in peer instruction. American Journal of Physics, 74(8), 689-691.
James, M. C., Barbieri, F., & Garcia, P. (2008). What are they talking about? Lessons learned from a study of peer instruction. Astronomy Education Review, 7(1).
Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14.
Judson, E., & Sawada, D. (2002). Learning from past and present: Electronic response systems in college lecture halls. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(2), 167-181.
Kay, R. H., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 53, 819-827.
Kelly, K. G. (2009). Student response systems (“clickers”) in the psychology classroom: A beginner’s guide. Retrieved from http://teachpsych.org/otrp/resources/kelly09.pdf
Kennedy, G. E., & Cutts, Q. I. (2005). The association between students' use of an electronic voting system and their learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(4), 260-268.
King, D. B., & Joshi, S. (2008). Gender differences in the use and effectiveness of personal response devices. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(6), 544-552.
Lang, J. M. (2008). On course: A week-by-week guide to your first semester of college teaching. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lasry, N. (2008). Clickers or flashcards: Is there really a difference? The Physics Teacher 46(4), 242-244.
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking University Teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Lucas, A. (2009). Using peer instruction and i>clickers to enhance student participation in calculus. PRIMUS, 19(3), 219-231.
MacGeorge, E. L., Homan, S. R., Dunning, J. B., Elmore, D., Bodie, G. D., Evans, E., … Lichti, S. M. (2008). The influence of learning characteristics on evaluation of audience response technology. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 19(2), 25-46.
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, 51-57.
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.
Miller, R. L., Santana-Vega, E., & Terrell, M. S. (2006). Can good questions and peer discussion improve calculus instruction? PRIMUS, 16(3).
Mollborn, S., & Hoekstra, A. (2010). “A meeting of minds”: Using clickers for critical thinking and discussion in large sociology classes. Teaching Sociology, 38(1), 18-27.
Morling, B., McAuliffe, M., Cohen, L., & DiLorenzo, T. M. (2008). Efficacy of personal response systems ("clickers") in large, introductory psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 35(1), 45-50.
Nicol, D. J., & Boyle, J. T. (2003). Peer instruction versus class-wide discussion in large classes: A comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom. Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 457-473.
Nicol, D. J., & 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.
Novak, G. M., Patterson, E. T., Gavrin, A. D., & Christian, W. (1999). Just-In-Time Teaching: Blending active learning with web technology. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Oblinger, D. G. (2003). Boomers & gen-Xers, millennials: Understanding the “new students”. EDUCAUSE Review, 38(4), 37–47.
Pelton, T., Pelton, L. F., & Sanseverino, M. (2007). Clickers in the classroom: A large-class study at the University of Victoria. Retrieved from http://webhome.csc.uvic.ca/~msanseve/class_clickers/
Perkins, K. K., & Turpen, C. (2009). Student perspectives on using clickers in upper-division physics courses. Retrieved from http://www.cwsei.ubc.ca/SEI_research/files/Physics/Perkins_StudentPerpectivesOnUsingClickersL.pdf
Poirier, C. R., & Feldman, R. S. (2007). Promoting active learning using individual response technology in large introductory psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 34, 194-196.
Preszler, R., Dawe, A., Shuster, C. B., & Shuster, 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.
Reay, N. W., Li, P., & Bao, L. (2008). Testing a new voting machine question methodology. American Journal of Physics, 76(2), 171–178.
Roos, B., & Hamilton, D. (2005). Formative assessment: A cybernetic viewpoint. Assessment in Education, 12(1), 7-20.
Roschelle, J., Penuel, W. R., & Abrahamson, L. (2004). Classroom response and communication systems: Research review and theory. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA, 2004. Retrieved from http://ubiqcomputing.org/CATAALYST_AERA_Proposal.pdf
Salemi, M. (2009). Clickenomics: Using a classroom response system to increase student engagement in a large-enrollment principles of economics course. Journal of Economic Education, 40(4), 385-404.
Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Gulid, N., & Su, T. T. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323(5910), 122-124.
Specht, L. B., & Sandlin, P. K. (1991). The differential effects of experiential learning activities and traditional lecture classes. Simulation & Gaming, 22, 196-210.
Stowell, J. R., & Nelson, J. M. (2007). Benefits of electronic audience response systems on student participation, learning, and emotion. Teaching of Psychology, 34, 253-258.
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagné, & M. Scriven. (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation, 39-83.
Thornton, R. K. (1999). Using the results of research in science education to improve science learning. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.114.1832
Trees, A. R., & Jackson, M. H. (2007). The learning environment in clicker classrooms: Student processes of learning and involvement in large university-level courses using student response systems. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(1), 21-40.
Turpen, C., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2007). Understanding How Physics Faculty Use Peer Instruction. Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/physics/EducationIssues/papers/Turpen_etal/Faculty_Peer_Instruction.pdf
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development (M. Lopez-Morillas, Trans.). In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (pp. 79-91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Willoughby, S. D., & Gustafson, E. (2009). Technology talks: Clickers and grading incentive in the large lecture hall. American Journal of Physics, 77(2), 180-183.
Wit, E. (2003). Who wants to be… The use of a personal response system in statistics teaching. MSOR Connections, 3(2), 14-20.
Witte, J. P. (2007). Why the tail wags the dog: The pernicious influence of product-oriented discourse on the provision of educational technology support. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 203–215.
Yourstone, S. A., Kraye, H. S., & Albaum, G. (2008). Classroom questioning with immediate electronic response: Do clickers improve learning? Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 6(1), 75-88.
All items in Spectrum are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved. The use of items is governed by Spectrum's terms of access
Repository Staff Only: item control page