You are here:

Implementation of personal response units in very large lecture classes: Student perceptions
ARTICLE

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology Volume 22, Number 4, ISSN 0814-673X Publisher: Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education

Abstract

This article reports on a large scale implementation of personal response units in three introductory science courses at the University of Western Ontario in Canada. An online survey of students was conducted to gather their perceptions on the uses of the devices, triangulated by participant observation of the classes and email interviews with the instructors. Although the students' perceptions were generally favourable, problems associated with implementation were widespread. Advantages and disadvantages of the technology are discussed along with suggestions for its use.

Citation

Barnett, J. & Barnett, J. (2006). Implementation of personal response units in very large lecture classes: Student perceptions. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(4),. Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. Retrieved August 13, 2024 from .

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Abrahamson, A. (1999). Teaching with classroom communication systems: What it involves and why it works. Paper presented at the 7th International Workshop on New Trends in Physics Teaching, May 1999, Puebla, Mexico.
  2. Adekoya, A.A., Eyob, E., Ikem, F.M., Omojokun, E.O. & Quay, A.M. (2005). Dynamics of information technology (IT) successful implementation in development countries: A Nigerian case study. The Journal of Computer 492 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2006, 22(4)
  3. Associated Press (2005). Interactive 'clickers' changing classrooms: Teachers get instant feedback from clicker-wielding students. [viewed 28 Aug 2006] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7844477/
  4. Bessler, W.C., & Nisbet, J.J. (1971). The use of an electronic response system in teaching biology. Science Education, 3, 275-284.
  5. Bondarouk, T., & Sikkel, K. (2005). Explaining IT implementation through group learning. Information Resources Management Journal, 18(1), 42.
  6. Boudreau, M.-C., & Seligman, L. (2005). Quality of use of a complex technology: A learning-based model. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 17(4), 122.
  7. Brookshier, D. (2005). New Projects in the Education and Learning Comunity. [viewed 28 Aug 2006, verified 10 Oct 2006] http://weblogs.java.net/blog/turbogeek/archive/2005/10/new_projects_in_14.html
  8. Carnaghan, C. & Webb, A. (2005). Investigating the effects of group response systems on learning outcomes and satisfaction in accounting education. Waterloo, ON: University of Waterloo. [verified 10 Oct 2006] http://www.learning.uwaterloo.ca/LIF/responsepad_june20051.pdf
  9. Casanova, J. (1971). An instructional experiment in organic chemistry, the use of a student response system. Journal of Chemical Education, 48(7), 453-455.
  10. Cooper, R.B. & Zmud, R.W. (1990). Information technology implementation research: A technological diffusion approach. Management Science, 36(2), 123-140.
  11. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
  12. Draper, S.W. & Brown, M.I. (2002). Use of the PRS (Personal Response System) handsets at Glasgow University: Interim evaluation report. [viewed 30 Dec 2005, verified 10 Oct 2006] http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/ilig/interim.html
  13. 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.
  14. Draper, S.W., Cargill, J. & Cutts, Q. (2002). Electronically enhanced classroom interaction. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 18(1), 13-23.
  15. Duncan, D. (2005). Clickers in the classroom: How to enhance science teaching using classroom response systems. San Francisco: Pearson/Addison Wesley. Barnett 493 eInstruction (2006). EInstruction's Classroom Performance System. [viewed 28 Aug 2006] http://www.einstruction.com/
  16. Elliott, C. (2003). Using a personal response system in economics teaching. International Review of Economics Education, 1(1), 80-86.
  17. Garrison, D.R. & Archer, W. (2000). A transactional perspective on teaching and learning: A framework for adult and higher education. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
  18. Gilbert, A. (2005). New for back-to-school: 'Clickers'. [viewed 28 Aug 2006, verified 10 Oct 2006] http://news.com.com/New+for+back-to-school+clickers/21001041_3-5819171.html
  19. Goodyear, P. (2005). Educational design and networked learning: Patterns, pattern languages and design practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(1), 82-101. Http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet21/goodyear.html
  20. Hake, R.R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A sixthousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74.
  21. 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), 167-182.
  22. Kirkwood, A. & Price, L. (2005). Learners and learning in the twenty-first century: What do we know about students’ attitudes towards and experiences of information and communication technologies that will help us design courses? Studies in Higher Education, 30(3), 257-274.
  23. Lapointe, L., & Rivard, S. (2005). A multilevel model of resistance to information technology implementation. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 461-492.
  24. Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. London: Routledge.
  25. Learning Media Unit (2001). Student and staff feedback on using an electronic group response system in a Mechanical Engineering lecture at the University of Sheffield. Learning Media Unit Evaluation Report Project 39. Sheffield, UK: University of Sheffield. [verified 10 Oct 2006] http://www.shef.ac.uk/Learningmedia/evalreports/pdfs/P39-Diprose_evaluation_report.pdf
  26. Littauer, R. (1972). Instructional implications of a low-cost electronic student response system. Educational Technology: Teacher and Technology Supplement, 12(10), 69-71.
  27. Perkins, K. & Wieman, C. (2004). Revitalizing your class through research-based innovation: Clickers and beyond. Paper presented at the American Astronomical Society Meeting #204, 3 June, Denver, CO. [abstract only, verified 10 Oct 2006] http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v36n2/aas204/237.htm
  28. Poulis, J., Massen, C., Robens, E., & Gilbert, M. (1998). Physics lecturing with audience paced feedback. American Journal of Physics, 66, 439-441.
  29. Roschelle, J., Penuel, W.R. & Abrahamson, L. (2004). Classroom response and communication systems: Research review and theory. [viewed 1 Jan 2006] http://www.ubiqcomputing.org/CATAALYST_AERA_Proposal.pdf
  30. Schenke, J. (2005). Students zap their way to improved education. [viewed 28 Aug 2006, verified 10 Oct 2006] http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html3month/2005/050812.T-Evans.clickers.html
  31. Segovia, J.R. (2004). Who wants to learn accounting? The use of personal response systems in Introductory Accounting. Poster Session. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Accounting Association, 8-11 August, Orlando, FL.
  32. Shapiro, J.A. (1997). Electronic student response found feasible in large science lecture hall: Inexpensive, homemade system sparks student attention and participation. Journal of College Science Teaching, 26, 408-412.
  33. Sharma, M.D., Khachan, J., Chan, B. & O'Byrne, J. (2005). An investigation of the effectiveness of electronic classroom communication systems in large lecture classes. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(2), 137-154.
  34. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Michael Cole (Ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  35. Williams, J.B. (2003). 'Learning by remote control': Exploring the use of an audience response system as a vehicle for content delivery. In G. Crisp, D. Thiele, I. Scholten, S. Barker& J. Baron (Eds.), Interact, Integrate, Impact: Proceedings of the 20th ASCILITE Conference. Adelaide, Australia, 7-10 December. Http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/adelaide03/docs/pdf/739.pdf
  36. Wood, W.B. (2004). Clickers: A teaching gimmick that works. Developmental Cell, 7, 796-798. Dr John Barnett, Assistant Professor, Science and Online Education, Faculty of Education, The University of Western Ontario, 1137 Western Rd, London, Ontario, Canada. Email: barnett@uwo.ca Web: http://publish.edu.uwo.ca/john.barnett/faculty/

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.