How Personal Response Systems Promote Active Learning in Science Education?
Abstract
This study examines the effect of using personal response system PRS on students’ academic performance and their attitude towards science. Three research questions were addressed in the study: 1 Is there any difference in academic achievement of 5th grade students when it is used PRS in science and technology courses? 2 Does PRS effect 5th graders’ attitudes towards science? 3 What are the 5th graders’ attitudes towards PRS use in the classroom? The results show that there is no difference in terms of achievement between pre-test and post-test scores in both groups. On the other hand, there is a positive difference on attitudes towards science on behalf of the experimental groups. In addition, boys were found to be more positive to PRS than girls based on the PRS attitude scale. The qualitative component involved focus group discussion with six students and an interview with the class teacher. Students are also observed while they were using the PRS in the classroom. Participants provided positive feedback regarding the use of PRS and requested the increase in use because they felt the use of PRS supported and improved their classroom learning, made the course more fun, and increased the course participation. They also enjoyed the peer discussions that instructors facilitated with regard to the use of PRS. The teacher was also positive about using PRS in his classroom.
Keywords
personal response systems,clickers,TEFA,active learning,science education
References
- Anthis, K. (2011). Is it the clicker, or is it the question? untangling the effects of student response system use. Teaching of Psychology, 38(3), 189-193
- Beatty, I. D., Leonard, W. J., Grace, W. J., & Dufresne, R. J. (2006). Question driven instruction: Teaching science (well) with an audience response system. In D. A. Banks (Ed.), Audience response system in higher education: Applications and cases (pp. 96-115). Hershey, PA: Information Science.
- Beatty, I.D. & Grace, W. J. (2009). Technology-Enhanced Formative Assessment: A Research-Based Pedagogy for Teaching Science with Classroom Response Technology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(2), 146-162.
- Beekes, W. (2006). The ‘Millionaire’ method for encouraging participation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 7(1), 25-36.
- Boyle, J.T., & Nicol, D.J. (2003). Using classroom communication systems to support interaction and discussion in large class settings. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 11(3), 43-57.
- Caldwell, J.E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9-20.
- Chan, E., & Knight, L. (2010). Clicking with your audience. Communications in Information Literacy, 4(2), 192-201.
- Cooperstein, S.E. & Kocevar-Weidinger, E. (2004). Beyond active learning: a constructivist approach to learning. Reference Services Review, 32(2), 141-148.
- Draper, W., & Brown, I. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 81–94.
- Dufresne, R.J., Gerace, W.J., Leonard, W.J., Mestre, J.P., & Wenk, L. (1996) Classtalk: A Classroom Communication System for Active Learning. Journal of Computer in Higher Education, 7, 3-47.