How Personal Response Systems Promote Active Learning in Science Education?

Year 2016, Volume: 1 Issue: 1, 47 - 54, 01.01.2016

Sehnaz Baltaci-goktalay

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.
• Feldman A, & Capobianco B.M. (2008) Teacher learning of technology enhanced formative assessment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(1), 82–99.
• Fies, C., & Marshall, J. (2006). Classroom Response Systems: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 101-109.
• Fitch, J.L. (2004). Student feedback in the college classroom: a technology solution. Education Technology Research and Development, 52(1), 71-81.
• Gauci S, Dantas A, Williams D, & Kemm R. (2009). Promoting student-centered active learning in lectures with a personal response system. Advance Physiology Education, 33, 60-71.
• Graeff, E. C., Vail, M., Maldonado, A., Lund, M., Galante, S., & Tataronis, G. (2011). Click it: assessment of classroom response systems in physician assistant education. Journal of Allied Health Spring, 40(1), e1-e5.
• Guthrie, R. W., & Carlin, A. (2004). Waking the dead: Using interactive technology to engage Passive listeners in the classroom. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, New York, USA
• Hinde, K., & Hunt, A. (2006). Using the personal response system to enhance student learning: Some evidence from teaching economics. In D. A. Banks (Ed.), Audience response systems in higher education (pp. 140–154). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
• Hunsu, N.J., Adesope, O., Bayly, D.J. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of audience response systems (clicker-based technologies) on cognition and affect. Computers and Education, 94, 102-119.
• Karaman, S. (2011). Effects of audience response systems on student achievement and long-term retention. Social Behavior and Personality, 39(10), 1431-1440.
• Kay, R., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience-response system: A review of the literature. Computers and Education, 53, 819-827.
• Keyser, M.W. (2000). Active learning and cooperative learning: understanding the difference and using both styles effectively. Research Strategies, 17, 35-44.
• Liu, F. C., Gettig, J. P., & Fjortoft, N. (2010). Impact of a student response system on short- and long-term learning in a drug literature evaluation course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 74(1), 1-5.
• Mazur, E. (1997). Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• Penuel, W.R., Boscardin, C.K., Masyn, K., & Crawford, V.M. (2007). Teaching with student response systems in elementary and secondary education settings: A survey study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55, 315–346.
• 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.
• Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., & Davis, F.D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478