As Student Response Systems Expand Features and Question Types, Multiple Choice Continues to be the Gold Standard for Calculations from both Student and Instructor Perspectives

Kyle Anderson

doi:10.29173/isotl538

Authors

Kyle Anderson University of Saskatchewan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29173/isotl538

Keywords:

clickers, engagement, active learning, student response system, BYOD, Top Hat

Abstract

Student response systems (SRS) continue to evolve as bring-your-own-device (BYOD) systems allow more question and answer types to be utilized. While users were once limited to a button press on a clicker selecting from a list of predetermined responses, students can now generate text and numerical responses on their personal devices. Question and response types are now limited only by software, and new features can be added without requiring an overhaul of the existing system. Using two successive course offerings of a biomedical lab techniques class, the effect of question type was evaluated, using a crossover experimental design, and applied to novel discipline-specific calculations. Students used the Top Hat student response system (tophat.com) to answer either multiple choice questions (MCQ) or numerical response questions (NRQ) in class. Student responses were tracked for elapsed time to completion, performance, and subsequent test performance. Additionally, students were surveyed about their question-type preference. Analysis shows that on formative assessments, students take less time on multiple choice questions, are successful more often, and show a clear preference for this type. When students used those calculations on summative exams, they performed similarly regardless of whether they initially used MCQ or NRQ. Students also expressed clear preference for MCQ. The use of NRQ is still recommended to be used strategically as it increases question difficulty and diversity. The findings from this study may assist STEM instructors looking to formulate their own evidence-based best practices when incorporating SRSs into
their pedagogy.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Kyle Anderson, University of Saskatchewan

Kyle Anderson is a teaching-stream Assistant Professor in the department of Biochemistry, Microbiology and Immunology at the University of Saskatchewan. His key SoTL interests are in making education more engaging and accessible to diverse learners as an early adopter of educational technologies.

References

Addison, S., Wright, A., & Milner, R. (2009). Using clickers to improve student engagement and performance in an introductory biochemistry class. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 37(2), 84–91. http://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20264

Bedard, K., & Kuhn, P. (2008). Where class size really matters: Class size and student ratings of instructor effectiveness. Economics of Education Review, 27(3), 253–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2006.08.007

Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364.

Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-12-0205

Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9

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/10.1119/1.1374249

Eberlein, T., Kampmeier, J., Minderhout, V., Moog, R. S., Platt, T., Varma-Nelson, P., & White, H. B. (2008). Pedagogies of engagement in science: A comparison of BPL, POGIL, and PLTL. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 36(4), 262–273. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20204

Ebert-May, D., Brewer, C., & Allred, S. (1997). Innovation in large lectures: Teaching for active learning. Bioscience, 47(9), 601–607. https://doi.org/10.2307/1313166

Geske, J. (1992). Overcoming the drawbacks of the large lecture class. College Teaching, 40(4), 151–154.

Gould, S. M. (2016). Potential use of classroom response systems (CRS, clickers) in foods, nutrition, and dietetics higher education. Journal of Nutritional Education and Behavior, 48(9), 669–674.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2016.06.004

Han, J. H. (2014). Closing the missing links and opening the relationships among the factors: A literature review on the use of clicker technology using the 3P model. Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 150–168.

Keough, S. M. (2012). Clickers in the classroom: A review and a replication. Journal of Management Education, 36(6), 822–847. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562912454808

Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we're learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(2), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380309604090

Landrum, R. E. (2013). The ubiquitous clicker: SoTL applications for scientist–educators. Teaching of Psychology, 40(2), 98–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628312475028

Landrum, R. E. (2015). Teacher-ready research review: Clickers. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(3), 250–254. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000031

Lane, D. M., & Atlas, R. S. (1996, March). The networked classroom [Paper presentation]. The 1996 Meeting of Computers and Psychology, York, UK.

Levine, A. E. (2011). Correlation between clicker scores and examination performance in dental biochemistry. Medical Science Educator, 21(4), 326–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03341731

Llena, C., Forner, L., & Cueva, R. (2015). Student evaluation of clickers in a dental pathology course. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry, 7(3), e369–e373. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.52299

Masikunas, G., Panayiotidis, A., & Burke, L. (2007). The use of electronic voting systems in lectures within business and marketing: A case study of their impact on student learning. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 15(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09687760600837090

Miles, N. G., & Soares da Costa, T. P. (2016). Acceptance of clickers in a large multimodal biochemistry class as determined by student evaluations of teaching: Are they just an annoying distraction for distance students? Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 44(1), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20917

Monks, J., & Schmidt, R. (2010). The impact of class size and number of students on outcomes in higher education. Cornell Higher Education Research Institute, Cornell University. https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/workingpapers/114/

Morrell, L. J., & Joyce, D. A. (2015). Interactive lectures: Clickers or personal devices? F1000 Research, 4, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.6207.1

Muldoon, N., & Palm, C. (2008). Formative and summative assessment and the notion of constructive alignment. In S. Frankland (Ed.), Enhancing teaching and learning through assessment (pp. 96–106). Springer.

Patterson, B., Kilpatrick, J., & Woebkenberg, E. (2010). Evidence for teaching practice: The impact of clickers in a large classroom environment. Nurse Education Today, 30(7), 603–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2009.12.008

Rana, N. P., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2017). Can clicking promote learning? Measuring student learning performance using clickers in the undergraduate information systems class. Journal of International Education in Business, 10(2), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIEB-06-2016-0010

Sapelli, C., & Illanes, G. (2016). Class size and teacher effects in higher education. Economics of Education Review, 52, 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.01.001

Smith, C. V., & Cardaciotto, L. (2011). Is active learning like broccoli? Student perceptions of active learning in large lecture classes. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(1).

Statistics Canada. (2020). Table 37-10-0018-01 Postsecondary enrolments, by registration status, institution type, status of student in Canada, and gender. https://doi.org/10.25318/ 3710001801-eng

Stevens, N. T., McDermott, H., Boland, F., Pawlikowska, T., & Humphreys, H. (2017). A comparative study: Do "clickers" increase student engagement in multidisciplinary clinical microbiology teaching? BMC Med Educ, 17(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12909-017-0906-3