See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262638186

Student Response Systems: Are they for large classes only?

Article · December 2009

CITATIONS READS
0 5,779

2 authors:

Sandra L. Miller Jacob Felson

William Paterson University William Paterson University
12 PUBLICATIONS   38 CITATIONS    19 PUBLICATIONS   438 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sandra L. Miller on 21 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Student Response Systems 1

Student response systems: Are they for large classes only?

Sandra L. Miller and Jacob Felson

William Paterson University

 Student Response Systems 2

Abstract

Student Response Systems (SRS), or clickers, are growing in usage. Studies have

consistently shown that clickers improve student learning outcomes in large classes. However,

there is little evidence about whether clickers enhance learning outcomes in small classes. In this

study, we evaluate the effectiveness of clicker usage in small classes and compare our findings to

results from studies of clicker usage in large classes. We also examine whether instructors differ

from students in terms of how they view clickers. Using survey questions derived from previous

research on large lecture classes, this study examined SRS use in 10 classes of fewer than 25

students over the course of three semesters. Results indicate that small classes benefit from

clicker usage, but not as much as large classes. Further studies should identify appropriate

teaching methodologies to use with SRS.

 Student Response Systems 3

Introduction

Student Response Systems (SRS), commonly known as clickers, have been around since

the late 1990s although more basic electronic response systems have been used in classrooms

since the 1960’s (Judson & Sawada, 2002). There have been a number of studies already

completed on their viability in the classroom (Abrahamson, 1999; Burnstein & Lederman, 2001;

Cue, 1998; Draper, 2001; Dufresne et al., 1996; Elliott, 2003; Hake, 1998; Nicol & Boyle, 2003;

Poulis, 1997; Williams 2003). In 2002, Mazur, Crouch & Fagen conducted an extensive 10-year

study on Peer Instruction (PI), the essential instructional strategy behind using clickers, and

found that most of the assessed PI courses encountered learning gains in line with interactive

engagement pedagogies and that 80% of the instructors considered their usage of PI to be a

success.

According to Roschelle, Penuel and Abrahamson (2004), evaluation studies of clickers

have generally shown that clickers increase students' reported levels of engagement, enjoyment,

and understanding. In addition, clickers appear to enhance students' awareness of their level of

understanding of class material, and also enhance teachers' ability to gauge their students' level

of understanding (Roschelle et al., 2004). In fact, more studies have subsequently focused on

examining these outcomes further (Carnaghan & Webb, 2005; Guthrie & Carlin, 2004; El-Rady,

2006; Horvath & Warmoth, 2007; MacGeorge et al., 2008; Stowell & Nelson, 2007). Yet,

interestingly enough, the majority of these studies have been done with clickers in large, lecture

classes. The question remains: Does the effect of student response systems differ by class size?

The majority of classes at William Paterson University of New Jersey (WPUNJ) are

small. Large lecture classes of 90 to 100 students are rare. The average class size is 30 and many

classes have fewer than 30 students. In small classes, students speak out with greater ease, are
 Student Response Systems 4

more likely to work in small groups, and also have easier access to the teacher. We examined

whether the effects of clickers in in classes of 25 or less are different than the effects of clickers

in classes with more than 25 students. Is there a point of diminishing returns from the

intervention of using such a technology (SRS) in a smaller class where students can speak out

with more ease, often work in small groups, and supposedly have easier access to the teacher?

Method
The research design for this project was to work with small classes of 25 students or less.

Results from the large lecture class clicker studies are compared, where possible, to the results

from this small class clicker study modeled after the former. Results from the small class

instructors versus the students were also looked at to determine if faculty and students differed in

their responses to using clickers in their classes. The research spanned three semesters with a

total number of ten classes.

The survey questions were developed based on the outcomes researched in previous

clicker studies regarding large lecture classes. The survey was based on: Abrahamson, 1999;

Cue, 1998; Draper & Brown, 2004; Elliott, 2003: Guthrie & Carlin, 2004; Hall et al., 2005;

MacGeorge et al., 2008, Minot State University Presentation, 2007; Roschelle et al., 2004;

Stowell & Nelson, 2007, and Williams, 2003. The outcomes that were measured are the ones

listed above: greater student engagement, increased understanding of subject matter, increased

enjoyment of class, better group interaction, helping students gauge their own understanding, and

that teachers have a better awareness of student difficulties.

The survey (see Appendix) used Zoomerang to ensure anonymity to the students and the

results were directly returned to the PI. Survey questions were placed on a Likert Scale of 1 to 6

with 1 being the highest outcome in agreement and 6 being N/A. A similar survey was given to

the faculty teaching the classes in order to compare results.

 Student Response Systems 5

There were 10 items on the survey. The first 9 items covered the outcomes noted in the

large lecture clicker studies. Of the first 9 items, response percentages in six items were

compared to the percentages expressed in larger lecture classes. Two items (#’s 2 and 9) did not

have corresponding student ratings in studies on larger, lecture classes and could not be

statistically compared. The remaining item (#6) was designed to be compared between students

and faculty only within the WPUNJ study. Item #10 was added to ascertain if students felt that

clickers worked as well in the small class environment as in the larger, lecture classes. Item #12

was an open-ended item designed to elicit any further comments. Correlations between items

were generally above .5 except for Item#8, “The clickers were easy to use”.

An additional question concerning whether the students believed that class size had made

a difference in their response to using the clickers was also asked and qualitative feedback

requested. The responses from this item were viewed for anecdotal results. All students were

notified of their participation and the fact that all responses were totally anonymous. IRB

guidelines were followed.

Particpants.

There were 125 students responding out of 161 for all ten classes for a response rate of

78%. There were 9 faculty responding out of a total of 10 for a response rate of 90%. The

teachers implemented the SRS systems in their coursework. They used the same type of

instructional strategies (peer instruction) used in the studies of larger classes mentioned above.

Clickers were distributed in the same manner for all classes (through Media Services to

the teacher for each semester). The department of Instruction and Research Technology trained

all the teachers in the appropriate technology. Dr. Sandra L. Miller, Director of Instruction and

Research Technology (IRT) and Principal Investigator (PI) of this research project ensured that
 Student Response Systems 6

the teachers implemented the systems in their courses and followed through with the

assessments. Instructors were required to use the clickers at least four times during the semester,

but they could use them more if they felt so inclined. In this way, all classes were equally

exposed to clicker usage.

Clickers were ordered in late October, 2007. Faculty participants received clickers and

the software on their laptops before the spring semester. Faculty were trained to use the SRS

hardware and software by IRT personnel before the beginning of the spring semester.

Throughout each semester, the PI regularly checked with the faculty on their progress in using

the clickers. Clickers were used in classes in a variety of subject areas, including elementary

education, chemistry, sociology, women’s studies, business, instructional library media, basic

reading instruction, and phonetics.

Results

There are five colleges representing specific disciplines at WPUNJ. The largest number

of student participants, 49, came from the College of Business (40%) followed by 25 (20%) from

the College of Humanities and Social Sciences, 24 (19%) from the College of Education, 23

(19%) from the College of Science and Health, and 2 (2%) from the College of Arts and

Communication. One (1%) student apparently misunderstood the question and responded that the

course taken with the clickers was in the Honors College. Figure 1 graphically illustrates the

percentages of participation by students at WPUNJ.

 Student Response Systems 7

Figure 1. Pie Chart of percentages of student participants by college.

In order to compare small and large classes, means and 95% confidence intervals were

computed for large, lecture class studies and for this small class study. Item#1 was compared

to Williams (2003) data on a 5-point level of agreement with the statement, “The quality of

discussion which followed each PRS question deepened my learning in GSN414/GSN451.”

Item #3 was compared to Williams (2003) data on a 5-point level of agreement with the

statement, “The use of the PRS in class was preferable to going through the lecture slides

(available, in advance, on the OLT site).” Item#4 was compared to Dufresne et al. (1996) data on

a 5-point level of agreement with the statement, “Using Classtalk helped me enjoy class more”.

Frequencies were estimated from the bar chart provided.

Item#5 was compared to MacGeorge et al. (2008) data using an estimated factor score

based on three five-point measures of agreement with the following statements: “Because of

CPS, it is easier for me to tell whether I am mastering course material”; Because of CPS, I am

more certain about how I am performing in the class”, and “Using CPS helps me more easily

determine how well I am doing in the class.” Item #7 was compared to Williams (2003) data on a

5-point level agreement with the statement, “I was more likely to respond/participate/engage

with the content because of the anonymity of using PRS.” Item #8 was compared to MacGeorge
 Student Response Systems 8

et al. (2008) using an estimated factor score based on three five-point measures of agreement

with the following statements: “Using the CPS technology is easy”; “I have no problems using

the CPS technology”, and “Using the CPS technology is pretty hard” (reversed).

A table was developed of the means, standard deviations and subsamples in WPUNJ’s

small classes and the large classes drawn from the literature (Dufresne et al., 1996, MacGeorge

et al., 2008) & Williams, 2003).

Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations and Subsamples for small and large classes using SRS:

Small classes Large classes

M SD n M SD n

Q1: Clickers Enhanced 3.621 1.064 124 4.07 0.828 43

Q2: More Engaged 3.846 1.079 123

Q3: Prefer Clicker 3.637 1.069 124 4.023 0.963 43

Q4: Clickers Fun 3.903 0.983 124 4.446 0.743 74

Q5: Easily Judge 3.659 0.999 123 3.31 0.76 739

Q6: Teacher Better 3.639 1.106 122

Q7: Less Embarrassed 3.968 1.035 124 3.698 1.186 43

Q8: Clickers Easy 4.306 0.848 124 3.91 0.85 739

Q9: Recommend Clickers 4.089 1.012 124

Q10: Clickers Difference 3.85 0.993 113

 Student Response Systems 9

Items #1, 4, 5, and 8 indicated statistical significance. The following diagram describes

the results when small and large classes were compared.

Figure 2. Chart of means and 95% confidence intervals between small and large classes.

A comparison was also drawn between the responses from students and faculty. The first

item asked if students felt that clickers enhanced their learning. There were 125 responses to this

item. Twenty-four (19%) students strongly agreed that clickers enhanced their learning, 52

(42%) agreed, 33 (26%) were neutral, 7(6%) disagreed, 8 (6%) strongly disagreed, and 1(1%)

felt that this statement was non-applicable to clickers. There were 9 faculty responses to this

item. Eight (89%) faculty agreed that clickers enhanced student learning and 1 (11%) was

neutral. Figure 3 graphically displays the students’ perceptions compared to faculty perceptions

of whether clickers enhanced student learning.

 Student Response Systems 10

Figure 3. Histogram of how well the students felt that clickers had enhanced their learning compared to faculty
perceptions (n=125 and n=9 respectively).

The second item asked if students were more engaged in the class as a result of the

clickers. There were 125 student responses to this item. Thirty-six (29%) students strongly

agreed that they had been more engaged, 53 (42%) agreed they had been, 19 (15%) were neutral,

10 (8%) disagreed, 5 (4%) strongly disagreed, and 2 (2%) felt that clickers were not applicable to

class engagement. Of the 9 faculty who responded to this item, 3 (33%) strongly agreed that

clickers created greater engagement in class and 6 (67%) agreed. Figure 4 graphically displays

the students’ perceptions compared to faculty perceptions of whether students were more

engaged in class.

Figure 4. Histogram of students’ perceptions compared to faculty perceptions of student engagement in class (n=125
and n=9 respectively).
 Student Response Systems 11

The third item asked if students preferred clicker integration over other PowerPoint

methods. There were 125 student responses. Thirty (24%) students strongly agreed that clicker

integration was preferrable, 39 (31%) agreed, 41(33%) were neutral, 8 (6%) disagreed, 6 (5%)

strongly disagreed, and 1 (1%) felt that clickers were non-applicable to PowerPoint methods. Of

the 9 faculty responses, 3 (33%) strongly agreed that clicker integration was preferable, 2 (22%)

agreed, 1 (11%) was neutral, 1 (11%) disagreed, and 2 (22%) felt that clickers were non-

applicable. Figure 5 graphically displays students’ preferences compared to faculty for clicker

integration over other PowerPoint methods.

Figure 5. Histogram of students’ preferences compared to faculty preference for clicker integration over other
PowerPoint methods (n=125 and n=9 respectively).

The fourth item asked if clickers were fun and added to class enjoyment. There were 124

student responses. Thirty-five (28%) students strongly agreed that clickers were fun and

enjoyable, 57 (46%) agreed, 21 (17%) were neutral, 7 (6%) disagreed, and 4 (3%) strongly

disagreed. Of the 9 faculty responses, 7 (78%) strongly agreed that clickers were fun and added

to class enjoyment, and 2 (22%) agreed. Figure 6 graphically displays students’ responses

compared to faculty for clicker fun and added class enjoyment.

 Student Response Systems 12

Figure 6. Histogram of students’ responses compared to faculty for clicker fun and added class enjoyment (n=124
and n=9 respectively).

The fifth item asked if students felt that they were better able to gauge their own

understanding in class. There were 124 student responses. Twenty-seven (22%) students strongly

agreed that they could, 43 (35%) agreed, 41 (33%) were neutral, 8 (6%) disagreed, 4 (3%)

strongly disagreed, and 1 (1%) felt that clickers were not applicable to their understanding in

class. Of the 9 faculty responding, 2 (22%) strongly agreed that clickers enhanced their students’

ability to gauge their understanding in class, 4 (44%) agreed, and 3 (33%) were neutral. Figure 7

graphically illustrates the students’ perceptions compared to the faculty’s regarding clicker

enhancement of student understanding in class.

Figure 7. Histogram of students’ perceptions compared to faculty’s regarding clicker enhancement of student
understanding in class (n=124 and n=9 respectively).
 Student Response Systems 13

The sixth item asked if either the students or faculty felt that the teacher was better able

to diagnose student difficulties in class. This was the item in which comparison between faculty

and students was most important. There were 125 student responses. Twenty-eight (22%)

students strongly agreed that the teacher could more easily identify student difficulties with the

clickers, 46 (37%) agreed, 32 (26%) were neutral, 8 (6%) disagreed, 8 (6%) strongly disagreed,

and 3 (2%) felt that clickers were not applicable to the teacher’s ability to diagnose student

difficulties. Of the 9 faculty responses, 2 (22%) strongly agreed that they were better able to

assess student problems in class, 4 (44%) agreed, and 3 (33%) were neutral. Figure 8 graphically

demonstrates students’ perceptions of the teacher’s ability to diagnose student difficulties as a

result of the clickers compared to faculty’s perceptions.

Figure 8. Histogram of student perceptions of the teacher’s ability to diagnose student difficulties compared to
faculty’s perceptions (n=125 and n=9 respectively).

The seventh item asked if students felt less embarrassed and the anonymity provided by

clickers encouraged more class response. Of the 125 student responses, 42 (34%) strongly

agreed, 52 (42%) agreed, 20 (16%) were neutral, 4 (3%) disagreed, 6 (5%) strongly disagreed

and 1 (1%) felt that clickers were not applicable to feeling less embarrassed and more inclined to

respond in class. Of the 9 faculty, 5 (56%) strongly agreed, 1 (11%) agreed, 2 (22%) were
 Student Response Systems 14

neutral, and 1 (11%) disagreed. Figure 9 illustrates students’ perceptions of their inclincation to

respond more in class compared to faculty’s perceptions.

Figure 9. Histogram of students’ perceptions of their inclination to respond more in class compared to faculty’s
perceptions (n=125 and n=9 respectively).

The eighth item asked if the clickers were easy to use. There were 125 student responses

and 9 faculty responses. Sixty (48%) students strongly agreed that clickers were easy to use, 49

(39%) agreed, 10 (8%) were neutral, 3 (2%) disagreed, 2 (2%) strongly disagreed, and 1 felt that

clicker ease of use was not applicable. Of the 9 faculty responses, 4 (44%) strongly agreed that

clickers were easy to use, 3 (33%) agreed and 2 (22%) were neutral. Figure 10 graphically

describes students’ perceptions of clicker ease of use compared to faculty’s perceptions.

Figure 10. Histogram of students’ perceptions of clicker ease of use compared to faculty’s perceptions (n=125 and
n=9 respectively).
 Student Response Systems 15

The ninth item asked if participants would recommend clickers for other small classes. Of

the 125 student responses, 52 (42%) strongly agreed that they would, 43 (34%) agreed, 22 (18%)

were neutral, 2 (2%) disagreed, 5 (4%) strongly disagreed, and 1 (1%) felt that this question was

not applicable. There were 9 faculty responses. Five (56%) faculty members strongly agreed, 3

(33%) agreed and 1 (11%) was neutral. Figure 11 graphically depicts the students’

recommendations of clickers for other small classes versus the faculty’s.

Figure 11. Histogram of students’ recommendations of clickers for other small classes compared to faculty’s (n=125
and n=9 respectively).

The tenth item asked if clickers made a difference in small classes as much as in large,

lecture classes. Of the 125 students responding, 37 (30%) strongly agreed, 31 (25%) agreed, 38

(30%) were neutral, 5 (4%) disagreed, 2 (10%) strongly disagreed, and 12 (10%) felt that

clickers were not applicable to class size. There were 9 faculty responses. Four (44%) faculty

strongly agreed, 2 (22%) agreed, 2 (22%) were neutral, and 1 (11%) disagreed. Figure 12

graphically demonstrates students’ perceptions of whether clickers made as much of a difference

in small classes such as theirs compared to their large, lecture classes compared to faculty’s

perceptions.
 Student Response Systems 16

Figure 12. Histogram of students’ perceptions of clicker usage in small classes versus large, lecture classes
compared to faculty’s.

Item #12 gave students and faculty in the small class study an opportunity to express

particular comments or concerns. Two students complained about technical problems with the

clickers. One student claimed that, “Clickers should be used more in other classes. It makes

learning fun and challenging during class” while another student specifically stated that, “I feel

the clicker is more helpful for a bigger class (students more than 20).” One faculty member

responded that s/he had had technical difficulties, corresponding to the students’ complaints

above. Another faculty member expressly did not like the clickers because they did not fit in

with his/her teaching style. This faculty member stated that the class “…ended up following a

different intellectual path than I had previously contrived (more student-centered and

personalized than I could have done with a PowerPoint). I almost can’t believe it myself, but

they’re not for me.” Two other faculty specifically indicated that the use of clickers was

worthwhile.

Discussion

Although small class students tend to respond to clickers in a favorable light as do large

class students, there were some outcomes in which a significant difference was demonstrated.

Items#1, 4, 5 and 8 were statistically significant indicating that class size did have an impact in
 Student Response Systems 17

the areas of enhancement of learning, clickers are fun and enjoyable, clickers enable students to

more easily judge their understanding in class, and clickers were easy to use. However, there was

no significant difference in their preference of clickers over normal PowerPoints or in their

feeling that clickers led to less embarrassment and the anonymity encouraged greater class

response. Preferring the use of clickers to normal PowerPoint presentations indicates that

students prefer a less passive role in class.

William Paterson students (small classes) reported higher levels of satisfaction on general

items (enhanced learning, prefer clickers, enjoyed clickers) than large class students. However,

on items that measured more specific preferences (easily judge their learning and less

embarrassed to respond), students from larger classes tended to report higher levels of agreement

than did students in small classes at William Paterson. There is an anomaly in the measurement

of ease of use with clickers. A correlation matrix among the nine items evaluating clickers at

William Paterson University showed that the one item, #8 (Clickers were easy to use), was way

below .5. This item did not follow the same underlying factor that the others did, i.e. relating to

their learning with clickers. This was a technological issue.

Items 1,2 and 4 had the widest spread in percentage points between students and faculty

in strongly agreed and agreed responses indicating that students were not quite as enthusiastic as

faculty about how clickers enhanced learning, engaged students or added to class fun and

enjoyment. Otherwise, the percentage point spread remained under 25% and generally favored

faculty response rather than students’. Only items #8 and 9 showed that students felt more

strongly than faculty that clickers were easy to use and that they would recommend them for

other small classes. It is understandable that students would find clickers more easy to use than

faculty because of the extra effort faculty needed to make to insert the questions into their
 Student Response Systems 18

PowerPoints. For this reason also, faculty may not necessarily recommend them for other small

classes.

This study indicates that small class students are favorable towards SRS as is the case

with large class students, but have reservations in certain areas. The impact of using clickers in

small classes is not as fruitful overall as with a large, lecture classes. It could be that teaching

styles in small classes (as indicated by the one faculty member’s comments) do not lend

themselves to usage of clickers. Instead, the true benefit of clickers is to create interaction where

there was little or none before. In addition, this study is limited to small classes at William

Paterson University although comparisons were made to large, lecture classes at other

universities. Further studies of the impact of teaching styles on the use of clickers in class would

be beneficial to understanding when and where to use clickers.

 Student Response Systems 19

References

Abrahamson, A. L. (1999) Teaching with classroom communication system: What it involves

and why it works, International Workshop, New Trends in Physics Teaching, Retrieved

April 27, 2007, from http://www.bedu.com/Publications/PueblaFinal2.html.

Burnstein, R.A. & Lederman, L.M. (2001). Using wireless keypads in lecture classes. The

Physics Teacher, 39, January, 8-11.

Carnaghan, C. & Webb, A. (2005). Investigating the effects of group response systems on

learning outcomes and satisfaction in accounting education. Retrieved on April 25, 2007,

from http://www.learning.uwaterloo.ca/research/responsepadjune2005.pdf.

Cue, N. (1998). A universal learning tool for classrooms? Proceedings of the First Quality in

Teaching and Learning Conference, Hong Kong International Trade and Exhibition

Center. Retrieved on April 27, 2007 from http://celt.ust.hk/ideas/prs/pdf/Nelsoncue.pdf.

Draper, S.W. & Brown, M.I. (2001). Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic

voting system. Journal of Comuter 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 Computing in Higher

Education, 7, 3-47.

Elliott, C. (2003). Using a personal response system in economics teaching. International Review

of Economics Education, 1 (1), pp. 80-86.

El-Rady, Johnny, "To Click or not to click: That's the question," Innovate Journal of Online

Education, 2 (4), 2006.

 Student Response Systems 20

Guthrie, R.W. & Carlin, A. (2004). Waking the dead: Using interactive technology to engage

passive listeners in the classroom. Proceedings of the Tenth Americas Conference on

Information Systems. New York, NY. Retrieved on April 27, 2007 from

http://www.mhhe.com/cps/docs/CPSWP_WakindDead082003.pdf.

Hake, R. 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 (1), 64–74.

Hall, R. H., Thomas, M.L., Collier, H.L. & Hilgers, M.G. (2005). A student response system for

increasing engagement, motivation, and learning in high enrollment lectures. Proceedings

of the Eleventh Americas Conference on Information Systems, Omaha, NE, USA.

Retrieved on April 29, 2007 from

http://lite.mst.edu/documents/hall_et_al_srs_amcis_proceedings.pdf.

Horvath C. & Warmoth, K. (2007). Leveraging Technology to advance learning: A pilot study.

Presented at Educause Midwest. Chicago, IL.

Judson, E., and Sawada, A. (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.

MacGeorge, E.L., Homan, S.R., Dunnng Jr., J.B., Elmore, D., Bodie, G.D., Evans, E.,

Khichadia, S., Lichti, S.M., Feng, B. & Geddes, B. (2008) Student evaluation of audience

response technology in large lecture classes. Educational Technology Research and

Development, 56, 125-145.

Mazur, E. (1997) Peer instruction - A user's manual, Prentice Hall, New York.
 Student Response Systems 21

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), October, 457-473.

Poulis, J., Massen, C., Robens, E., and Gilbert, M. (1998). Physics lecturing with audience paced

feedback, American Journal of Physics, 66 (5), 439-441.

Roschelle, J., Penuel W.R., & Abrahamson L., (2004) Classroom response and communication

systems: research review and theory. Presented at the 2004 Meeting fo the American

Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Retrieved on April. 27, 2007 from

http://ubiqcomputing.org/CATAALYST_AERA_Proposal.pdf.

Stowell, J.R. & Nelson, J.M. (2007). Benefits of electronic audience response systems on student

participation, learning, and emotion. Teaching of Psychology, 34, No. 4, 253-258.

Williams, J.B. (2003) Learning by remote control: Exploring the use of an audience response

system as a vehicle for content delivery. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of

the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. Adelaide,

Australia. Retrieved on April 25, 2007 from

https://secure.ascilite.org.au/conferences/adelaide03/docs/pdf/739.pdf.
 Student Response Systems 22

Appendix

Student response systems (clickers) survey

Student Response Systems (Clickers)

Thank you for participating in our survey. Your feedback is important. Please note
that all responses are anonymous and are being used for research purposes only.
The survey is very short and will only take 5-10 minutes of your time.

Each of the items in this survey deals with the characteristics of using clickers in
the class. Indicate your rating of clicker usage in your course by circling the
appropriate number. Please answer all questions thoughtfully and carefully. Your
fair and honest opinion is what really counts. The characteristics listed are rated
from 1 to 6, 1 being the highest, 5 being the lowest and 6 is Not Applicable.

1. Clickers enhanced my learning.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Not Applicable

1 2 3 4 5 6

2. I was more engaged in the class.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Not Applicable

1 2 3 4 5 6
 Student Response Systems 23

3. I prefer clicker integration over other PowerPoint methods.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Not Applicable

1 2 3 4 5 6

4. Clickers are fun and added to my class enjoyment.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Not Applicable

1 2 3 4 5 6

5. I was able to more easily judge my understanding in class.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Not Applicable

1 2 3 4 5 6

6. The teacher was better able to diagnose student difficulties.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Not Applicable

1 2 3 4 5 6
 Student Response Systems 24

7. I was less embarrassed and the anonymity encouraged me to respond more

often.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Not Applicable

1 2 3 4 5 6

8. The clickers were easy to use.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Not Applicable

1 2 3 4 5 6

9. I would recommend clickers for other small classes.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Not Applicable

1 2 3 4 5 6

10. I felt that clickers made a difference in my small class as much as in any
large lecture class.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Not Applicable

1 2 3 4 5 6
 Student Response Systems 25

11. The course in which I used clickers was in the following College. (Please
circle the appropriate College)

• College of Education
• College of Science and Health
• College of Humanities and Social Sciences
• College of Business
• College of Arts and Communication

12. Please feel free to add any comments you may have.

View publication stats