Student Perceptions of the Use of a Personal Response Device in a Large Lecture Class

Cleora J. D’Arcy and Darin M. Eastburn
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois
USA

Summary

In a general education plant pathology class we used personal response devices (IClickers, www.iclicker.com) that allow students to answer multiple-choice questions privately to learn about students, conduct opinion polls, enhance class discussions, review quiz questions and assess comprehension of material. Students reported that the devices increase enjoyment, learning and participation, but generally did not support their use to monitor attendance or assign credit for correct responses. Over a semester, instructors learned to use the system more effectively.

Introduction

Electronic personal response systems with devices to collect, aggregate and display response data from students were first developed in the 1990s (1). While the first system was devised in order to revitalize lecture-based courses, advances were sparked by two studies by Halloun and Hestenes (5,6) that showed that college physics students were passing introductory physics courses without learning Newtonian concepts. The system allowed students to think more deeply, establish positions, and defend their decisions. Viewing aggregate data showed the students where they stood compared to their peers and indicated possible misconceptions to the instructor. Researchers both within and outside of physics have reported that their classrooms were happier, more lively environments when electronic student response systems were used (1,3,4) Students report many positive attributes of personal response systems, including anonymity, being able to check their understanding, and encouraging participation (2). In this study, we explored the usefulness of personal response devices in a 75-student plant pathology course.

Materials and Methods

This study was conducted for two semesters in a 75-student general education plant pathology class (Plant Pathology 200 - Plants, Pathogens, and People). Student surveys were conducted twice each semester: early (the second or third week of class) and late (the last week of class). Each survey consisted of five short-answer questions, followed by a space for additional comments. In Fall 2004, 68 students completed the early survey and 60 completed the late survey.  In Spring 2005, 59 and 58 students completed the early and late surveys, respectively.

IClickers were distributed to students on the first day of class. They were used for several purposes throughout the semester:
            • to gather information about the students’ backgrounds and level of knowledge
            • to share students’ knowledge
            • to poll students’ opinions
            • to test knowledge and comprehension of course material
            • to review on-line quizzes
IClicker questions with two to five answers were posed at various times during each 80 minute class period.

Click here to view sample questions.

Results

Results of the early survey (Table 1) indicated that >90% of the students enjoyed IClickers and >85% believed the devices enhanced their learning. While most students reported that the IClickers were being used at a good frequency during class, about 1/5 thought they could be used more. More students opposed the use of IClickers to either monitor attendance or to assign credit than favored either of these uses.

Table 1. Early survey responses.

Results of the late survey (Table 2) were similar to those of the early survey for enjoyment and interest. The frequency of use of the IClickers improved over the course of the semester, with >90% responding “just right”. About 3/4 of the students reported that they used their IClickers “often”, but regardless of whether or not they used their own device, 95% reported that use of a student response system increased their participation in the class.

Table 2. Late survey responses.

Conclusion

Use of personal response devices increased student participation in a relatively large class. They also helped to make student learning more visible to the instructors, and thus enabled us to improve our teaching.

References

1. Abrahamson, A.L. 1999. Teaching with a classroom communication system: What it involves and why it works. A mini-course presented at the VII Taller Internacional “Nuevas Tendencias en la Ensenanza de la Fisica”, Benemerita Universidad Autonoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico, May 27-30. Retrieved from http://www.bedu.com/publications.html
2. Draper, S.W. and Brown, M.I. 2004. Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20:81-94.
3. Dufresne, R.J., W.J. Gerace, W.J. Leonard, J.P. Mestre, J.P., L. and Wenk. 1996. Classtalk: a classroom communication system for active learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 7:3-47.
4. Elliot, C. 2003. Using a personal response system in economics teaching. International Review of Economics Education, Volume 1. http://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/iree/i1/
5. Halloun, I. and D. Hestenes. 1985a. The initial knowledge state of college physics students. American Journal of Physics. 53:1043-1055.
6. Halloun, I. and D. Hestenes. 1985b. Common sense notions about motion. American Journal of Physics. 53:1056-1065.

Date: 15th May, 2006 email: cdarcy@uiuc.edu

Discuss this paper