It Worked a Different Way

Blackman, Merrill S.; Dooley, Patricia; Kuchinski, Bill; Chapman, David

doi:10.1080/87567550209595868

Cited by 13 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, how do instructors' choices about number, type, or placement of questions, follow-up to student answers, encouragement (or discouragement) of interaction between students, and other aspects of ART use affect students? Finally, the current study did not include objective measures of ART influence on students' learning process and outcomes; only a small number of such studies have been conducted to date (Blackman et al, 2002;Poulis, Massen, Robens,& Gilbert, 1998;Schackow, Chavez, Loya, & Friedman, 2004). Clearly, student perceptions such as those measured in the present study are an important component of evaluating the technology.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Global assessments of the technology, such as liking, effectiveness, or desire to continue use also tend to be positive (Blackman et al;Fitch;Nicol & Boyle;Stuart, Brown, & Draper, 2004). Clearly, this research suggests the utility of ART as an instructional tool.…”

Section: Introduction Imentioning

confidence: 95%

“…A growing body of research provides evidence that students view ART as a positive influence on classroom engagement (e.g., increasing attention, interest, or involvement; Rice & Bunz, 2006;Fitch, 2004;Latessa & Mouw, 2005;Nicol & Boyle, 2003) and learning (e.g., comprehending or remembering course material; Blackman, Dooley, Kuchinski, & Chapman, 2002;Guthrie & Carlin, 2004;Latessa & Mouw, 2005). Global assessments of the technology, such as liking, effectiveness, or desire to continue use also tend to be positive (Blackman et al;Fitch;Nicol & Boyle;Stuart, Brown, & Draper, 2004).…”

Section: Introduction Imentioning

confidence: 98%

“…These include the perceived impact of the technology on aspects of classroom engagement (e.g., attendance, attention), learning processes and outcomes (e.g., motivation, learning), as well as global evaluations, such as liking or desire for future use (e.g., Blackman et al, 2002;Fitch, 2004;Smart et al, 2004). For the current study, we chose to focus on how student perceptions of ART influenced attendance, motivation to learn, and learning, as well as their liking for the technology.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The influence of learning characteristics on evaluation of audience response technology

MacGeorge

Homan

Dunning

et al. 2008

J. Comput. High. Educ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A UDIENCE RESPONSE TECHNOLOGY (ART) has been widely adopted on college campuses, and prior research indicates that, on average, it receives positive evaluations from students. However, research has not yet examined how characteristics of students as learners influence their responses to ART. The current study examined aptitude for learning, objective learning (i.e., class performance), subjective learning (i.e., self-perceived learning), and conceptualizations of the learning process as influences on students' evaluation of ART. Students who had used ART over the course of a semester in one of three large lecture classes (N = 703) completed surveys assessing their learning characteristics, perceptions of ART influence on their attendance, motivation, and learning, liking for ART, and evaluations of the course and instructor. Controlling for course and instructor evaluations, aptitude and objective learning were weakly but negatively associated with evaluations of ART and subjective learning was positively associated with evaluations of ART. Further, different conceptualizations of learning have distinctive associations with ART evaluations. Discussion focuses on the implications of these findings for instructors' use of ART.

show abstract

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Introduction Imentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Introduction Imentioning

confidence: 98%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The influence of learning characteristics on evaluation of audience response technology

MacGeorge

Homan

Dunning

et al. 2008

J. Comput. High. Educ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, studies showed that use of CRS increased students' attendance, advance preparation for class (4,14), attentiveness and enthusiasm (2,4,8,9,14,20), and in-class participation (4,8,14,20). Studies have also noted students reporting more enjoyment in classes because of CRS (4,8,9,14,20).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the Impact of a Classroom Response System in a Microbiology Course

Suchman¹,

Uchiyama²,

Smith³

et al. 2006

JME

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of a Classroom Response System (CRS) was evaluated in two sections, A and B, of a large lecture microbiology course. In Section B the instructor used the CRS technology at the beginning of the class period posing a question on content from the previous class. Students could earn extra credit if they answered the question correctly. In Section A, the class also began with an extra credit CRS question. However, CRS questions were integrated into the lecture during the entire class period. We compared the two classes to see if augmenting lectures with this technology increased student learning, confidence, attendance, and the instructor's ability to respond to student's misconceptions, over simply using the CRS as a quizzing tool. Student performance was compared using shared examination questions. The questions were categorized by how the content had been presented in class. All questions came from instructors' common lecture content, some without CRS use, and some questions where Instructor A used both lecture and CRS questions. Although Section A students scored significantly better on both types of examination questions, there was no demonstrable difference in learning based on CRS question participation. However, student survey data showed that students in Section A expressed higher confidence levels in their learning and knowledge and indicated that they interacted more with other students than did the students in Section B. In addition, Instructor A recorded more modifications to lecture content and recorded more student interaction in the course than did Instructor B.Because of increasing enrollments and tighter budgets, colleges are offering larger classes as a way to save money (5, 12). Consequently, faculty-student ratios in many introductory courses range from 1:100 to 1:500. While studies show mixed results in determining what effect class size has on student performance, a trend does emerge-new students or students with lower achievement levels have trouble in larger classes (3, 9).The current theory of learning, constructivism, is one where learning is an interpretive, recursive, building process whereby learners actively participate in the learning process in order to make meaning of new information and constructs so as to internalize this understanding as part of their own knowledge base (10). Therefore, attention to the limits of large class sizes is essential in order to maximize student achievement. Large classes inhibit types of instructional methods, strategies, and activities that are consistent with constructivism in four ways. First, learners need to make meaning of the new information in order to assimilate it into their existing knowledge base (19). Without meaning, information is often forgotten after a short period of time. As a result, learners need to interact with this new information in some way. Large classes limit this interaction, and the brief time allotted for instruction constrains the types of instructional strategies and activities that can be used to allow students ...

show abstract