Response Justifications as Feedback in Clicker Activities: A Case Study on Student Performance and Calibration
PROCEEDING
Pantelis Papadopoulos, Antonis Natsis, Centre for Teaching Development and Digital Media, Aarhus University, Denmark ; Nikolaus Obwegeser, Department of Management, Aarhus University, Denmark
EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Amsterdam, Netherlands Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC
Abstract
The study examines the potential of short justifications in clicker activities. A total of 138 students answered individually eight multiple-choice questions in a clicker tool and provided short justifications for their responses, denoting also their confidence that their responses were correct. Next, students received classroom feedback and revised their initial answers and their level of confidence. Results showed that all students increased their performance during the revision phase. However, the group (n = 70) that received as feedback the percentage of students under each question choice along with the respective justifications increased its confidence significantly. Moreover, in this group, students’ final confidence levels and their actual performance were significantly positively correlated, suggesting accuracy between their perceived and actual performance (i.e., better calibration). On the contrary, the same was not observed for the group (n = 68) that received as feedback only the percentage information. This suggests that having access to justifications helps students in self-assessing their level of knowledge more accurately.
Citation
Papadopoulos, P., Natsis, A. & Obwegeser, N. (2018). Response Justifications as Feedback in Clicker Activities: A Case Study on Student Performance and Calibration. In T. Bastiaens, J. Van Braak, M. Brown, L. Cantoni, M. Castro, R. Christensen, G. Davidson-Shivers, K. DePryck, M. Ebner, M. Fominykh, C. Fulford, S. Hatzipanagos, G. Knezek, K. Kreijns, G. Marks, E. Sointu, E. Korsgaard Sorensen, J. Viteli, J. Voogt, P. Weber, E. Weippl & O. Zawacki-Richter (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 408-413). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 28, 2024 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/184223/.
© 2018 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)
References
View References & Citations Map- Alexander, P.A. (2013). Calibration: What is it and why it matters? An introduction to the special issue on calibrating calibration. Learning and Instruction, 24, 1-3.
- Brady, M., Seli, H., & Rosenthal, J. (2013). “Clickers” and metacognition: A quasi-experimental comparative study about metacognitive self-regulation and use of electronic feedback devices. Computers& Education, 65, 56-63.
- Chi, M., & VanLehn, K. (2010). Meta-Cognitive Strategy Instruction in Intelligent Tutoring Systems: How, When, and Why. Journal of Educational Technology& Society, 13(1), 25-39.
- Chien, Y.-T., Chang, Y.-H., & Chang, C.-Y. (2016). Do we click in the right way? A meta-analytic review of clicker-integrated instruction. Educational Research Review, 17, 1-18.
- Crouch, C.H., Watkins, J., Fagen, A.P., & Mazur, E. (2007). Peer instruction: Engaging students one-on-one, all at once. Research-Based Reform of University Physics, 1(1), 40-95.
- Efklides, A. (2006). Metacognition and affect: What can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process? Educational Research Review, 1(1), 3-14.
- Gutierrez, A.P., & Schraw, G. (2015). Effects of Strategy Training and Incentives on Students’ Performance, Confidence, and Calibration. The Journal of Experimental Education, 83(3), 386-404.
- Hadwin, A.F., & Webster, E.A. (2013). Calibration in goal setting: Examining the nature of judgments of confidence. Learning and Instruction, 24, 37-47.
- Ioannou, A., & Artino, A.R. (2010). Using a classroom response system to support active learning in an educational psychology course: A case study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 37(3), 315-325.
- Katz, L., Hallam, M.C., Duvall, M.M., & Polsky, Z. (2017). Considerations for using personal Wi-Fi enabled devices as “clickers” in a large university class. Active Learning in Higher Education, 18(1), 25-35.
- Kleitman, S., & Costa, D.S.J. (2014). The role of a novel formative assessment tool (Stats-mIQ) and individual differences in real-life academic performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 29, 150-161.
- Lantz, M.E., & Stawiski, A. (2014). Effectiveness of clickers: Effect of feedback and the timing of questions on learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 280-286.
- Mayer, R.E. (2008). Learning and Instruction: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
- Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user's manual series in educational innovation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
- Mazur, E. (2009). Farewell, lecture? Science, 323, 50-51.
- Michinov, N., Morice, J., & Ferrières, V. (2015). A step further in Peer Instruction: Using the Stepladder technique to improve learning. Computers& Education, 91, 1-13.
- 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), 457-473.
- Nietfeld, J.L., Cao, L., & Osborne, J.W. (2006). The effect of distributed monitoring exercises and feedback on performance, monitoring accuracy, and self-efficacy. Metacognition and Learning, 1(2), 159-179.
- Papadopoulos, P.M., Demetriadis, S.N., Stamelos, I.G., & Tsoukalas, I.A. (2011). The value of writing-to-learn when using question prompts to support web-based learning in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(1), 71-90.
- Papadopoulos, P.M., Natsis, A., & Obwegeser, N. (2017). Improving the Quiz-Student Preparation and Confidence as Feedback Metrics.In P. Escudeiro, G. Costagliola, S. Zvacek, J. Uhomoibhi, & B.M. McLaren (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported (CSEDU), (pp. 59-69).
- Schnaubert, L., & Bodemer, D. (2015). Subjective Validity Ratings to Support Shared Knowledge Construction in CSCL. In O. Lindwall, P. Häkkinen, T. Koschmann, P. Tchounikine, & S. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Exploring the Material Conditions of Learning: The Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2015 (Vol. 2) (pp. 933-934). Gothenburg: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
- Zingaro, D., & Porter, L. (2014). Peer Instruction in computing: The value of instructor intervention. Computers& Education, 71, 87-96.
These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.
Suggest Corrections to References