You are here:

Student Response Systems in the College Classroom: An Investigation of Short-term, Intermediate, and Long-term Recall of Facts
ARTICLE

, Northern Illinois University, United States

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education Volume 20, Number 1, ISSN 1059-7069 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

The effects of student response system (SRS) use during lecture-style instruction on short-term, intermediate, and long-term retention of facts was investigated in an undergraduate teacher preparation course. Participants were undergraduate students enrolled in a special education initial certification program. Student performance on quizzes and self-reports of engagement were compared between lectures given with and without the SRS. Findings regarding short-term recall were mixed, while performance on quiz questions testing intermediate and long-term recall were significantly improved with use of the SRS. Weekly self-reports showed no association between SRS and improved engagement in class sessions. However, at the conclusion of the class, students reported favorable opinions of the SRS and believed it helped improve their learning and attention in class. Implications for teaching and future research are discussed.

Citation

Blood, E. (2012). Student Response Systems in the College Classroom: An Investigation of Short-term, Intermediate, and Long-term Recall of Facts. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 20(1), 5-20. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved March 21, 2023 from .

© 2012 Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Addison, S., Wright, A., & Milner, R. (2009). Using clickers to improve student engagement and performance in an introductory biochemistry class. Bio-
  2. Appleby E.C. (1968). Teaching aids and the practitioner. Veterinary Record, 83, 291-292.
  3. Blood, E. (2010). Effects of student response systems on participation and learning of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 35(3), 214-228.
  4. Blood, E., & Neel, R. (2008). Using student response systems in lecture-based instruction: does it change student engagement and learning? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(3), 375-383.
  5. Bridgman, C. F. (1965). Innovations in the teaching of anatomy. American Journal of Veterinary Research, 26, 1552-1561.
  6. Brophy, J. (1992). Probing the subtleties of subject-matter teaching. Educational Leadership, 49 (7), 4-8.
  7. Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed.), 328375. New York: Macmillan.
  8. Cheesman, E. A., Winograd, G. R., & Wehrman, J. D. (2010). Clickers in teacher education: Student perceptions by age and gender. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(1), 35-55.
  9. Clark, J. (2008). PowerPoint and pedagogy: Maintaining student interest inuniversity lectures. College Teaching, 56, 1, 39-45).
  10. Crossgrove, K., & Curran, K. (2008). Using clickers in nonmajors- and majorslevel biology courses: Student opinion, learning and long-term retention of course material. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 7, 146-154.
  11. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Harvard University Press, london.
  12. Cutts, Q.I., & Kennedy, G. E. (2005). Connecting learning environments using electronic voting systems. Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology, 42, 181-186.
  13. Draper, S.W., & Brown, M. I. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 2, 81-94.
  14. Feldman, K. A., & Paulsen, M. B. (1994). Teaching and learning in the collegeclassroom. ASHE Reader Series. Needham Heights, Ma: Ginn Press.
  15. Graham, C. R., Tripp, T. R., Seawright, L., & Georgel, G. (2007). Empowering or compelling reluctant participators using audience response systems. Active learning in higher education. Downloaded from http://alh.sagepub.com At Univ Washington libraries on december 21, 2007.
  16. Gunter, P. L., & Denny, K. R. (1998). Trends and issues in research regarding academic instruction of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 44-50.
  17. Harper, B. E. (2009). I’ve never seen or heard it this way! increasing student engagement through the use of technology-enhanced feedback. Teaching Educational Psychology, 3(3), 1-8.
  18. Kennedy, G. E., & Cutts, Q. I. (2005). The association between students’ use of an electronic voting system and their learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 260-268.
  19. Lasry, N. (2008). Clickers or Flashcards: is there really a difference? The Physics Teacher, 46, 242-244.
  20. Lichti, S. M. (2006). Purdue’s System-wide deployment of a classroom response system. Proceedings of the 34th Annual ACM SIGUCCS Conference on User Services, 196-200.
  21. Lightner, S., Bober, M. J., & Willi, C. (2007). Team-based activities to promoteengaged learning. College Teaching, 55, 1, 5-18.
  22. Resnick, L.B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, dC: National academy Press.
  23. Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 376-391). New York: Macmillan.
  24. Shapiro, J.A. (1997). Electronic student response found feasible in large science lecture hall. Journal of College Science Teaching, 26, 6, 408-412.
  25. Sutherland, K. S., & Wehby, J. H. (2001). Exploring the relation between increased opportunities to respond to academic requests and the academic and
  26. Unkefer, L. C., Shinde, S., & McMaster, K. (2009). Integrating advanced technology in teacher education courses. Tech Trends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 53(3), 80-85.
  27. Won Hur, J., Cullen, T., & Brush, T. (2010). Teaching for application: a model for assisting pre-service teachers with technology integration. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 18(1), 161-182.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections