Evidence that Use of Audience Responses Systems without Peer Instruction Does Not Produce a Gain in Learning

Physiology Course
(Paschal CB: Formative assessment in physiology teaching using a wireless classroom communication system. Adv Physiol Educ 26:299-308; 2002.)

A wireless audience response system was used to provide instant feedback on in-class quizzes. It stimulated 100% student participation. However, student GPA & course performance data were not significantly affected compared to a previous year.

(Perhaps the absence of peer instruction is the reason? After all, clickers are just another piece of technology. It’s how you use them that counts.)

———————————————–

Medical Pathology Course
(Duggan PM, Palmer E, Devitt P: Electronic voting to encourage interactive lectures: a randomized trial. BMC Medical Education 7:25, 2007)

A group of 127 5th year medical students at the Univ of Adelaide (Australia) were randomized into 2 groups of 63 & 64 students. One group was given traditional lectures, and the other was taught using sessions that incorporated the use of an electronic voting system. The performance on multiple choice questions was not significantly different.

(Note: No peer instruction type interaction between students was used in this study).

Two More Reasons For Using “Clickers” for Teaching

Quoted From: Handheld Transmitters Connect Students And Teachers in Class. Science Daily (Feb 8, 2005)

“Teaching a large class without a classroom response system is like driving with your eyes closed” said William McNairy, lecturer in physics at Duke… “We don’t drive cars that way, but it is how we teach, with eyes closed until a midterm and a final”.

“The feedback from these systems enables students to learn better rather than just finding out at the end that they failed” Sherryl Broverman (Asst Prof Biology, Duke)