ACTIVE LEARNING AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE: THE CASE OF REAL-TIME INTERACTIVE STUDENT POLLING
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52041/serj.v22i1.122Keywords:
Statistics education research, Active learning, Academic performance, Interactive teaching, Student engagementAbstract
Active-learning pedagogical practices are encouraged in the education literature to improve academic outcomes. The research reported in this paper explored the effect of real-time interactive polling—a type of active learning—on three measures of academic outcome: final marks, student engagement, and failure probability. To provide credible impact estimates, a cluster randomized controlled trial in an introductory statistics class was conducted. With a little over 500 students, nine out of the 24 tutorial classes were conducted with real-time quizzes; the other 15 tutorial classes served as control classes. The results showed that this active-learning technique did not impact final marks and the probability of failing the subject. It did, however, increase tutorial attendance by about 24%, which corresponded to about 1.6 additional hours compared to the control classes. The findings support the literature on the benefits of classroom response systems that increase student engagement, student interest, and enjoyment from smaller group discussions.
References
Arjomandi, A., Seufert, J., O’Brien, M., & Rossetto, L.C. (2021). An empirical study of business student engagement with active teaching strategies: A comparison of first year and senior students. American Business Review, 24(1), 67–89.
Balta, N., & Guvercin, S. (2016). Increasing undergraduate students’ exam performances in statistics course using software Socrative. The Turkish Journal of Educational Technology, 15, 314–321.
Becker, W. E., & Watts, M. (1995). Teaching tools: Teaching methods in undergraduate economics. Economic Inquiry, 33, 692–700.
Bloom, B. (1984). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Book 1: Cognitive domain (2nd ed.). Addison Wesley Publishing.
Bode, M., Drane, D., Kolikant, Y. B.-D., & Schuller, M. (2009). A clicker approach to teaching calculus. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 56, 253–256.
Burden, K., & Kearney, M. (2018). Designing an educator toolkit for the mobile learning age. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 10, 88–99.
Burnstein, R. A., & Lederman, L. M. (2003). Comparison of different commercial wireless keypad systems. The Physics Teacher, 41, 272–275. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1571261
Buzzard, C., Crittenden, V. L., Crittenden, W. F., & McCarty, P. (2011). The use of digital technologies in the classroom: A teaching and learning perspective. Journal of Marketing Education, 33, 131–139.
Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best practice tips. CBE- Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-12-0205
Carter, L. K., & Emerson, T. L. (2012). In-class vs. online experiments: is there a difference? The Journal of Economic Education, 43, 4–18.
Caviglia-Harris, J. (2016). Flipping the undergraduate economics classroom: using online videos to enhance teaching and learning. Southern Economic Journal, 83, 321–331.
Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69, 970–977
Dabbour, E. (2016). Quantifying the effects of using online student response systems in an engineering ethics course. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 142, 04015010, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000260
Dawson, P., van der Meer, J., Skalicky, J., & Cowley, K. (2014). On the effectiveness of supplemental instruction: A Systematic review of supplemental instruction and peer-assisted study sessions literature between 2001 and 2010. Review of Educational Research, 84, 609–639
Durham, Y., McKinnon, T., & Schulman, C. (2007). Classroom experiments: Not just fun and games. Economic Inquiry, 45, 162–178.
Dynan, R. (2014). Teaching the hierarchy of effects using live audience polling in the classroom. In Proceedings of the Marketing Management Association, 2014 Fall Educators Conference, San Antonio, TX (pp. 208–213).
Emerson, T. L. N., & Taylor, B. A. (2004). Comparing student achievement across experimental and lecture-oriented sections of a principles of microeconomics course. Southern Economic Journal, 70, 672–693.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. In B. Alberts (Ed.), Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111
Gordon, S. (2004). Understanding students’ experiences of statistics in a service course. Statistics Education Research Journal, 3(1), 40–59.
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74.
Hall, S. R., Waitz, I., Brodeur, D. R., Soderholm, D. H., & Nasr, R. (2002). Adoption of active learning in a lecture-based engineering class. In Leading a revolution in engineering and computer science education. Proceedings of the 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Boston, MA (pp. T2A9–T2A15).
Jensen, E. J., & Owen, A. L. (2003). Appealing to good students in Introductory Economics. Journal of Economic Education, 34(3), 299–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220480309595225
King, G., & Sen, M. (2013). How social science research can improve teaching. PS: Political Science and Politics, 46(3), 621–629.
Korobova, N., & Starobin, S. S. (2015). A comparative study of student engagement, satisfaction, and academic success among international and American students. Journal of International Students, 5(1), 72–85.
Lage, M. J., & Platt, G. (2000). The internet and the inverted classroom. Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 11.
Lage, M. J., Platt, G.J., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. The Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30–43.
Lasry, N. (2008). Clickers or flashcards: Is there really a difference? The Physics Teacher, 46, 242–244.
Lavidas, K., Barkatsas, T., Manesis, D., & Gialamas, V. (2020). A structural equation model investigating the impact of tertiary students’ attitudes toward statistics, perceived competence at mathematics, and engagement on statistics performance. Statistics Education Research Journal, 19(2), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.52041/serj.v19i2.108
Marburger, D. R. (2005). Comparing student performance using cooperative learning. International Review of Economics Education, 4(1), 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1477-3880(15)30138-9
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual series in educational innovation. Prentice Hall.
Mazur, E., King, G., & Lukoff, L. C. (2013). Learning Catalytics. Pearson. [software] https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/products-services-teaching/learning-engagement-tools/learning-catalytics.html
McLaughlin, J. E., Roth, M. T., Glatt, D. M., Gharkholonarehe, N., Davidson, C. A., Griffin, L. M., Esserman, D. A., & Mumper, R. J. (2014). The flipped classroom: A course redesign to foster learning and engagement in a health professions school. Academic Medicine, 89(2), 236–243.
Mercader, C., & Gairín, J. (2020). University teachers’ perception of barriers to the use of digital technologies: The importance of the academic discipline. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17, Article 4.
Mestre, J. P., Gerace, W. J., Dufresne, R. J., & Leonard, W. J. (1996). Promoting active learning in large classes using a classroom communication system. The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities. Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education, College Park, MD. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.53119
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.
Muir, S., Tirlea, L., Elphinstone, B., & Huynh, M. (2020). Promoting classroom engagement through the use of an online student response system: A mixed methods analysis. Journal of Statistics Education, 28(1), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2020.1730733
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), 458–473. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0307507032000122297
Noel, D., Stover, S., & McNutt, M. (2015). Student perceptions of engagement using mobile-based polling as an audience response system: Implications for leadership studies. Journal of Leadership Education, 14(3), 53–65. https://doi.org/1012806/V14/I3/R4
Paloyo, A. R., Rogan, S., & Siminski, P. (2016). The effect of supplemental instruction on academic performance: an encouragement design experiment. Economics of Education Review, 55, 57–69.
Parmelee, D., Michaelsen, L. K., Cook, S., & Hudes, P. D. (2012). Team-based learning: A practical guide. AMEE guide, No. 65. Medical Teacher, 34(5), 275–287. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.651179
Paschal, C. B. (2002). Formative assessment in physiology teaching using a wireless classroom communication system. Advances in Physiology Education, 26, 299–308.
Preis, M. W., Kellar, G. M., & Crosby, E. (2011). Student acceptance of clickers in large introductory business classes. American Journal of Business Education, 4(5), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.19030/ajbe.v4i5.4219
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
Reay, N. W., Bao, L., Pengfei, L., Warnakulasooriya, R., & Baugh, G. (2005). Toward an effective use of voting machines in physics lectures. American Journal of Physics, 73, 554–558.
Roschelle, J., Penuel, W. R., & Abrahamson, A. L. (2004). Classroom response and communications systems: Research review and theory. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Salemi, M. K. (2009). Clickenomics: Using a classroom response system to increase student engagement in a large-enrollment principles of economics course. Journal of Economic Education, 40, 385–404.
Salzer, R. (2018). Smartphones as audience response systems for lectures and seminars. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 410, 1609–1613.
Stowell, J. R. (2015). Use of clickers vs. mobile devices for classroom polling. Computers and Education, 82, 329–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.008
Sun, J. C., Martinez, B., & Seli, H. (2014). Just-in-time or plenty-of-time teaching? Different electronic feedback devices and their effect on student engagement. Education Technology and Society, 17, 234–244.
Sun, J. C. (2014). Influence of polling technologies on student engagement: An analysis of student motivation, academic performance, and brainwave data. Computers and Education, 72, 80–89.
Tait, K. (2009). Understanding tertiary student learning: Are they independent thinkers or simply consumers and reactors? International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(10), 97–107.
Thomas, L., & Heath, J. (2014). Institutional wide implementation of key advice for socially inclusive teaching in higher education: A practice report. International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 5(1), 125–133. https://doi.org/10.5204/intjfyhe.v5i1.206
Yamarik, S. (2007). Does cooperative learning improve student learning outcomes? The Journal of Economic Education, 38(3), 259–277. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JECE.38.3.259-277
