Audience response systems can facilitate communal course feedback
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11157/fohpe.v16i3.88Keywords:
audience response systems, course feedback, clinical sciences, educationAbstract
Background: At Queensland University of Technology (QUT), the Bachelor of Radiation Therapy course evaluation has previously suffered from low online survey participation rates. A communal instantaneous feedback event using an audience response system (ARS) was evaluated as a potential solution to this problem. The aims of the project were to determine the extent to which this feedback event could be facilitated by ARS technology and to evaluate the impact the technology made on student satisfaction and engagement.
Methods: Students were invited to a timetabled session to provide feedback on individual study units and the course overall. They provided quantitative Likert-style responses to prompts for each unit and the course using an ARS as well as anonymous typed qualitative comments. Data collection was performed live so students were able to view collective class responses. This prompted further discussion and enabled a prospective action plan to be developed. To inform future ARS use, students were asked for their opinions on the feedback method.
Results: Despite technological difficulties, student evaluation indicated that all responders enjoyed the session and the opportunity to view the combined responses. All students felt that useful feedback was generated and that this method should be used in the future. The student attendance and response rates were high, and it was clear that the session had led to the development of some insightful qualitative feedback comments.
Conclusions: An ARS contributed well to the collection of course feedback in a communal and interactive environment. Students found it enjoyable to use, and it helped to stimulate useful qualitative comments.
References
Bardo, J. W., & Yeager, S. J. (1982). Consistency of response style across types of response formats. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 55, 307‒310. doi:10.2466/ pms.1982.55.1.307
Bode, M., Drane, D., Kolikant, Y., & Schuller, M. (2009). A clicker approach to teaching calculus. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 56(2), 253‒256.
Bruff, D. (2009). Teaching with classroom response systems: Creating active learning environments. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass Publishers.
Cain, J., Black, E. P., & Rohr, J. (2009). An audience response system strategy to improve student motivation, attention, and feedback. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 73(2), 1‒7.
Chaudhry, M. A. (2011). Assessment of microbiology students’ progress with an audience response system. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 12(2), 200‒201. doi:10.1128/jmbe.v12i2.306
Clauson, K. A., Alkhateeb, F. M., & Singh-Franco, D. (2012). Concurrent use of an audience response system at a multi-campus college of pharmacy. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 76(1), Article 6.
Friborg, O., Martinussen, M., & Rosenvinge, J. H. (2006). Likert-based vs. semantic differential-based scorings of positive psychological constructs: A psychometric comparison of two versions of a scale measuring resilience. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(5), 873–884. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.08.015
Guse, D. M., & Zobitz, P. M. (2011). Validation of the audience response system. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(6), 985‒991. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 8535.2101.01120.x
Herreid, S. F. (2006). Clicker cases: Introducing case study teaching into large classrooms. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(2), 43‒47.
Jensen, J. V., Ostengaard, D., & Faxholt, A. K. (2011). Good experience with an audience response system used in medical education. Danish Medical Bulletin, 58(11), A4333.
Jones, C. (2010). A new generation of learners? The net generation and digital natives. Learning, Media and Technology, 35(4), 403‒418.
doi:10.1080/17439884.2010.531278
Karaman, S. (2011). Effects of audience response systems on student achievement and long-term retention. Social Behaviour and Personality, 39(10), 1431‒1440. doi:10.2224/sbp/2011.39.10.1431
Kazley, A. S., & Annan-Coultas, D. (2012). Use of an audience response system to teach problem-solving in health administration. The Journal of Health Administration Education, 29(3), 219‒227.
Kennedy, G., Dalgarno, B., Bennett, S., Gray, K., Waycott, J., Judd, T., . . . Chang, R. (2009). Educating the next generation: A handbook of findings for practice and policy. Melbourne, Australia: The University of Melbourne. Retrieved from http://netgen. unimelb.edu.au/outcomes/handbook.html
Keogh, P., & Wang, Z. (2010). Clickers in instruction: One campus, multiple perspectives. Library Hi Tech, 28(1), 8‒21. doi:10.1108/07378831011026661
Laxman, K. (2011). A study on the adoption of clickers in higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(8), 1291‒1303. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet27/laxman.html
Lee, S. T., & Dapremont, J. A. (2012). Engaging nursing students through integration of the audience response system. Nursing Education Perspectives, 33(1), 55‒57.
Liu, F. C., Gettig, J. P., & Fjortoft, N. (2010). Impact of a student response system on short- and long-term learning in a drug literature evaluation course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 74(1), 1‒5.
Lymm, J. S., & Mostyn, A. (2010). Audience response technology: Engaging and empowering non-medical prescribing students in pharmacology learning. BMC Medical Education, 10, 73. doi:10.1186/1472-6920-10-73
Mastoridis, S., & Kladidis, S. (2010). Coming soon to a lecture theatre near you: The clicker. Clinical Teaching, 7(2), 97‒101. doi:10.1111/j.1743-498X.2010.00355.x
Micheletto, M. J. (2011). Using audience response systems to encourage student engagement and reflection on ethical orientation and behavior. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 4(10), 9‒17.
Mollborn, S., & Hoekstra, A. (2010). A meeting of minds: Using clickers for critical thinking and discussion in large sociology classes. Teaching Sociology, 38(1), 18‒27. doi:10.1177/0092055X09353890
Morse, J., Ruggieri, M., & Whelan-Berry, K. (2010). Clicking our way to class discussion. American Journal of Business Education, 3(3), 99‒108.
Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 263–280. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420150303
Porter, A. G., & Tousman, S. (2010). Evaluating the effect of interactive audience response systems on the perceived learning experience of nursing students. Journal of Nursing Education, 49(9), 523‒527. doi:10.3928/01484834-20100524-10
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.
Skiba, D., & Barton, A. (2006). Adapting your teaching to accommodate the next generation of learners. Journal of Issues in Nursing, 11(2), Manuscript 4. doi:10.3912/OJIN.Vol11No02Man04
Stowell, J. R., & Nelson, J. M. (2006). Benefits of electronic audience response systems on student participation, learning, and emotion. Teaching of Psychology, 34(4), 253‒258. doi:10.1080/00986280701700391
Thalluri, J., & Shepherd, P. (2010). Enhancing student learning experiences using an audience response system. Focus on Health Professional Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 12(1), 90‒93.
Turban, J. W. (2011). Students prefer audience response systems for lecture evaluation. International Journal of Educational Technology, 6(4), 52‒55. doi:10.3991/ijet.v6i4.1742
Weerts, S., Miller, D., & Altice, A. (2009). Clicker technology promotes interactivity in an undergraduate nutrition course. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 41(3), 227‒228. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2008.08.006
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
On acceptance for publication in FoHPE the copyright of the manuscript is signed over to ANZAHPE, the publisher of FoHPE.
