Yıl 2018, Cilt 9, Sayı 2, Sayfalar 171 - 185 2018-04-16

Clickers in EFL Classrooms: Evidence from Two Different Uses

Unal Cakiroglu [1] , Fath Erdogdu [2] , Seyfullah Gokoglu [3]

62 77

Clickers as electronic response systems allow students to respond instantly to questions. The aim of this study is to compare the effects of using clickers on student participation during different periods of EFL courses. The intervention was implemented in question–response sessions of an EFL course at a secondary school. A quasi-experimental design was used in which twenty participants were assigned to two groups, Group A (n = 10) and Group B (n = 10). The implementation process is divided into three periods. In the preparation period, both of the groups did not use clickers, in the first period while the Group A used clickers, Group B continued without using clickers in the lessons. Then in the second period; in contrary, Group A and Group B students changed the roles in using the clickers; that is Group B started with clickers in the second period and Group A followed the lesson without clickers. When the clickers used the students’ participation rates were determined by clicker system records and an observation form is used when non-clickers strategies were used. As a result, even if they used clickers in different time periods both Groups A and B increased their participation rates while using clickers. Moreover, when the students in Group A were non-clickers, their correct answer rates were decreased. In contrast, when the students in Group B were non-clickers, their correct answer rates were increased. Results showed that even after students ceased to use clickers, positive effects on participation continued; however, the quality of the students’ answers declined. Along with the study findings, suggestions for clickers use in various periods of the courses are included.

Participation, Clickers, Traditional response strategies, Language teaching
  • Agbatogun, A. O. (2012). Enhancing second language skills development using student response system. In European Conference on e-Learning (p. 1). Academic Conferences International Limited.
  • Addison, S., Wright, A., & Milner, R. (2009). Using clickers to improve student engagement and performance in an introductory biochemistry class. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 37(2), 84-91.
  • Bartsch, R. A. & Murphy, W. (2011). Examining the effects of an electronic classroom response system on student engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(1), 25-33.
  • 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.
  • Cardoso, W. (2011). Learning a foreign language with a learner response system: The students' perspective. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(5), 393-417.
  • Carnaghan, C., Edmonds, T. P., Lechner, T. A., & Olds, P. R. (2011). Using student response systems in the accounting classroom: Strengths, strategies and limitations. Journal of Accounting Education, 29(4), 265-283.
  • Carnaghan, C. & Webb, A. (2007). Investigating the effects of group response systems on student satisfaction, learning, and engagement in accounting education. Issues in Accounting Education, 22(3), 391-409.
  • Castillo-Manzano, J. I, Castro-Nuño, M., Díaz, M. T. S. & Yñiguez, R. (2015). Does pressing a button make it easier to pass an exam? Evaluating the effectiveness of interactive technologies in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4), 710-720
  • Chui, L., Martin, K. & Pike, B. (2013). A quasi-experimental assessment of interactive student response systems on student confidence, effort, and course performance. Journal of Accounting Education, 31(1), 17-30.
  • Crews, T. B., Ducate, L., Rathel, J. M., Heid, K., & Bishoff, S. T. (2011). Clickers in the classroom: Transforming students into active learners. ECAR Research Bulletin, 9, 502.
  • Dancer, D. & Kamvounias, P. (2005). Student involvement in assessment: A project designed to assess class participation fairly and reliably. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 445–454.
  • Egelandsdal, K., & Krumsvik, R. J. (2017). Clickers and formative feedback at university lectures. Education and Information Technologies, 22(1), 55-74.
  • Edmonds, C. T. & Edmonds, T. P. (2010). An examination of the links between SRS technology and an active learning environment in a managerial accounting course. Advances in Accounting Education: Teaching and Curriculum Innovations, 11, 81–100.
  • Eisenbach, R., Golich, V. & Curry, R. (1998). Classroom assessment across the disciplines. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1998(75), 59–66.
  • Fies, C., & Marshall, J. (2008). The C3 framework: evaluating classroom response system interactions in university classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(5), 483-499.
  • Heaslip, G., Donova, P. & Cullen, J. P. (2014). Student response systems and learner engagement in large classes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(1), 11-24.
  • Hoekstra, A. (2008). Vibrant student voices: Exploring effects of the use of clickers in large college courses. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(4), 329–341.
  • Johns, K. (2015). Engaging and assessing students with technology: a review of kahoot Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 81(4), 89.
  • Kay, R. H. & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers and Education, 53(3), 819–827.
  • Kenright, K. (2009). Clickers in the classroom. TechTrends, 53(1), 74–77.
  • Keough, S. M. (2012). Clickers in the classroom: A review and a replication. Journal of Management Education, 36(6), 822–847.
  • Lantz, M. E. (2010). The use of ‘clickers’ in the classroom: Teaching innovation or merely an amusing novelty?. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 556-561.
  • Lasry, N. (2008). Clickers or flashcards: Is there really a difference?. The Physics Teacher, 46(4), 242-244.
  • Lee, Chong Min & Oh, Eunjou. (2014). Exploring the effects of a learner response system on EFL reading. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 17(2), 130-151
  • Liu, C., Chen, S., Chi, C., Chien, K-P., Liu, Y., & Chou, T.-L. (2016). The effects of clickers with different teaching strategies. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 54(6), 1-26
  • MacGeorge, E. L., Homan, S. R., Dunning, J. B. Jr, Elmore, D., Bodie, G. D., Evans, E., Khichadia, S., Lichti, S.M., Feng, B., & Geddes, B.(2008). Student evaluation of audience response technology in large lecture class. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 125–145.
  • Marlow, D. W. (2010). Engaging syntax: Using a personal response system to encourage grammatical thought. American Speech, 85(2), 225-237.
  • Martyn, M. (2007). Clickers in the classroom: An active learning approach. Educause Quarterly, 30(2), 71.
  • Mayer, R. E., Stull, A., DeLeeuw, K., Almeroth, K., Bimber, B., Chun, D., Bulger, M., Campbell, J., Knight, A., & Zhang, H. (2009). Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 51–57.
  • Morling, B., McAuliffe, M., Cohen, L. & DiLorenzo, T. M. (2008). Efficacy of personal response systems (“clickers”) in large, introductory psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 35(1), 45-50.
  • Mula, J. M. & Kavanagh, M. (2009). Click go the students, click–click–click: The efficacy of a student response system for engaging students to improve feedback and performance. e-Journal of Business Education & Scholarship of Teaching, 3(1), 1–17.
  • Mun, W. K., Hew, K. F. & Cheung, W. S. (2009). The impact of the use of response pad system on the learning of secondary school physics concepts: A Singapore quasi-experiment study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(5), 848–860.
  • Morse,J., Ruggieri, M., & Whelan-Berry, K. (2010). Clicking our way to class discussion. American Journal of Business Education, 3(3), 99-108.
  • Nelson, M. L., & Hauck, R. V. (2008). Clicking to learn: A case study of embedding radio-frequency based Response Systems in an introductory management information systems course. Journal of Information Systems Education, 19(1), 55-64.
  • Phelps, R. P. (2012). The effect of testing on student achievement, 1910–2012. International Journal of Testing, 12(1), 21–43.
  • Premuroso, R., Tong, L., & Beed, T. (2011). Does using Response Systems in the classroom matter to student performance and satisfaction when taking the introductory financial accounting course? Issues in Accounting Education, 26(4), 701-723.
  • Preszler, R.W., Dawe, A., Shuster, C.B. & Shuster, M. (2007). Assessment of the effects of student response systems on student learning and attitudes over a broad range of biology course. CBE—Life Sciences Education. 6(1), 29-41.
  • Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2006). Research leading to a predictive model of dropout and completion among students with mild disabilities and the role of student engagement. Remedial and Special Education, 27(5), 276-292.
  • Robinson, S. (2006). Using games and clickers to encourage students to study and participate. Proceedings of the Academy of Educational Leadership, 11(2), 25–29.
  • Rocca, K. A. (2010). Student participation in the college classroom: An extended multidisciplinary literature review. Communication Education, 59(2), 185–213.
  • Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Educational Technology Research Past and Present: Balancing: Rigor and Relevance to Impact School Learning. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(1).
  • Schell, J., Lukoff, B., & Mazur, E. (2013). Catalyzing learner engagement using cutting-edge classroom response systems in higher education. Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher Education, 6(1), 233-261.
  • Scott, V. (2014). Clicking in the Classroom: Using a student response system in an elementary classroom. New Horizons for Learning, 11(1).
  • Stowell, J. R., & Nelson, J. M. (2007). Benefits of electronic audience response systems on student participation, learning, and emotion. Teaching of psychology, 34(4), 253-258.
  • Stuart, S. A. J., Brown, M. I. & Draper, S. W. (2004). Using an electronic voting system in logic lectures: One practitioner’s application. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(2), 95–102.
  • Snyder, K. D. (2003). Ropes, poles, and space. Active Learning in Higher Education, 4(2), 159-167.
  • Sun, J. (2014). Influence of polling technologies on student engagement: An analysis of student motivation, academic performance, and brainwave data. Computers & Education, 72(2), 80-89.
  • Trees, A. R. & Jackson, M. H. (2007). The learning environment in clicker classrooms: student processes of learning and involvement in large university-level courses using student response systems. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(1), 21–40.
  • Wijtmans, M., van Rens, L., & van Muijlwijk-Koezen, J. E. (2014). Activating students’ interest and participation in lectures and practical courses using their electronic devices. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(11), 1830-1837.
  • Yourstone, S. A., Kraye, H. S. & Albaum, G. (2008). Classroom questioning with immediate electronic response: Do clickers improve learning? Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 6(1), 75–88.
  • Yu, Z. (2015). Indicators of satisfaction in clickers-aided EFL class. Frontiers in psychology, 6. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00587.
Birincil Dil en
Konular
Dergi Bölümü Makaleler
Yazarlar

Yazar: Unal Cakiroglu
Ülke: Turkey


Yazar: Fath Erdogdu
Ülke: Turkey


Yazar: Seyfullah Gokoglu
Ülke: Turkey


Bibtex @araştırma makalesi { cet414820, journal = {Contemporary Educational Technology}, issn = {}, eissn = {1309-517X}, address = {Ali ŞİMŞEK}, year = {2018}, volume = {9}, pages = {171 - 185}, doi = {10.30935/cet.414820}, title = {Clickers in EFL Classrooms: Evidence from Two Different Uses}, key = {cite}, author = {Cakiroglu, Unal and Gokoglu, Seyfullah and Erdogdu, Fath} }
APA Cakiroglu, U , Erdogdu, F , Gokoglu, S . (2018). Clickers in EFL Classrooms: Evidence from Two Different Uses. Contemporary Educational Technology, 9 (2), 171-185. DOI: 10.30935/cet.414820
MLA Cakiroglu, U , Erdogdu, F , Gokoglu, S . "Clickers in EFL Classrooms: Evidence from Two Different Uses". Contemporary Educational Technology 9 (2018): 171-185 <http://dergipark.gov.tr/cet/issue/36544/414820>
Chicago Cakiroglu, U , Erdogdu, F , Gokoglu, S . "Clickers in EFL Classrooms: Evidence from Two Different Uses". Contemporary Educational Technology 9 (2018): 171-185
RIS TY - JOUR T1 - Clickers in EFL Classrooms: Evidence from Two Different Uses AU - Unal Cakiroglu , Fath Erdogdu , Seyfullah Gokoglu Y1 - 2018 PY - 2018 N1 - doi: 10.30935/cet.414820 DO - 10.30935/cet.414820 T2 - Contemporary Educational Technology JF - Journal JO - JOR SP - 171 EP - 185 VL - 9 IS - 2 SN - -1309-517X M3 - doi: 10.30935/cet.414820 UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.30935/cet.414820 Y2 - 2018 ER -
EndNote %0 Contemporary Educational Technology Clickers in EFL Classrooms: Evidence from Two Different Uses %A Unal Cakiroglu , Fath Erdogdu , Seyfullah Gokoglu %T Clickers in EFL Classrooms: Evidence from Two Different Uses %D 2018 %J Contemporary Educational Technology %P -1309-517X %V 9 %N 2 %R doi: 10.30935/cet.414820 %U 10.30935/cet.414820
ISNAD Cakiroglu, Unal , Erdogdu, Fath , Gokoglu, Seyfullah . "Clickers in EFL Classrooms: Evidence from Two Different Uses". Contemporary Educational Technology 9 / 2 (Nisan 2018): 171-185. http://dx.doi.org/10.30935/cet.414820