The effect of using personal response system on 6th grade students' achievement and attitudes towards science and technology

Year 2022, , 353 - 366, 31.05.2022

Şehnaz Baltacı

https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.1095715

Abstract

This study examines the effect of using a personal response system (PRS) on students' academic performance and attitude towards science and technology. The study is conducted during the spring semester of the 2018-2019 academic year in a secondary school in northwestern Turkey. The study is designed as a pre-test and post-test control group design, with 21 in the control group and 23 in the experimental group. The Science Achievement Scale and the PRS Attitude Scale were administered to 92 students in the pilot study during the scale development process. The study is conducted on one unit in the course syllabus called "The World of living things and indispensable part of our lives: electricity." The researcher worked with the group two hours a week for six weeks. Every week after the lecture, the class teacher made their students solve multiple-choice questions with PRS in the experimental group and paper-based in the control group. The quantitative section of this study included three tools: the Achievement Test, the Attitude Toward Science Scale, and the Attitude Toward PRS Scale. Although results showed no difference in achievement between pre-test and post-test scores in both groups, the experimental group showed a promising difference in their attitudes toward science. In addition, boys were more positive about PRS than girls based on the PRS attitude scale. The qualitative component involved focus group discussion with a random sample of six surveyed students and an interview with the class teacher. Students provided positive feedback regarding the use of PRS. They appreciated peer discussions that instructors facilitated while using PRS. The teacher was likewise enthusiastic about implementing PRS in his class.

Keywords

Personal response system, achievement, clicker, science attitude, PRS

References

• Açıkgöz, K. Ü. (2011). Aktif öğrenme. (12. Baskı), Biliş Yayınları, İzmir.
• Akkuş, İ., Özhan, U., & Çakır, H. (2021). Öğrenci yanıtlama sistemlerinin kullanımı hakkında öğrenci görüşleri: Kahoot! örneği. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 25, 243-262. doi:10.14689/enad.25.10
• Anthis, K. (2011). Is it the clicker, or is it the question? untangling the effects of student response system use. Teaching of Psychology, 38(3), 189-193.
• Ares, A. M. Bernal, J. Nozal, M. J. Sánchez, F. J., & Bernal, J. (2018, June). Results of the use of Kahoot! gamification tool in a course of Chemistry. Paper presented at the 4. International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd'18), Valencia, Spain. http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/HEAd18.2018.8179
• Ayebi-Arthur, K. & Owusu, K.A. (2020). Using audience response system in a third world country: The good, bad and ugly. E-learning and Digital Media. 17(5), 408-424. DOI: 10.1177/2042753020935551
• Baltaci-Goktalay, S. (2016). How Personal Response Systems Promote Active Learning in Science Education. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age, 1(1), 47-54.
• Beatty, I.D. & Gerace, W.J. (2009). Technology-enhanced formative assessment: a research-based pedagogy for teaching science with classroom response technology. J Sci Educ Technol, 18(2), 146–162.
• Berry, J. (2009). Technology support in nursing education: Clickers in the classroom. Nursing Education Research, 30(5), 295–298.
• Bingen, H. M., Tveit, B., Krumsvik, R. J., & Steindal, S. A. (2019). Nursing students' experiences with the use of a student response system when learning physiology. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 14(1–2), 37–53.
• Chaiyo, Y., & Nokham, R. (2017). The effect of Kahoot, Quizizz and Google Forms on the student's perception in the classrooms response system. Paper presented at the Digital Arts, Media and Technology (ICDAMT), International Conference. Chiang Mai, Thailand, 178-182. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDAMT.2017.7904957
• Chan, E., & Knight, L. (2010). Clicking with your audience. Communications in Information Literacy, 4(2), 192-201.
• Chen, T., & Lan, Y. (2013). Using a personal response system as an in-class assessment tool in the teaching of basic college chemistry. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(1), 32-40.
• Clark, R., & Feldon, D. (2014). Ten Common but Questionable Principles of Multimedia Learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology, pp. 151-173). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139547369.009
• Çubukçu, Z. (2012). Teachers' evaluation of student-centered learning environments. Education, 133(1), 49-66.
• DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale Development: Theory and Applications (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Dolezal, D. Posekany, A. Motschnig, R., & Pucher, R. (2018). Effects of introducing a game based student response system into a flipped, person-centered classroom on object-oriented design. Paper presented at the Advances in Web-Based Learning – ICWL 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96565-9_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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.13652729.2004.00074.x.
• Fidan M., Debbağ, M., & Çukurbaşı B. (2014). Teacher perceptions about the electronic voting system used in classroom interaction. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 9(2), 91-100.
• Gainor, M., Bline, D., & Zheng, X. (2014). Teaching internal control through active learning. Journal of Accounting Education, 32(2), 200–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccedu.2014.03.003
• Gauci, S. A., Dantas, A. M., Williams, D. A., & Kemm, R. E. (2009). Promoting student-centered active learning in lectures with a personal response system. Advances in Physiology Education, 33(1), 60-71. doi: 10.1152/advan.00109.2007
• Gök, T.(2011). An evaluation of student response systems from the viewpoint of instructors and students. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal Of Educational Technology,10(4), 67-83.
• Graeff, E. C., Vail, M., Maldonado, A., Lund, M., Galante, S., & Tataronis, G. (2011). Click it: assessment of classroom response systems in physician assistant education. Journal of Allied Health Spring, 40(1), e1-e5.
• Hamouda,A.M.S., &Tarlochan, F. (2015). Engaging engineering students in active learning and critical thinking through class debates. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 990–995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.379
• Heaslip, G., Donovan, P., & Cullen, J. G. (2014). Student response systems and learner engagement in large classes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(1), 11–24
• Hunsu, N.J., Adesope, O., & Bayly, D.J. (2016). A metaanalysis of the effects of audience response systems (clicker-based technologies) on cognition and affect. Computers and Education, 94, 102-119.
• Kim, M. & Dopico, E. (2014).Science education through informal education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1–7.
• Liu, C., Sands-Meyer, S., & Audran, J. (2019). The effectiveness of the student response system (SRS) in English grammar learning in a flipped English as a foreign language (EFL) class. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(8), 1178–1191.
• Ma, S., Steger, D.G., Doolittle, P.E., & Stewart, A.C. (2018). Improved Academic Performance and Student Perceptions of Learning Through Use of a Cell Phone-Based Personal Response System. Journal of Food Science Education, 27-32. doi: 10.1111/1541-4329.12131
• Mayer, R. E., Stull, A., DeLeeuw, K., Almeroth, K., Bimber, B., Chun, D., & Zhang, H. (2009). Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classe.s Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 51–57. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.04.002.
• Miles, M., B.,& Huberman, A., M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks,Ca: Sage.
• 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
• Özüdoğru, M. (2020). The Use of a Student Response System in Teacher Training Classrooms and Its Effect on Classroom Environment. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 13(1), 29-42, https://doi.org/10.24193/adn.13.1.4
• 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.
• Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
• Ranieri, M., Raffaghelli, J.E., & Bruni, I. (2021). Game-based student response system: Revisiting its potentials and criticalities in large-size classes. Active Learning in Higher Education. 22(2):129-142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787418812667
• Shyr, W.J., Hsieh, Y.M., & Chen, C.H. (2021). The Effects of Peer-Based Instant Response System to Promote Learning Performance, Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Efficacy. Sustainability, 13, 4320. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084320
• Taşkın, C. & Bahadır, T.K. (2021). Development of Candidate Teachers' Problem Solving Ability With the Audience Response System. Journal of Education and Learning, 10(2), 91-98. RL: https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v10n2p91.
• Trees, AR & Jackson, M.H. (2007). The learning environment in clicker classrooms: Student processes of learning and involvement in large university courses using student response systems. Learning, Media and Technology. 32, 21–40.
• Qureshi, M.A., Khaskheli, A., Qureshi, J.A., Raza, S.A., & Yousufi, S.Q (2021): Factors affecting students' learning performance through collaborative learning and engagement, Interactive Learning Environments, 29(1), 1-21. DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2021.1884886
• Wang, A. I. & Lieberoth, A. (2016, October). The effect of points and audio on concentration, engagement, enjoyment, learning, motivation, and classroom dynamics using Kahoot! Reading: Academic Conferences International Limited, 738-746. Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-effect-of-points-and-audio-on-concentration-%2C-%2CWang-Lieberoth/1bcfb36bc724f12af7fc14824b2519adb819a27b
• Wang, W., Ran, S., Huang, L., & Swigart, V. (2019). Student perceptions of classic and game-based online student response systems. Nurse Educator, 44(4), E6–E9.
• Wichadee, S., & Pattanapichet, F. (2018). Enhancement of performance and motivation through application of digital games in an English language class. Teaching English with Technology, 18(1), 77-92.
• Wong, S.L. & Yau, S.Y. (2020). Impact of Student Response System on Enhancing Active Learning. In K. C. Li et al. (eds.), Innovating Education in Technology-Supported Environments, Education Innovation Series, (pp. 199-214).