Date Presented 4/16/2015
The findings from this study highlight how student preparation may be different for class if they are expected to use clickers during class. Students using clickers rated them as having agreeable importance to their learning in a clinic-based occupational therapy course.
SIGNIFICANCE: Little is known about the influence of clicker technology on occupational therapy student learning and participation. In this research, I utilized a two-group, pretest–posttest control group design to explore the differences in learning and class participation of using clicker technology in a clinical-based occupational therapy course.
INNOVATION: Clicker technology has been changing how students and their instructor interact within the classroom by providing new opportunities to enhance in-class participation and learning in traditional, lecture hall classroom environments (Blasco-Arcas, Buil, Hernández-Ortega, & Sese, 2013). However, less is known about the influence of clicker technology on occupational therapy student learning and participation in a clinical, lab-based classroom environment.
APPROACH: Research questions included the following: (1) Will there be a significant difference in student perceived learning for occupational therapy students using clicker technology compared to occupational therapy students not using clicker technology? (2) Will there be a significant difference in student perceived participation for occupational therapy students using clicker technology compared to occupational therapy students not using clicker technology? (3) Will occupational therapy students rate the use of clicker technology as important to their learning at the end of the semester?
BACKGROUND: Clicker technology has been utilized by educators to improve learning and participation of their students. Student–teacher interaction is ranked highly among the factors influencing learning performance (Bullock et al., 2002; Hake, 1998). Clickers are useful to use in large lecture hall types of setting to allow for class participation for a large number of students at once (Skiba, 2006). Students agree that using clickers helped them to understand and apply the concepts being discussed in a lecture class. In 2008 and 2009, 96% and 87% of students, respectively, agreed that using the clickers helped them to do better on exams and quizzes (Byrd & Cvek, n.d.).
METHOD: A nonrandomized pretest–posttest control group design was used. Pretest and posttest ordinal data were gathered for both student groups using the Student Assessment of Learning Goals (SALG) and the Self-Consciousness Scale—Revised (SCS–R). The experimental group answered questions on the Perceived Importance of Clicker Technology (PICT) at posttest. Radio frequency Turning Point Technology clickers were used in the classroom/laboratory during class time for the experimental group. The sample included 32 occupational therapy students enrolled in a clinic-based course. The course was divided into two sections: One section was assigned as the control group (not to use clickers), and the other section was assigned as the experimental group (to use the clickers).
The SALG comprises 32 questions on understanding (6 questions), participation (5 questions), proficiency (8 questions), feelings about learning (4 questions), willingness to seek help (6 questions), and habits (3 questions) to assess student learning. SCS–R is a 23-item questionnaire developed for the general public, which measures individual private self-consciousness, public self-consciousness, and social anxiety. The PICT was created using SALG questions to ask about how clickers have enhanced students’ understanding, participation, proficiency, feelings about learning, willingness to seek help, and habits of the content and skills learned during the semester.
Data were analyzed using PASW Statistics 18. All pretest and posttest questionnaires were scored twice for accuracy. To answer the posed research questions, I used independent-samples t tests to distinguish differences in outcome scores at baseline as well as to distinguish differences in outcome scores from posttest to pretest (change scores).
RESULTS: The following outcome variables were measured: overall learning gains; learning gains in understanding, participation, and proficiency; feelings toward learning, willingness to seek help, and habits; overall, private, and public self-consciousness; social anxiety; and perceived importance of clicker technology. A statistically significant difference was found between control group and experimental group at baseline for private self-consciousness (p = .034). A marginally statistically significant difference was found between control group and experimental group in change scores for learning gains in habits (p = .085). Students rated the overall importance of clicker technology at a mean score of 28.41. A mean score of 31 suggests average agreement (1 = agree) on all items; conversely, a mean score of −31 suggests average disagreement (−1 = disagree).
CONCLUSION: Although statistical significance (p ≤ .05) was not obtained for outcome variables between control and experimental groups, there was a marginal significant difference in study habits. Perhaps students using the clickers knew that they would be tested on their knowledge from assigned readings, and they prepared for class differently. The experimental group also rated clicker technology as having agreeable importance to their learning. Qualitative inquiry of students may be useful. Utilization of clickers was reliable due to the clicker’s radio frequency. Students using clickers typically displayed enthusiasm during in-class polling. Limitations include limited sample size, lack of randomization of groups, and not all of the class sessions could use clickers because some classes were outside of the classroom.
Blasco-Arcas, L., Buil, I., Hernández-Ortega, B., & Sese, F. J. (2013). Using clickers in class: The role of interactivity, active collaborative learning and engagement in learning performance. Computers & Education, 62, 102–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.019
Bullock, D. W., LaBella, V. P., Clingan, T., Ding, Z., Stewart, G., & Thibado, P. M. (2002). Enhancing the student–instructor interaction frequency. The Physics Teacher, 40, 535–541. http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.1534821
Byrd, L., & Cvek, M. E. (n.d.). Clickers in the classroom: Students think this technology is ‘awesome.’ Retrieved from http://occupational-therapy.advanceweb.com/Student-and-New-Grad-Center/Student-Top-Story/Clickers-in-the-Classroom.aspx
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.18809
Skiba, D. J. (2006). Got large lecture hall classes? Use clickers. Nursing Education Perspectives, 27, 278–280.
