Student Response System and Learning: Perceptions of the Student

PURPOSE: Student response systems (SRSs) are a technology used in classrooms that allows students to answer questions from their seat via a wireless, handheld remote (Gok, 2011). As this new technology is introduced into the classroom, it is important to consider students’ perceptions of SRS use to support learning. Health science curricula require application of knowledge and reasoning; therefore, it is necessary to explore whether students perceive SRS use as supportive of learning. This study explored the questions, What are students’ perceptions of using an SRS during course instruction? and What are students’ perceptions of the SRS in relationship to content understanding?

Students generally report positive experiences with SRS use in the classroom as they feel that the SRS helps them pay attention, participate in discussion with peers and the instructor, and receive feedback on their understanding of class materials (De Gagne, 2011; Oakes & DeMaio, 2013). Gok (2011) found similar responses, adding that students enjoy the immediate feedback and seeing questions that could potentially be on an exam. In addition, SRS use was found to be beneficial for students who identified as shy and did not typically speak during class (Oakes & DeMaio, 2013). In regard to negative feedback, students reported that they experienced frustration when instructors were unable to manage the technology and when questions provided an overload of knowledge and that SRSs have the potential to become confusing (Gok, 2011). Students also believed the SRS devices were too expensive (FitzPatrick, Finn, & Campisi, 2011).

METHOD: For this study, the integration of the SRS occurred in two courses. Data collection used survey research methods. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Thirty-five students provided informed consent. Quantitative results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed using cross-sectional and categorical indexing (Mason, 2002). Triangulation occurred by the emergence of the same categories from both the open-ended probes and the descriptive statistics garnered from the survey.

RESULTS: A majority of participants responded that using the SRS was easy. Over half of the respondents found that the SRS was useful in all categories regarding understanding of class material. The overall response was positive regarding SRS use for clinical reasoning in the classroom. The qualitative questions yielded five categories. Do I Know That? entails the SRS’s ability to check for understanding of course content and provide an opportunity for students to check their knowledge of course concepts being taught in the class. I Knew It or I Blew It! represents the value and recognition of immediate feedback on the correct answer, which was helpful in understanding why they did not get the question right or to reinforce that they were knowledgeable about the subject material.

Test Time! entails the usefulness of the SRS as it can give a preview of what to expect when preparing for quizzes and exams. This is consistent with the data from the Likert scale, in which almost 86% of the students reported that the SRS helped improve performance on exams and quizzes. Technology: A Love/Hate Relationship was the primary negative to SRS use in the classroom because of frustration with technological difficulties, either instructor difficulty or individual SRS malfunction. I Got This! represents the SRS’s support for reinforcing class content, allowing class materials to be presented in a new way to reinforce learning.

Overall, there was a positive response to the use of the SRS. All students recommended continued use for various reasons. The primary benefit reported related to providing immediate feedback, the opportunity to manipulate and revisit the content, and the ability to check for understanding within a class session. Students also reported that clickers supported studying and exam preparation by offering insights into exam questions or providing a focus during studying. The technological difficulties were the only negative reported.

CONCLUSION: Instructors have a responsibility to engage students in a learning process that will result in mastery of the material as demonstrated, in part, by successful participation in fieldwork education and successful outcomes on the certification exam. Today’s student is a product of a technology-infused world. Using current technology may help support student engagement and ultimately learning by using pedagogical methods perceived by the learner as current and familiar.

References

De Gagne, J. (2011). The impact of clickers in nursing education: A review of literature. Nurse Education Today, 31, e34–e40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2010.12.007

FitzPatrick, K., Finn, K., & Campisi, J. (2011). Effect of personal response systems on student perception and academic performance in courses in a health sciences curriculum. Advances in Physiology Education, 35, 208–289. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00036.2011

Gok, T. (2011). An evaluation of student response systems from the viewpoint of instructors and students. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(4), 67–83.

Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Oakes, C., & DeMaio, D. (2013). “I was able to have a voice without being self-conscious”: Students’ perceptions of audience response systems in the health science curriculum. Journal of Allied Health, 42(3), e75–e80.