Researching Student Perceptions of and Experiences with Alternative Learning Technologies - Replacing Traditional Tutorials with i>clicker Tutorials and Online Tutorials

Barry Cartwright, Sheri Fabian

2017

Abstract

The researchers invited university students enrolled in two different offerings of a large introductory course which had recently transitioned from traditional tutorials to student response system (i>clicker) tutorials, four different offerings of two courses which had recently transitioned from traditional tutorials to online tutorials, plus two different upper division courses which continued to employ traditional tutorials to participate in an online survey regarding their experiences with traditional tutorials, fully online tutorials, and tutorials that employed student response systems. The purpose of this study was to evaluate student perceptions of and experiences with alternative learning technologies, and to determine whether these alternative technologies improved learning outcomes when compared to more traditional teaching methods. This paper reports on the design and implementation of the i>clicker and online tutorials, the design and administration of the online survey, and strategies employed to enhance student participation in the survey. While there was no measurable difference in terms of learning outcomes, the survey results indicate that students prefer online tutorials over i>clicker and traditional tutorials, and that there is generally a high level of student satisfaction when it comes to alternative learning technologies. The researchers were able to identify which facets of traditional, i>clicker and online tutorials the students found most appealing (and/or useful), and which facets they did not find appealing and/or useful.

References

  1. Adams, J.D. and Umbach, P.D., 2012. Nonresponse and online student evaluations of teaching: Understanding the influence of salience, fatigue and academic environments. Research in Higher Education, 53(4), pp. 576-591.
  2. Alammary, A., Sheard, J. and Carbone, A., 2014. Blended learning in higher education: Three different design approaches. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,30(4), pp. 440-454.
  3. Anderson, T. and Kanuka, H., 2003. e-Research: Methods, Strategies, and Issues. Pearson Education, Inc., Boston.
  4. Barber, M. and Njus, David, 2007. Clicker evolution: Seeking intelligent design., Life Sciences Education, 6(1), pp. 1-20.
  5. Best, S.J. and Krueger, B.S. 2004 Internet Data Collection, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
  6. Bolliger, D.U. and Erichsen, E.A. 2013 Student Satisfaction with Blended and Online Courses Based on Personality Type. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 39(10), pp. 1-23.
  7. Cole, M.T., Shelley, D.J. and Swartz, L.B., 2014. Online Instruction, E-Learning, and Student Satisfaction: A Three Year Study. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Education Learning, 15( 6), pp. 111-131.
  8. Comer, D.R. and Lenaghan, J.A., 2012. Enhancing Discussions in the Asynchronous Classroom: The Lack of Face-to-Face Interaction Does not Lessen the Lesson. Journal of Management Education,37(2), pp. 261-294.
  9. Evans, R.R., Burnett, D.O., Kendrick, O.W., MacRina, D.M., Synder, S.W., Roy, J.P.L. and Stephens, B.C., 2009. Developing Valid and Reliable Online Survey Instruments Using Commercial Software Programs. Journal of Consumer Health on the Internet, 13(1), pp. 42-52.
  10. FitzPatrick, K.A., Finn, K.E. and 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(3), pp. 280-289.
  11. Grimley, M., Green, R., Nilsen, T., Thompson, D. and Tomes, R., 2011. Using Computer Games for Instruction: The Student Experience. Active Learning In Higher Education, 12(1), pp. 45-56.
  12. Handelsman, J., Miller, S. and Pfund, C., 2007. Scientific Teaching. Roberts and Company, Englewood, CO.
  13. Heaslip, G., Donovan, P. and Cullen, J.G., 2014. Student response systems and learner engagement in large classes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(1), pp. 11-24.
  14. Hood, M., 2013. "Bricks or clicks? Predicting student intentions in a blended learning buffet." Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(6), pp. 762- 776.
  15. Hwang, I., Wong, K., Lam, S.L. and Lam, P., 2015. Student Response (clicker) Systems: Preferences of Biomedical Physiology Students in Asian Classes. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 13(5), pp. 319-330.
  16. Joinson, A.N. and Reips, U., 2007. Personalized Salutation, Power of Sender, and Response Rates to Web-Based Surveys. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), pp. 1372-1383.
  17. Kaplowitz, M.D., Lupi, F., Couper, M.P. and Thorp, L., 2012. The Effect of Invitation Design on Web Survey Responses. Social Science Computer Review, 30(3), pp. 339-349.
  18. Kirkwood, A. and Price, L., 2013. Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: what is 'enhanced' and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), pp. 6-36.
  19. Laguilles, J.S., Williams, E.A. and Saunders, D.B., 2011. Can Lottery Incentives Boost Web Survey Response Rates? Findings from Four Experiments. Research in Higher Education, 52(2), pp. 537-553.
  20. Larreamendy-Joerns, J. and Leinhardt, G., 2006. Going the Distance with Online Education. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), pp. 567-605.
  21. MacKenzie, L. and Ballard, K., 2015., Can Using Individual Online Interactive Activities Enhance Exam Results? MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 1(2), pp. 262-266.
  22. Mathaisen, H., 2015. Digital Voting Systems and Communication in Classroom Lectures: an empirical study based around physics teaching at bachelor level at two Danish universities. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1(1), pp. 1-8.
  23. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M. and Jones, K., 2010. Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.
  24. Nguyen, T., 2015. The Effectiveness of Online Learning: Beyond No Significant Difference and Future Horizons. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, (2), pp. 309-319.
  25. Pan, B., Woodside, A.G. and Meng, F., 2013. How Contextual Cues Impact Response and Conversion Rates of Online Surveys. Journal of Travel Research, 53(1), pp. 58-68.
  26. Rademacher, J.D. and Lippke, S., 2007. Dynamic Online Surveys and Experiments with the Free Open-Source Software dynaQuest. Behavior Research Methods,39(3), pp. 415-426.
  27. Sax, L.J., Gilmartin, S.K. and Bryant, A.N., 2003. Assessing Response Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Web and Paper Surveys. Research in Higher Education, 44(4), pp. 409-432.
  28. Steer, D.N. and Gray, K., 2012. Personal Response Systems and Learning: It is the Pedagogy that Matters, Not the Technology. Journal of College Science Teaching, 41(5), pp. 80-89.
  29. Sue, V.M. and Ritter, L.A., 2007. Conducting Online Surveys. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
  30. Turney, C.S.M., Robinson, D., Lee, M. and Soutar, A., 2009. Using Technology in Higher Education: The Way Forward? Active Learning In Higher Education, 10(1), pp. 71-83.
  31. Ulbig, S.G., 2016. I Like the Way this Feels: Using Classroom Response System Technology to Enhance Tactile Learners' Introductory American Government Experience. Journal of Political Science Education, 12(1), pp. 41-57.
  32. Webber, M., Lynch, S. and Oluku, J., 2013. Enhancing Student Engagement in Student Experience Surveys. Educational Research, 1, pp. 71-86.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Cartwright B. and Fabian S. (2017). Researching Student Perceptions of and Experiences with Alternative Learning Technologies - Replacing Traditional Tutorials with i>clicker Tutorials and Online Tutorials . In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 1: CSEDU, ISBN 978-989-758-239-4, pages 226-233. DOI: 10.5220/0006253402260233


in Bibtex Style

@conference{csedu17,
author={Barry Cartwright and Sheri Fabian},
title={Researching Student Perceptions of and Experiences with Alternative Learning Technologies - Replacing Traditional Tutorials with i>clicker Tutorials and Online Tutorials},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 1: CSEDU,},
year={2017},
pages={226-233},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0006253402260233},
isbn={978-989-758-239-4},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 1: CSEDU,
TI - Researching Student Perceptions of and Experiences with Alternative Learning Technologies - Replacing Traditional Tutorials with i>clicker Tutorials and Online Tutorials
SN - 978-989-758-239-4
AU - Cartwright B.
AU - Fabian S.
PY - 2017
SP - 226
EP - 233
DO - 10.5220/0006253402260233