Classroom Clickers Offer More than Repetition: Converging Evidence for the Testing Effect and Confirmatory Feedback in Clicker-Assisted Learning

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: Jul 1, 2013
Keywords:
clickers, repetition effect, cognition, educational technology

Main Article Content

Amy Shapiro
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Leamarie Gordon
Tufts University

Abstract

The present study used a methodology that controlled subject and item effects in a live classroom to demonstrate the efficacy of classroom clicker use for factual knowledge acquisition, and to explore the cognition underlying clicker learning effects. Specifically, we sought to rule out repetition as the underlying reason for clicker learning effects by capitalizing on a common cognitive phenomenon, the spacing effect. Because the spacing effect is a robust phenomenon that occurs when repetition is used to enhance memory, we proposed that spacing lecture content and clicker questions would improve retention if repetition is the root of clicker-enhanced memory. In experiment 1 we found that the spacing effect did not occur with clicker use. That is, students performed equally on clicker-targeted exam questions regardless of whether the clicker questions were presented immediately after presentation of the information during lecture or after a delay of several days.  Experiment 2 provided a more direct test of repetition, comparing test performance after clicker use with performance after a second presentation of the relevant material. Clicker questions promoted significantly higher performance on test questions than repetition of the targeted material. Thus, the present experiments failed to support repetition as the mechanism driving clicker effects. Further analyses support the testing effect and confirmatory feedback as the mechanisms through which clickers enhance student performance. The results indicate that clickers offer the possibility of real cognitive change in the classroom.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Shapiro, A., & Gordon, L. (2013). Classroom Clickers Offer More than Repetition: Converging Evidence for the Testing Effect and Confirmatory Feedback in Clicker-Assisted Learning. Journal of Teaching and Learning With Technology, 2(1), 15–30. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/jotlt/article/view/3248
Issue
Volume 2, Number 1
Section
Articles
  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology (JoTLT) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC-BY) 4.0 International, allowing others to share the work with proper acknowledgement and citation of the work's authorship and initial publication in JoTLT.
     
  2. Authors are able to enter separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in JoTLT.

  3. In pursuit of manuscripts of the highest quality, multiple opportunities for mentoring, and greater reach and citation of JoTLT publications, JoTLT encourages authors to share their drafts to seek feedback from relevant communities unless the manuscript is already under review or in the publication queue after being accepted. In other words, to be eligible for publication in JoTLT, manuscripts should not be shared publicly (e.g., online), while under review (after being initially submitted, or after being revised and resubmitted for reconsideration), or upon notice of acceptance and before publication. Once published, authors are strongly encouraged to share the published version widely, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in JoTLT.

References

Agarwal, P. K., Karpicke, J. D., Kang, S. K., Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (2008). Examining the testing effect with open- and closed-book tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 861-876. doi:10.1002/acp.1391

Allen, G. A., Mahler, W. A., & Estes, W. K. (1969). Effects of recall tests on long-term retention of paired associates. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 8(4), 463-470. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(69)80090-3

Beekes, W. (2006). The "Millionaire" method for encouraging participation. Active Learning in Higher Education: The Journal of the Institute for Learning and Teaching, 7, 25-36. doi:10.1177/1469787406061143

Benjamin, A., & Tullis, J. (2010). What makes distributed practice effective? Cognitive Psychology, 61, 228-247. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.05.004

Bjork, R. A. (1975). Retrieval as a memory modifier: An interpretation of negative recency and related phenomena. In R.L. Solso (Ed.), Information Processing and Cognition: The Loyola Symposium (pp. 123-144). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (1992). A new theory of disuse and an old theory of stimulus fluctuation. In A. Healy, S. Kosslyn, & R. Shiffrin (Eds.), From Learning Processes to Cognitive Processes: Essays in Honor of William K. Estes Volume 2 (pp. 35-67). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Butler, A. E., Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2007). The effect of type and timing of feedback on learning from multiple-choice tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13, 273-281.

Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. (2007). Testing improves long-term retention in a simulated classroom setting. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 514–527. doi:10.1037/1076898X.13.4.273

Carrier, M., & Pashler, H. (1992). The influence of retrieval on retention. Memory & Cognition, 20, 633-642. doi:10.3758/BF03202713

Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J.T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 354-380. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354

Craik, F. I., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684. doi:10.1016/S00225371(72)80001-X

Duchastel, P. C. (1981). Retention of prose following testing with different types of tests. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 6, 217-226. doi:10.1016/0361-476X(81)90002-3

Ebbinghaus, H. (1913). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. (H. A. Ruger & C. E. Bussenius, Trans.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Glenberg, A. M. (1979). Component-levels theory of the effects of spacing of repetitions on recall and recognition. Memory & Cognition, 7, 95–112.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81-112. DOI: 10.3102/003465430298487

Hintzman, D. L. (1974). Theoretical implications of the spacing effect. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Theories in cognitive psychology: The Loyola symposium (pp. 77–97). Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.

Jacoby, L. L. (1978). On interpreting the effects of repetitions: Solving a problem versus remembering a solution. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 649-667. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(78)90393-6

Kang, S. H. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2007). Test format and corrective feedback modify the effect of testing on long-term retention. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 528-558. doi: 10.1080/09541440601056620

Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2007a). Repeated retrieval during learning is the key to long-term retention. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 151-162. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.09.004

Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2007b). Expanding retrieval practice promotes short-term retention, but equally spaced retrieval enhances long-term retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 704-719. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.704

Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319, 966-968. doi: 10.1126/science.1152408

Kluger, A. & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-284 doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254.

Kennedy, G. E., & Cutts, Q. I. (2005). The association between students’ use of an electronic voting system and their learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 260268. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00133.x

Kulhavy, R. W. (1977). Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research, 47, 211-232. doi:10.2307/1170128

Marsh, E. J., Agarwal, P. K., & Roediger, H. L. (2009). Memorial consequences of answering SAT II questions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 1-11. doi:10.1037/a0014721

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 in large lecture classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 51–57. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.04.002

McDaniel, M. A., & Masson, M. E. J. (1985). Altering memory representations through retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 371-385. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.11.2.371

McDaniel, M. A., Anderson, J. L., Derbish, M. H., & Morrisette, N. (2007). Testing the testing effect in the classroom. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 494-513. doi:10.1080/09541440701326154

Morling, B., McAuliffe, M., Cohen, L., & DiLorenzo, T. (2008). Efficacy of personal response systems (“clickers”) in Large, Introductory Psychology Classes. Teaching of Psychology, 35, 45-50. doi:10.1080/00986280701818516

Nungester, R. J., & Duchastel, P. C. (1982). Testing versus review: Effects on retention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 18-22. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.74.1.18

Pashler, H., Cepeda, N. J., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2005). When does feedback facilitate learning of words? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 3-8. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.1.3

Poirier, C. R., & Feldman, R.S. (2007). Promoting active learning using individual response technology in large introductory psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 34, 194-196. doi:10.1080/00986280701498665

Raney, G. (2003). A context-dependent representation model for explaining text repetition effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 15-28. doi:10.3758/BF03196466

Ribbens, E. (2007). Why I like clicker personal response systems. Journal of College Science Teaching, 37, 60-62.

Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006a). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249-255. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x

Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006b). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181-210. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x

Sassenrath, J.M., & Garverick, C.M. (1965). Effects of differential feedback from examinations on retention and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 259-263. doi:10.1037/h0022474

Scarborough, D. L., Cortese, C., & Scarborough,H. S. (1977). Frequency and repetition effects in lexical memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 3, 1-17. doi:10.1037//0096-1523.3.1.1

Shapiro, A. M. (2009). An empirical study of personal response technology for improving attendance and learning in a large class. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9, 13-26.

Shapiro, A.M., & Gordon, L.T. (2012). A controlled study of clicker-assisted memory enhancement in college classrooms. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 635–643. doi: 10.1002/acp.2843.

Shih, M., Rogers, R., Hart, D., Phillis, R., & Lavoie, N. (2008, April). Community of practice: The use of personal response system technology in large lectures. Paper presented at the University of Massachusetts Conference on Information Technology, Boxborough, MA.

Stowell, J., & Nelson, J. (2007). Benefits of electronic audience response systems on student participation, learning, and emotion. Teaching of Psychology, 34, 253-258. doi:10.1080/00986280701700391

Szpunar, K. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). Testing during study insulates against the buildup of proactive interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1392-1399. doi:10.1037/a0013082

Thompson, C. P., Wenger, S. K., & Bartlings, C. A. (1978). How recall facilitates subsequent recall: A reappraisal. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 210-221. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.4.3.210

Thorndike, E. L. (1913). Educational psychology: Vol. 1. The original nature of man. New York: Columbia University.

Tulving, E. (1967). The effects of presentation and recall of material in free-recall verbal learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 175-184. doi:10.1016/S00225371(67)80092-6

Vojdanoska, M.; Cranney, J., & Newell, B. (2010). The testing effect: The role of feedback and collaboration in a tertiary classroom setting. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 1183-1195. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1630