Use of clickers vs. mobile devices for classroom polling
Introduction
By the late 1960s, “voting machines” had arrived in some college classrooms to collect and display students' responses to questions posed by the instructor (Gordon & Becker, 1973; for review see Judson & Sawada, 2002). The next generation of classroom response systems used hand-held devices affectionately known as “clickers” to fulfill a similar purpose. An emerging generation of classroom response systems is built on the power of mobile devices and the Internet, allowing students to respond to questions in class by text messaging, calling a phone number, using designated smartphone polling apps, or using a mobile device's web browser and internet connection.
Smartphones are ubiquitous among U.S. college-age adults with 79% of 18–24-year-old adults reporting owning a smartphone (A. Smith, 2013). The prevalence of portable technology (smartphones, tablets, and laptops) has shifted the onus of classroom technology hardware and its related costs from institutions to students, spawning the phrase “Bring your Own Device (BYOD)” (Johnson et al., 2013). Advances in technology have positioned teachers who are familiar with using hand-held clickers to consider a transition to mobile device polling, but there is very little research to indicate if polling responses received through mobile devices differ from those received via clickers, and what additional barriers instructors and students may encounter in the process.
Several feasibility studies have demonstrated that clickers and mobile devices can be used side-by-side in the classroom. After some initial technical difficulty, two instructors at an institution in Hong Kong were able to collect data concurrently from students using mobile devices or clickers (Lam, Wong, Mohan, Xu, & Lam, 2011). In another study where the polling method varied across lectures (clicker, mobile device, and hand-raising), half of the students preferred using a mobile device over the other two response methods (Koppen, Langie, & Bergervoet, 2013). Tao, Clark, Gwyn, and Lim (2010) reported that after responding with clickers and laptops, 40% of nursing students preferred the laptop polling over traditional clickers, while 40% had no preference, and 20% preferred clickers. Finally, Sun (2014) compared final grades of graduate students who had used clickers or mobile devices and found that students who used mobile devices had significantly higher grades in one course, but not another. Although these studies demonstrate the viability of conducting concurrent (or alternating) methods of responding, none of these studies determined if the responses received from mobile devices were comparable to those received via clickers in terms of percentage of correct, incorrect, or missing responses.
The intent of the present study was not to lay claim to tangible pedagogical benefits of classroom polling, as there are already a number of studies published in this area (Caldwell, 2007, Reay et al., 2008; M. K. Smith et al., 2009, Stowell and Nelson, 2007, Stowell et al., 2010). Rather, the main purpose of this study was to compare the responses of students who used clickers to the responses of those who used mobile devices when answering the same multiple-choice questions in class. Because there was no prior research upon which to form an alternative hypothesis, this was an exploratory study designed to determine if there would be differences between response methods in the distribution of correct, incorrect, and missing responses. Furthermore, the author explored potential differences in final grades and students' attitudes regarding classroom polling technology.
Section snippets
Participants
Students in two upper-division psychology courses at a regional Midwestern university participated as part of routine assessment of educational practice (IRB approval #14-401), including students enrolled in Psychology of Learning (n = 82, Fall 2013) and Biological Psychology (n = 59, Spring 2014). Both courses were lecture-based and met for three 50-minute class periods per week. The majority of students were psychology majors in their junior or senior year, with 36 (26%) men and 105 (74%)
Classroom performance and grades
There was a significant difference in the distribution of correct, incorrect, and missing polling responses between the two response methods in one course, but not the other. As shown in Fig. 1, the mobile device group in Psychology of Learning had a smaller proportion of correct responses, a comparable proportion of incorrect responses, and a greater proportion of missing responses than the clicker group, χ2 (2, N = 9945) = 117.6, p < .001. Recalculating the proportion of correct responses
Discussion and conclusions
When used as a polling device, mobile devices may currently be less reliable than traditional radio-frequency clickers. Results from Psychology of Learning showed that students using a mobile device had significantly fewer correct answers and more missing responses than clicker users, although there were no significant differences in Biological Psychology. A number of possible explanations may account for the difference in missing responses between courses. First, Psychology of Learning had a
Acknowledgment
The author wishes to thank the university's Center for Academic Technology Support for providing the mobile device polling licenses, and Dr. William Addison for his helpful review of an earlier draft of the manuscript.
References (20)
Influence of polling technologies on student engagement: an analysis of student motivation, academic performance, and brainwave data
Computers & Education
(2014)- et al.
Browser-based mobile clickers: implementation and challenges
Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips
CBE Life Sciences Education
(2007)- et al.
Mobile-phone-based classroom response systems: students' perceptions of engagement and learning in a large undergraduate course
International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology
(2013) - et al.
Costly cell phones: the impact of cell phone rings on academic performance
Teaching of Psychology
(2010) - et al.
Effects of classroom cell phone use on expected and actual learning
College Student Journal
(2012) - et al.
Voting machine
(1973, October 16) - et al.
NMC horizon report: 2013 higher education edition
(2013) - et al.
Learning from past and present: electronic response systems in college lecture halls
Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching
(2002) - et al.
Replacement of a clicker system by a mobile device audience response system
Cited by (82)
Undergraduate Game-Based Student Response Systems (SRSs): A Systematic Review
2023, Technology, Knowledge and LearningAdoption and use of smart devices as clickers in classrooms in higher education
2023, Computer Applications in Engineering EducationFlipped Learning and technological tools in Statistics for Biology
2023, Revista Complutense de EducacionCOMPARATIVE STUDY OF GAME-BASED EPEDAGOGIES IN AN ONLINE UNDERGRADUATE COURSE
2023, Journal of Educators OnlineStudent perceptions of digital distraction prevention and student–instructor rapport
2023, Communication Education