The Use of Audience Response Systems (Clickers) Results in Positive Outcome
Compared with the scores of classes in 2003 by the same instructor, the positive effects of using of clickers and increasing intra-class interactions were significant, and students in the 2005 clicker sections attended classes much more frequently and had higher exam score averages than in 2003 classes, attributed to the incentive of earning additional points to improve class grade along with more class interactions.
The use of clickers in large classes initiated better student performance through much more dynamic and interactive techniques in learning chemistry and biology. However, compared with exam scores of card users in the same academic year of 2005, the differences in their exam scores were found to be non-significant. Another study in 2008 produced similar results in general chemistry classes. Anxiety-levels associated with the course were also lessened and cooperation and interaction between students increased, but the latter two elements were found out to be affected by gender, suggesting that females are much more likely to cooperate with others for answers as opposed to males. The study had similar conclusions that increased interaction among classmates can improve lesson retention and exam scores when compared with traditional and passive learning settings. In relation to clicker use, attitudes of chemistry instructors to clicker use were affected by how long they were teaching the subject, as well
as the nature of the type of students that they teach. (Emenike & Holme, 2012). Younger instructors and those holding undergraduate introductory classes were much more likely to give positive feedback on clicker use, compared with older instructors and those holding graduate and higher courses or teaching advanced undergraduate courses. The research concluded these along with the idea that clicker use among chemistry instructors was still in its early adoption stages, as there were still a lot more that prefer traditional teaching methods over clicker use, and younger instructors are more agreeable to use clickers for their classes compared to older ones due to their different approaches in teaching the subject, suggesting a chasm that prevents rapid adaptation of clickers in chemistry courses (Emenike & Holme, 2012). The three researches did not have too much setbacks, and each used considerably large sample populations (n=3338, n=2000~, n=1500~ respectively), however the third research mentioned a drawback on the survey questions and this prevented the association of clicker use on its effectiveness ratings. 2. Can the use of clickers improve mid-term and final examination scores in introductory courses among students in interactive classes compared to students in traditional and passive learning settings? 3. Based on the assumptions that increased class interactions and class participations could improve exam scores and understanding of the subject, it is hypothesised that the use of clickers in introductory courses could create significant differences on the overall scores in mid-term and final exam score results in general chemistry and biology courses having clickers and increased student interactions, compared to non-interactive and traditional class settings. 4. Independent variable for the experiment would be clicker usage in class, and the dependent variables would be the mid-term and final exam scores in the introductory biology and chemistry courses. The resultant data for the experiment would be nominal data. 5. Target populations would be those taking introductory biology and chemistry courses, four classes each, and handled by the same instructor who willingly