Student Evaluation of Audience Response Technology in Large Lecture Classes

In the past few years, audience response technology (ART) has been widely adopted on college campuses, and is especially popular among instructors of large lecture classes. Claims regarding ART's benefits to students have received only limited empirical evaluation, and prior studies exhibit met...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Educational technology research and development 2008-04, Vol.56 (2), p.125-145
Hauptverfasser: MacGeorge, Erina L., Homan, Scott R., Dunning, John B., Elmore, David, Bodie, Graham D., Evans, Ed, Khichadia, Sangeetha, Lichti, Steven M., Feng, Bo, Geddes, Brian
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 145
container_issue 2
container_start_page 125
container_title Educational technology research and development
container_volume 56
creator MacGeorge, Erina L.
Homan, Scott R.
Dunning, John B.
Elmore, David
Bodie, Graham D.
Evans, Ed
Khichadia, Sangeetha
Lichti, Steven M.
Feng, Bo
Geddes, Brian
description In the past few years, audience response technology (ART) has been widely adopted on college campuses, and is especially popular among instructors of large lecture classes. Claims regarding ART's benefits to students have received only limited empirical evaluation, and prior studies exhibit methodological limitations. The current study provides a multi-dimensional evaluation, utilizing a newly-developed measure, the Audience Response Technology Questionnaire (ART-Q). Data were provided at three points during a semester by undergraduate students (n = 854) who used ART in three large lecture university courses. Results indicate moderately positive evaluations of ART on some dimensions (e.g., ease of use, impact on attendance), with less positive evaluations on others (e.g., influence on preparation for class). These evaluations showed some variability across time of semester and course, but were not substantially affected by gender, ethnicity, or year in school. Findings are discussed with respect to the need for future research on instructors' techniques for using ART and their influence on student perceptions and outcomes.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11423-007-9053-6
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_218037355</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ786778</ericid><jstor_id>25619914</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>25619914</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-e319aed559a1850102a0cf606cebdad8ca7978697b5fa65e86f7f06a0890f3023</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UMtKAzEUHUTBWv0AQSG4jyaT5rUspT4HBK3rkGZu6pQ6qcmM0L83ZUR33s09cB73corinJJrSoi8SZROSoYzxJpwhsVBMaKcCyw4oYcZk0mJqSj1cXGS0prkkUKNiqfXrq-h7dD8y2562zWhRcGjaV830DpAL5C2oU2AFuDe27AJqx1qWlTZuAJUgev6CGi2sSlBOi2OvN0kOPvZ4-Ltdr6Y3ePq-e5hNq2wY1x1GBjVFmrOtaUqf0dKS5wXRDhY1rZWzkotldByyb0VHJTw0hNhidLEM1KycXE15G5j-OwhdWYd-tjmk6akijDJOM8iOohcDClF8GYbmw8bd4YSs6_MDJWZPdxXZkT2XAweiI371c8f8zdSqkyXA50y1a4g_t39L_NyMK1TF-JvaMkF1ZpO2DcBbYCy</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>218037355</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Student Evaluation of Audience Response Technology in Large Lecture Classes</title><source>Education Source (MeL)</source><source>SpringerLink_现刊</source><source>JSTOR</source><creator>MacGeorge, Erina L. ; Homan, Scott R. ; Dunning, John B. ; Elmore, David ; Bodie, Graham D. ; Evans, Ed ; Khichadia, Sangeetha ; Lichti, Steven M. ; Feng, Bo ; Geddes, Brian</creator><creatorcontrib>MacGeorge, Erina L. ; Homan, Scott R. ; Dunning, John B. ; Elmore, David ; Bodie, Graham D. ; Evans, Ed ; Khichadia, Sangeetha ; Lichti, Steven M. ; Feng, Bo ; Geddes, Brian</creatorcontrib><description>In the past few years, audience response technology (ART) has been widely adopted on college campuses, and is especially popular among instructors of large lecture classes. Claims regarding ART's benefits to students have received only limited empirical evaluation, and prior studies exhibit methodological limitations. The current study provides a multi-dimensional evaluation, utilizing a newly-developed measure, the Audience Response Technology Questionnaire (ART-Q). Data were provided at three points during a semester by undergraduate students (n = 854) who used ART in three large lecture university courses. Results indicate moderately positive evaluations of ART on some dimensions (e.g., ease of use, impact on attendance), with less positive evaluations on others (e.g., influence on preparation for class). These evaluations showed some variability across time of semester and course, but were not substantially affected by gender, ethnicity, or year in school. Findings are discussed with respect to the need for future research on instructors' techniques for using ART and their influence on student perceptions and outcomes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1042-1629</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1556-6501</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11423-007-9053-6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Boston: Springer Science + Business Media</publisher><subject>Art teachers ; Arts ; Audience Response ; Campuses ; Classroom Techniques ; Education ; Educational Technology ; Ethnicity ; Learner Engagement ; Learning and Instruction ; Learning motivation ; Lecture Method ; Lectures ; Perceptual learning ; Questionnaires ; Research Article ; Student Attitudes ; Student Diversity ; Student Evaluation ; Student Experience ; Student surveys ; Teachers ; Technology ; Undergraduate Students</subject><ispartof>Educational technology research and development, 2008-04, Vol.56 (2), p.125-145</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2008 Association for Educational Communications and Technology</rights><rights>Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2007</rights><rights>Copyright Association for Educational Communications &amp; Technology Apr 2008</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-e319aed559a1850102a0cf606cebdad8ca7978697b5fa65e86f7f06a0890f3023</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-e319aed559a1850102a0cf606cebdad8ca7978697b5fa65e86f7f06a0890f3023</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25619914$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/25619914$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319,58017,58250</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ786778$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>MacGeorge, Erina L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Homan, Scott R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dunning, John B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elmore, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bodie, Graham D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Evans, Ed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khichadia, Sangeetha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lichti, Steven M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Feng, Bo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geddes, Brian</creatorcontrib><title>Student Evaluation of Audience Response Technology in Large Lecture Classes</title><title>Educational technology research and development</title><addtitle>Education Tech Research Dev</addtitle><description>In the past few years, audience response technology (ART) has been widely adopted on college campuses, and is especially popular among instructors of large lecture classes. Claims regarding ART's benefits to students have received only limited empirical evaluation, and prior studies exhibit methodological limitations. The current study provides a multi-dimensional evaluation, utilizing a newly-developed measure, the Audience Response Technology Questionnaire (ART-Q). Data were provided at three points during a semester by undergraduate students (n = 854) who used ART in three large lecture university courses. Results indicate moderately positive evaluations of ART on some dimensions (e.g., ease of use, impact on attendance), with less positive evaluations on others (e.g., influence on preparation for class). These evaluations showed some variability across time of semester and course, but were not substantially affected by gender, ethnicity, or year in school. Findings are discussed with respect to the need for future research on instructors' techniques for using ART and their influence on student perceptions and outcomes.</description><subject>Art teachers</subject><subject>Arts</subject><subject>Audience Response</subject><subject>Campuses</subject><subject>Classroom Techniques</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Educational Technology</subject><subject>Ethnicity</subject><subject>Learner Engagement</subject><subject>Learning and Instruction</subject><subject>Learning motivation</subject><subject>Lecture Method</subject><subject>Lectures</subject><subject>Perceptual learning</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Research Article</subject><subject>Student Attitudes</subject><subject>Student Diversity</subject><subject>Student Evaluation</subject><subject>Student Experience</subject><subject>Student surveys</subject><subject>Teachers</subject><subject>Technology</subject><subject>Undergraduate Students</subject><issn>1042-1629</issn><issn>1556-6501</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UMtKAzEUHUTBWv0AQSG4jyaT5rUspT4HBK3rkGZu6pQ6qcmM0L83ZUR33s09cB73corinJJrSoi8SZROSoYzxJpwhsVBMaKcCyw4oYcZk0mJqSj1cXGS0prkkUKNiqfXrq-h7dD8y2562zWhRcGjaV830DpAL5C2oU2AFuDe27AJqx1qWlTZuAJUgev6CGi2sSlBOi2OvN0kOPvZ4-Ltdr6Y3ePq-e5hNq2wY1x1GBjVFmrOtaUqf0dKS5wXRDhY1rZWzkotldByyb0VHJTw0hNhidLEM1KycXE15G5j-OwhdWYd-tjmk6akijDJOM8iOohcDClF8GYbmw8bd4YSs6_MDJWZPdxXZkT2XAweiI371c8f8zdSqkyXA50y1a4g_t39L_NyMK1TF-JvaMkF1ZpO2DcBbYCy</recordid><startdate>20080401</startdate><enddate>20080401</enddate><creator>MacGeorge, Erina L.</creator><creator>Homan, Scott R.</creator><creator>Dunning, John B.</creator><creator>Elmore, David</creator><creator>Bodie, Graham D.</creator><creator>Evans, Ed</creator><creator>Khichadia, Sangeetha</creator><creator>Lichti, Steven M.</creator><creator>Feng, Bo</creator><creator>Geddes, Brian</creator><general>Springer Science + Business Media</general><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8A4</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20080401</creationdate><title>Student Evaluation of Audience Response Technology in Large Lecture Classes</title><author>MacGeorge, Erina L. ; Homan, Scott R. ; Dunning, John B. ; Elmore, David ; Bodie, Graham D. ; Evans, Ed ; Khichadia, Sangeetha ; Lichti, Steven M. ; Feng, Bo ; Geddes, Brian</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-e319aed559a1850102a0cf606cebdad8ca7978697b5fa65e86f7f06a0890f3023</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Art teachers</topic><topic>Arts</topic><topic>Audience Response</topic><topic>Campuses</topic><topic>Classroom Techniques</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Educational Technology</topic><topic>Ethnicity</topic><topic>Learner Engagement</topic><topic>Learning and Instruction</topic><topic>Learning motivation</topic><topic>Lecture Method</topic><topic>Lectures</topic><topic>Perceptual learning</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Research Article</topic><topic>Student Attitudes</topic><topic>Student Diversity</topic><topic>Student Evaluation</topic><topic>Student Experience</topic><topic>Student surveys</topic><topic>Teachers</topic><topic>Technology</topic><topic>Undergraduate Students</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>MacGeorge, Erina L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Homan, Scott R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dunning, John B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elmore, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bodie, Graham D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Evans, Ed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khichadia, Sangeetha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lichti, Steven M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Feng, Bo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geddes, Brian</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection【Remote access available】</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Education Periodicals</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Education Journals</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Educational technology research and development</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>MacGeorge, Erina L.</au><au>Homan, Scott R.</au><au>Dunning, John B.</au><au>Elmore, David</au><au>Bodie, Graham D.</au><au>Evans, Ed</au><au>Khichadia, Sangeetha</au><au>Lichti, Steven M.</au><au>Feng, Bo</au><au>Geddes, Brian</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ786778</ericid><atitle>Student Evaluation of Audience Response Technology in Large Lecture Classes</atitle><jtitle>Educational technology research and development</jtitle><stitle>Education Tech Research Dev</stitle><date>2008-04-01</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>56</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>125</spage><epage>145</epage><pages>125-145</pages><issn>1042-1629</issn><eissn>1556-6501</eissn><abstract>In the past few years, audience response technology (ART) has been widely adopted on college campuses, and is especially popular among instructors of large lecture classes. Claims regarding ART's benefits to students have received only limited empirical evaluation, and prior studies exhibit methodological limitations. The current study provides a multi-dimensional evaluation, utilizing a newly-developed measure, the Audience Response Technology Questionnaire (ART-Q). Data were provided at three points during a semester by undergraduate students (n = 854) who used ART in three large lecture university courses. Results indicate moderately positive evaluations of ART on some dimensions (e.g., ease of use, impact on attendance), with less positive evaluations on others (e.g., influence on preparation for class). These evaluations showed some variability across time of semester and course, but were not substantially affected by gender, ethnicity, or year in school. Findings are discussed with respect to the need for future research on instructors' techniques for using ART and their influence on student perceptions and outcomes.</abstract><cop>Boston</cop><pub>Springer Science + Business Media</pub><doi>10.1007/s11423-007-9053-6</doi><tpages>21</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1042-1629
ispartof Educational technology research and development, 2008-04, Vol.56 (2), p.125-145
issn 1042-1629
1556-6501
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_218037355
source Education Source (MeL); SpringerLink_现刊; JSTOR
subjects Art teachers
Arts
Audience Response
Campuses
Classroom Techniques
Education
Educational Technology
Ethnicity
Learner Engagement
Learning and Instruction
Learning motivation
Lecture Method
Lectures
Perceptual learning
Questionnaires
Research Article
Student Attitudes
Student Diversity
Student Evaluation
Student Experience
Student surveys
Teachers
Technology
Undergraduate Students
title Student Evaluation of Audience Response Technology in Large Lecture Classes
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T15%3A39%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Student%20Evaluation%20of%20Audience%20Response%20Technology%20in%20Large%20Lecture%20Classes&rft.jtitle=Educational%20technology%20research%20and%20development&rft.au=MacGeorge,%20Erina%20L.&rft.date=2008-04-01&rft.volume=56&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=125&rft.epage=145&rft.pages=125-145&rft.issn=1042-1629&rft.eissn=1556-6501&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11423-007-9053-6&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E25619914%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=218037355&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ786778&rft_jstor_id=25619914&rfr_iscdi=true