Engineering Essential Attributes of Cooperative Learning and Quality Discourse in a Large Enrollment Course by Leveraging Clicker Devices

References

• Adams, C. C. (2014). Classroom response systems: Effects on the critical analysis skills of students in introductory science courses. School Science & Mathematics, 114(8), 367–379.
   Google Scholar
• Anthis, K. (2011). Is it the clicker, or is it the question? Untangling the effects of student Response System Use. Teaching of Psychology, 38(3), 189–193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beatty, I. D., & Gerace, W J. (2009). Technology-enhanced formative assessment: A research-based pedagogy for teaching science with classroom response technology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(2) 146–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brady, M., Seli, H., & Rosenthal, J. (2013). “Clickers” and metacognition: A quasi-experimental comparative study about metacognitive self-regulation and use of electronic feedback devices. Computers & Education, 65, 56–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooks, B. J., & Koretsky, M. D. (2011). The influence of group discussion on students’ responses and confidence during Peer Instruction. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(11), 1477–1484.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buil, I., Catalan, S., & Martinez, E. (2016). Do clickers enhance learning? A control-value theory approach. Computers & Education, 103, 170–182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bunce, D. M., Flens, E. A., & Neiles, K. Y (2010). How long can students pay attention in class? A study of student attention decline using clickers. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(12), 1438–1443.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castillo-Manzano, J. I., Castro-Nuno, M., Lopez-Valpuesta, L., Sanz-Diaz, M. T., & Yniguez, R. (2016). Measuring the effect of ARS on academic performance: A global meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 96, 109–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, W T., Zhang, J. Y, & Yu, Z. G. (2017). Advantages and disadvantages of clicker use in education. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 13(1), 61–71.
   Google Scholar
• Chi, M. T. H., Kang, S., & Yaghmourian, D. L. (2017). Why students learn more from dialogue-than monologue-videos: Analyses of peer interactions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(1), 10–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chien, Y T., Chang, Y H., & Chang, C. Y. (2016). Do we click in the right way? A meta-analytic review of clicker-integrated instruction. Educational Research Review, 17, 1–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christian, K., & Talanquer, V (2012). Content-related interactions in selfinitiated study groups. International Journal of Science Education, 34(14), 2231–2255.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cleary, A. M. (2008). Using wireless response systems to replicate behavioral research findings in the classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 35, 42–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cotes, S., & Cotua, J. (2014). Using audience response systems during interactive lectures to promote active learning and conceptual understanding of stoichiometry. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(5), 673–677.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eddy, S. L., Brownell, S. E., Thummaphan, P., Lan, M. C., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2015). Caution, student experience may vary: Social identities impact a student’s experience in peer discussions. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14(4), ar45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egelandsdal, K., & Krumsvik, R. J. (2017). Clickers and formative feedback at university lectures. Education and Information Technologies, 22(1), 55–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emenike, M. E., & Holme, T. A. (2012). Classroom response systems have not “crossed the chasm”: Estimating numbers of chemistry faculty who use clickers. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(4), 465–469.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fallon, M., & Forrest, S. L. (2011). High-tech versus low-tech instructional strategies: A comparison of clickers and handheld response cards. Teaching of Psychology, 38(3), 194–198.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flynn, A. B. (2011). Developing problem-solving skills through retrosynthetic analysis and clickers in organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(11), 1496–1500.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foote, K., Knaub, A., Henderson, C., Dancy, M., & Beichner, R. J. (2016). Enabling and challenging factors in institutional reform: The case of SCALE-UP. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12, 010103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fortner-Wood, C., Armistead, L., Marchand, A., & Morris, F B. (2013). The effects of student response systems on student learning and attitudes in undergraduate psychology courses. Teaching of Psychology, 40(1), 26–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freeman, T., & Vanden Heuvel, B. (2015). Who’s in the room? Using clickers to assess students’ needs, attitudes and prior knowledge. In D.S. Goldstein & P.D. Wallis (Eds.), Clickers in the classroom: Using classroom response systems to increase student learning (p. 29). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbons, R. E., Laga, E. E., Leon, J., Villafane, S. M., Stains, M., Murphy, K., & Raker, J. R. (2017). Chasm Crossed? Clicker use in postsecondary chemistry education. Journal of Chemical Education, 94(5), 549–557.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstein, D. S., & Wallis, P D. (Eds.). (2015). Clickers in the classroom: Using classroom response systems to increase student learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Gray, K., & Steer, D. N. (2012). Personal response systems and learning: It is the pedagogy that matters, not the technology. Journal of College Science Teaching, 41(5), 80–88.
   Google Scholar
• Herreid, C. F., Terry, D. R., Lemons, P., Armstrong, N., Brickman, P., & Ribbens, E. (2014). Emotion, engagement, and case studies. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(1), 86–95.
   Google Scholar
• Hodges, L. C. (2017). Ten researchbased steps for effective group work. IDEA paper #65. Retrieved from www.ideaedu.org/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/IDEA%20Papers/IDEA%20Papers/PaperIDEA_65.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Hodges, L. C. (2018). Contemporary issues in group learning in undergraduate science classrooms: A perspective from student engagement. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 17(2), 1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodges, L. C., Anderson, E. C., Carpenter, T. S., Cui, L., Feeser, E. A., & Gierasch, T. M. (2017). Using clickers for deliberate practice in five large science courses. Journal of College Science Teaching, 47(2), 22–28.
   Google Scholar
• Hunsu, N. J., Adesope, O., & Bayly, D. J. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of audience response systems (clicker-based technologies) on cognition and affect. Computers & Education, 94, 102–119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James, M. C., Barbieri, F., & Garcia, P (2008). What are they talking about? Lessons learned from a study of peer instruction. Astronomy Education Review, 7(1), 37–43.
   Google Scholar
• James, M. C., & Willoughby, S. (2011). Listening to student conversations during clicker questions: What you have not heard might surprise you! American Journal of Physics, 79, 123–132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.
   Google Scholar
• King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom through reciprocal questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 664–687.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, D. B. (2011). Using clickers to identify the muddiest points in large chemistry classes. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(11), 1485–1488.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knight, J. K., Wise, S. B., Rentsch, J., & Furtak, E. M. (2015). Cues matter: Learning assistants influence introductory biology student interactions during clicker-question discussions. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14(4), ar41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knight, J. K., Wise, S. B., & Sieke, S. (2016). Group random call can positively affect student in-class clicker discussions. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 15(4), ar56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knight, J. K., Wise, S. B., & Southard, K. M. (2013). Understanding clicker discussions: Student reasoning and the impact of instructional cues. CBE-Life Science Education, 12, 645–654.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koenig, K. (2010). Building acceptance for pedagogical reform through wide-scale implementation of clickers. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39(3) 46–50.
   Google Scholar
• Kulatunga, U., Moog, R. S., & Lewis, J. E. (2014). Use of Toulmin’s argumentation scheme for students discourse to gain insight about guided inquiry activities in college chemistry. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(5), 78–86.
   Google Scholar
• Kulesza, A. E., Clawson, M. E., & Ridgway, J. S. (2014). Student success indicators associated with clicker-administered quizzes in an honors introductory biology course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(4), 73–79.
   Google Scholar
• Lewin, J. D., Vinson, E. L., Stetzer, M. R., & Smith, M. K. (2016). A campus-wide investigation of clicker implementation: The status of peer discussion in STEM classes. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 15(1), ar6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, S. E. & Lewis, J. E. (2005). Departing from lectures: An evaluation of a peer-led guided inquiry alternative. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(1), 135–139.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacArthur, J. R., & Jones, L. L. (2008). A review of literature reports of clickers applicable to college chemistry classrooms. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9(3), 187–195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacArthur, J. R., & Jones, L. (2013). Self-assembled student interactions in undergraduate general chemistry clicker classrooms. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(12), 1586–1589.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E., Stull, A., DeLeeuw, K., Almeroth, K., Bimber, B., Chun, D., Bulger, M., Campbell, J., Knight, A., & Zhang, H. J. (2009). Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 51–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michaels, S., O’Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283–297.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milner-Bolotin, M., Antimirova, T., & Petrov, A. (2010). Clickers beyond the first-year science classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(2) 14–18.
   Google Scholar
• Moon, A., Stanford, C., Cole, R., & Towns, M. (2017). Decentering: A characteristic of effective studentstudent discourse in inquiry-oriented physical chemistry classrooms. Journal of Chemical Education, 94(1), 829–836.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, J. T., & Wakefield, C. (2012). Who benefits from peer conversation? Examining correlations of clicker question correctness and course performance. Journal of College Science Teaching, 41(5), 51–56.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison, R. W., Caughran, J. A., & Sauers, A. L. (2014). Classroom response systems for implementing Interactive Inquiry in large organic chemistry classes. Journal of Chemical Education, 91, 1838–1844.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, K. (2012). Using a personal response system to map cognitive efficiency and gain insight into a proposed learning progression in preparatory chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(10), 1229–1235.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagel, M., & Lindsey, B. (2018). The use of classroom clickers to support improved self-assessment in introductory chemistry. Journal of College Science Teaching, 47(5) 72–79.
   Google Scholar
• Niemeyer, E. D., & Zewail-Foote, M. (2018). Investigating the influence of gender on student perceptions of the clicker in a small undergraduate general chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 95(2), 218–223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oswald, K. M., Blake, A. B., & Santiago, D. T. (2014). Enhancing immediate retention with clickers through individual response identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(3), 438–442.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paulhus, D. L., & Reid, D. B. (1991). Enhancement and denial in socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 307–317.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearson, R. J. (2017). Tailoring clicker technology to problem-based learning: What’s the best approach? Journal of Chemical Education, 94(12), 1866–1872.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perez, K. E., Strauss, E. A., Downey, N., Galbraith, A., Jeanne, R., & Cooper, S. (2010). Does displaying the class results affect student discussion during peer instruction? CBE-Life Sciences Education, 9(2), 133–140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ribbens, E. (2007). Why I like clicker personal response systems. Journal of College Science Teaching, 37(2), 60–62.
   Google Scholar
• Sevian, H., & Robinson, W. E. (2011). Clickers promote learning in all kinds of classes—small and large, graduate and undergraduate, lecture and lab. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(3), 14–18.
   Google Scholar
• Simonson, S. R., Ed. (2019). POGIL: An introduction to process oriented guided inquiry learning for those who wish to empower learners. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Skinner, S. (2009). On clickers, questions, and learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 38(4), 20–23.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, M. K., Jones, F. H. M., Gilbert, S. L., & Wieman, C. E. (2013). The classroom observation protocol for undergraduate STEM (COPUS): A new instrument to characterize university STEM classroom practices. CBE-Life Science Education 12(4), 618–627.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Krauter, K., & Knight, J. K. (2011). Combining peer discussion with instructor explanation increases student learning from in-class concept questions. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 10(1), 55–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solomon, E. D., Repice, M. D., Mutambuki, J. M., Leonard, D. A., Cohen, C. A., Luo, J., & Frey, R. F. (2018). A mixed-methods investigation of clicker implementation styles in STEM. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 17(2), ar30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanford, C., Ruder, S., Lantz, J., Cole, R., & Reynders, G. (2017). Enhancing learning by improving process skills in STEM (ELIPSS): Development and implementation of interaction rubrics. 254th American Chemical Society National Meeting, Washington DC.
   Google Scholar
• Terry, D. R., Lemons, P., Armstrong, N., Brickman, P., Ribbens, E., & Herreid, C. F (2016). Eight is not enough: The level of questioning and its impact on learning in clicker cases. Journal of College Science Teaching, 46(2) 82–92.
   Google Scholar
• Turpen, C., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2009). Not all interactive engagement is the same: Variations in physics professors’ implementation of Peer Instruction. Physical Review Special Topics Physics Education Research 5, 020101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Daele, T., Frijns, C., & Lievens, J. (2017). How do students and lecturers experience the interactive use of handheld technology in large enrollment courses? British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(6), 1318–1329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vickrey, T., Rosploch, K., Rahmanian, R., Pilarz, M., & Stains, M. (2015). Research-based implementation of peer instruction: A literature review. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14(1), es3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolter, B. H. K., Lundeberg, M. A., Kang, H., & Herreid, C. F. (2011). Students’ perceptions of using personal response systems (“clickers”) with cases in science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(4), 14–19.
   Google Scholar
• Yezierski, E. J., Bauer, C. F., Hunnicutt, S. S., Hanson, D. M., Amaral, K. E., and Schneider, J. P (2008). POGIL implementation in large classes: Strategies for planning, teaching, and management. In R. S. Moog & J. Spencer (Eds.), Process-oriented guided inquiry learning (pp. 60–71). Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.
   Google Scholar
• Young, K. K., & Talanquer, V (2013). Effect of different types of small-group activities on students’ conversations. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(9), 1123–1129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar