The dark side of personal response systems (PRSs): Boredom, feedback, perceived learning, learning satisfaction

References

• Banerjee, A. (2014). Improving student’s learning with correct feedback: A model proposed for classroom utility. International Journal of Education and Psychological Research, 3(4), 36–40.
   Google Scholar
• Baturay, M. H. (2011). Relationships among sense of classroom community, perceived cognitive learning and satisfaction of students at an e-learning course. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(5), 563–575. doi:10.1080/10494821003644029.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blasco-Arcas, L., Buil, I., Hernandez-Ortega, B., & Sese, F. J. (2013). Using clickers in class. The role of interactivity, active collaborative learning, and engagement in learning performance. Computers & Education, 32, 102–110.
   Google Scholar
• Buff, A. (2014). Enjoyment of learning and its personal antecedents: Testing the change–change assumption of the control-value theory of achievement emotions. Learning and Individual Differences, 31, 21–29.
   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
• Buil, I., Catalan, S., & Martinez, E. (2019). The influence of flow on learning outcomes: An empirical study on the use of clickers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 428–439. doi:10.1111/bjet.12561
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9–20. doi:10.1187/cbe.06-12-0205
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chan, S. C. H., & Ko, S. (2019). Personal response systems and learning performance: The mediating role of learners’ engagement. Journal of Education for Business, 94(4), 234–242. doi:10.1080/08832323.2018.1520684
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan, S. C. H., Wan, C. L. J., & Ko, S. (2019). Interactivity, active collaborative learning, and learning performance: The moderating role of perceived fun by using personal response systems. The International Journal of Management Education, 17(1), 94–102. doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2018.12.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craig, S., Graesser, A., Sullins, J., & Gholson, B. (2004). Affect and learning: An exploratory look into the role of affect in learning with AutoTutor. Journal of Educational Media, 29(3), 241–250. doi:10.1080/1358165042000283101
   Google Scholar
• Duque, L. C. (2014). A framework for analysing higher education performance: Students’ satisfaction, perceived learning outcomes, and dropout intentions. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25(1–2), 1–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eom, S., Wen, H. J., & Ashill, N. (2006). The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(2), 215–235. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4609.2006.00114.x
   Google Scholar
• Farmer, R., & Sundberg, N. D. (1986). Boredom proneness—The development and correlates of a new scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50(1), 4–17. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5001_2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo, Y., Klein, B., Ro, Y., & Rossin, D. (2007). The impact of flow on learning outcomes in a graduate-level information management course. Journal of Global Business Issues, 1(2), 31–39.
   Google Scholar
• Hackman, M. Z., & Walker, K. B. (1990). Instructional communication in the televised classroom: The effects of system design and teacher immediacy on student learning and satisfaction. Communication Education, 39(3), 196–206. doi:10.1080/03634529009378802
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hair, J. E., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Hamari, J., Shernoff, D., Rowe, E., Coller, B., Asbell-Clarke, J., & Edwards, T. (2016). Challenging games help students learn: An empirical study on engagement, flow and immersion in game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 170–179. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.045
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedgcock, W. H., & Rouwenhorst, R. M. (2014). Clicking their way to success: Using student response systems as a tool for feedback. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 22(2), 16–25.
   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.
   Google Scholar
• Hung, H. T. (2017). Clickers in the flipped classroom: Bring your own device (BYOD) to promote student learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(8), 983–995.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson, S., & Marsh, H. (1996). Development and validation of a scale to measure optimal experience: The flow state scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 18, 17–35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang, M., Liw, B. T., Kim, J., & Park, Y. (2014). Learning presence as a predictor of achievement and satisfaction in online learning environments. International Journal on E-Learning, 13(2), 193–208.
   Google Scholar
• Kay, R. H., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 53(3), 819–827. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kettanurak, V., Ramamurthy, K., & Haseman, W. (2001). User attitude as a mediator of learning performance improvement in an interactive multimedia environment: An empirical investigation of the degree of interactivity and learning styles. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54(4), 541–583. doi:10.1006/ijhc.2001.0457
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, H.J., Yi, P., & Hong, J.I. (2020). Students’ academic use of mobile technology and higher-order thinking skills: The role of active engagement. Education Sciences, 10(3), 47–61. doi:10.3390/educsci10030047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lantz, M. E., & Stawiski, A. (2014). Effectiveness of clickers: Effect of feedback and the timing of questions on learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 280–286. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, K. C., & Wong, B.T.M. (2020). The use of student response systems with learning analytics: A review of case studies (2008–2017). International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 14(1), 63–79.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, C., Chen, S., Chi, C., Chien, K.P., Liu, Y., & Chou, T. L. (2017). The effects of clickers with different teaching strategies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(5), 603–628. doi:10.1177/0735633116674213
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lo, C. C. (2010). How student satisfaction factors affect perceived learning. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(1), 47–54.
   Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E., Stull, A., DeLeeuw, K., Almeroth, K., Bimber, B., Chun, D., … Zhang, H. (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
• Mubayrik, H.F B. (2020). Investigating the effect of clicker use on problem-solving among adult learners: A cross-sectional survey. Tuning Journal for Higher Education, 7(2), 141–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearson, R.J. (2020). Clickers versus Plickers: Comparing two audience response systems in a smartphone-free teaching environment. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(8), 2342–2346.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pekrun, R., Cusack, A., Murayama, K., Elliot, A. J., & Thomas, K. (2014). The power of anticipated feedback: Effects on students’ achievement goals and achievement emotions. Learning and Instruction, 29, 115–124. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2009). Achievement goals and achievement emotions: Testing a model of their joint relations with academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 115–135. doi:10.1037/a0013383
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. (2005). Achievement emotions questionnaire (AEQ). User’s manual. Munich: Department of Psychology, University of Munich.
   Google Scholar
• Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Daniels, L. M., Stupnisky, R. H., & Perry, R. P. (2010). Boredom in achievement settings: Control-value antecedents and performance outcomes of a neglected emotion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 531–549. doi:10.1037/a0019243
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A.C., Barchfeld, P., & Perry, R. (2011). Measuring emotions in students’ learning and performance: The Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 36–48. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of quantitative and qualitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 91–105. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3702_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pekrun, R., Hall, N.C., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. (2014). Boredom and academic achievement: Testing a model of reciprocal causation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(3), 696–710. doi:10.1037/a0036006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Putwain, D. W., Becker, S., Symes, W., & Pekrun, R. (2018). Reciprocal relations between students’ academic enjoyment, boredom, and achievement over time. Learning and Instruction, 54, 73–81. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.08.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rana, N. P., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2017). Can clicking promote learning? Measuring student learning performance using clickers in the undergraduate information systems class. Journal of International Education in Business, 10(2), 201–215. doi:10.1108/JIEB-06-2016-0010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rana, N. P., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2018). An empirical examination of antecedents determining students’ usage of clickers in a digital marketing module. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 27(1), 86–104. doi:10.1504/IJBIS.2018.088572
   Google Scholar
• Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Al-Khowaiter, W. A. A. (2016). A review of literature on the use of clickers in the business and management discipline. The International Journal of Management Education, 14(2), 74–91. doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2016.02.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro, A. M., Sims-Knight, J., O'Rielly, G. V., Capaldo, P., Pedlow, T., Gordon, L., & Monteiro, K. (2017). Clickers can promote fact retention but impede conceptual understanding: The effect of the interaction between clicker use and pedagogy on learning. Computers & Education, 111, 44–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharp, J. G., Hemmings, B., Kay, R., Murphy, B., & Elliott, S. (2017). Academic boredom among students in higher education: A mixed methods exploration of characteristics, contributors, and consequences. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 41(5), 657–677. doi:10.1080/0309877X.2016.1159292
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simelane-Mnisi, S., & Mji, A. (2019). Technology-engagement teaching strategy using personal response systems on student’s approaches to learning to increase the mathematics pass rate. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 18, 331–353.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skinner, E. A., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765–781. doi:10.1037/a0012840
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• So, H. J., & Brush, T. A. (2008). Students perceptions of collaborative learning, social presence and satisfaction in a blended learning environment: Relationships and critical factors. Computers & Education, 51(1), 318–336.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stowell, J. R., & Nelson, J. M. (2007). Benefits of electronic audience response systems on student participation, learning, and emotion. Teaching of Psychology, 34(4), 253–258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voith, L. A., Holmes, M. R., & Duda-Banwar, J. (2018). Clicking toward better grades: The use of student response systems in social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 54(2), 239–249. doi:10.1080/10437797.2017.1283268
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watt, J. D., & Vodanovich, S. J. (1999). Boredom proneness and psycho-social development. The Journal of Psychology, 133(3), 303–314. doi:10.1080/00223989909599743
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wombacher, K. A., Harris, C., Buckner, M. M., Frisby, B., & Limperos, A. M. (2017). The effects of computer-mediated communication anxiety on student perceptions of instructor behaviors, perceived learning, and quiz performance. Communication Education, 66(3), 299–312. doi:10.1080/03634523.2016.1221511
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, Y.C.J., Wu, T., & Li, Y. (2019). Impact of using classroom response systems on students’ entrepreneurship learning experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 634–645.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar