Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clicker Implementation Styles in STEM

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Active Learning in College Science

  • 2353 Accesses

Abstract

Although clickers are often invoked as a simple strategy for incorporating active learning into STEM classrooms, actual clicker implementations are complex and highly varied. This chapter sheds light on the spectrum of clicker implementation styles that have been observed in STEM classrooms at our institution and elsewhere and explores the decision-making processes that underlie those styles. In service of these goals, we draw on a combination of sources, including the education research literature, a mixed-methods study conducted by our research group, and professional experience as instructors, researchers, and faculty developers. The chapter concludes with guiding principles to help STEM practitioners make informed choices about how and when to incorporate clickers into their courses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Arjoon, J. A., Xu, X., & Lewis, J. E. (2013). Understanding the state of the art for measurement in chemistry education research: Examining the psychometric evidence. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(5), 536–545. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed3002013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, C. A., & Smith, D. (Eds.). (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. http://visionandchange.org/files/2011/03/Revised-Vision-and-Change-Final-Report.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruck, A. D., & Towns, M. H. (2009). Analysis of classroom response system questions via four lenses in a general chemistry course. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10(4), 291–295. https://doi.org/10.1039/b920834h.

    Article  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. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed100409p.

    Article  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. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-12-0205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative. (2013). What not to do: Practices that should be avoided when implementing active learning. Retrieved from: http://www.cwsei.ubc.ca/resources/instructor_guidance.htm

  • Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative (CWSEI) and The Science Education Initiative at the University of Colorado (CU-SEI). (2017). Clicker resource guide: An instructor’s guide to the effective use of personal response systems (clickers) in teaching. Retrieved from http://www.cwsei.ubc.ca/resources/clickers.htm

  • Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleary, A. M. (2008). Using wireless response systems to replicate behavioral research findings in the classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 35(1), 42–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280701826642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, D. (2008). Tips for successful “Clicker” use. Retrieved from http://www.cwsei.ubc.ca/resources/files/Tips_for_Successful_Clicker_Use_Duncan.pdf

  • Ebert-May, D., Derting, T. L., Hodder, J., Momsen, J. L., Long, T. M., & Jardeleza, S. E. (2011). What we say is not what we do: Effective evaluation of faculty professional development programs. Bioscience, 61(7), 550–558. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.7.9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, B. A., & Frey, R. F. (2015). Using documentary tools to foster the practice of scholarly teaching. The National Teaching & Learning Forum, 24(2), 4–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/ntlf.30016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, R. F., Fisher, B. A., Solomon, E. D., Leonard, D. A., Mutambuki, J. M., Cohen, C. A., Luo, J., & Pondugula, S. (2016). A visual approach to helping instructors integrate, document, and refine active learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 45(5), 20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, G. E., Dutta, S., Mulcahy, K., Tabakova, V., Majewski, D., Reid, J. W., & Jia, Z. (2018). A comparative analysis of the use of student response devices (“clickers”) in university learning environments at a large southeastern university. Journal of STEM Education Research., 1, 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-018-0004-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hora, M. T. (2015). Towards a descriptive science of teaching: How the teaching dimensions observation protocol illuminates the dynamic and multi-dimensional nature of active learning modalities in postsecondary classrooms. Science Education, 99(5), 783–818. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hora, M. T., Oleson, A., & Ferrare, J. J. (2013). Teaching dimensions observation protocol (TDOP) user’s manual. Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, J. K., & Wood, W. B. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology Education, 4(4), 298–310. https://doi.org/10.1187/05-06-0082.

    Article  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 Sciences Education, 12(4), 645–654. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-05-0090.

    Article  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. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-04-0093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasry, N., Charles, E., Whittaker, C., & Lautman, M. (2009). When talking is better than staying quiet. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1179(1), 181–184. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3266709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

    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. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-10-0224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martyn, M. (2007). Clickers in the classroom: An active learning approach. Educause Quarterly, 30(2), 71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences. (2015). Reaching students: What research says about effective instruction in undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, DC: NAS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, S., & Riordan, D. R. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (Report to the President). Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, L., Bailey-Lee, C., Simon, B., & Zingaro, D. (2011). Peer instruction: Do students really learn from peer discussion in computing? In ICER ‘11: Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Computing Education Research (pp. 45–52). New York: ACM Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Repice, M. D., Sawyer, R. K., Hogrebe, M. C., Brown, P. L., Luesse, S. B., Gealy, D. J., & Frey, R. F. (2016). Talking through the problems: A study of discourse in peer-led small groups. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(3), 555–568. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5rp00154d.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, H. L., III, & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawada, D., Piburn, M. D., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching observation protocol. School Science and Mathematics, 102(6), 245–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N., & Su, T. T. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323(5910), 122–124. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. K., Trujillo, C., & Su, T. T. (2011). The benefits of using clickers in small-enrollment seminar-style biology courses. CBE Life Sciences Education, 10(1), 14–17. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-09-0114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. K., Jones, F. H., 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 Sciences Education, 12(4), 618–627. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-08-0154.

    Article  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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-08-0180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stains, M., & Vickrey, T. (2017). Fidelity of implementation: An overlooked yet critical construct to establish effectiveness of evidence-based instructional practices. CBE Life Sciences Education, 16(1), rm1. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turpen, C., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2009). Not all interactive engagement is the same: Variations in physics professors’ implementations of peer instruction. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 6(1), 020123. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.020101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turpen, C., Dancy, M., & Henderson, C. (2010). Faculty perspectives on using peer instruction: A national study. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1289(1), 325–328. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3515235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turpen, C., Dancy, M., & Henderson, C. (2016). Perceived affordances and constraints regarding instructors’ use of peer instruction: Implications for promoting instructional change. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1), 010116. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010116.

    Article  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. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-11-0198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Integrative Research on Cognition, Learning and Education, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Angela Fink

  2. Center for Integrative Research on Cognition, Learning and Education, and Department of Chemistry, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA

    Regina F. Frey

Authors
  1. Angela Fink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Regina F. Frey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Regina F. Frey .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Biological Sciences and Science Education, California State University, Chico, CA, USA

    Joel J. Mintzes

  2. Science Learning Associates, Wrightsville Beach, NC, USA

    Joel J. Mintzes

  3. Department of Biological Sciences and Center for STEM Education, California State University, Fresno, CA, USA

    Emily M. Walter

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Fink, A., Frey, R.F. (2020). Clicker Implementation Styles in STEM. In: Mintzes, J.J., Walter, E.M. (eds) Active Learning in College Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33600-4_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33600-4_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-33599-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-33600-4

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation