Diferentes métodos de evaluación a través del uso de los clickers. Comparación de la utilidad percibida por los estudiantes

  1. Estrella Fernández 1
  2. Rebeca Cerezo 1
  3. Marta Méndez 1
  4. Natalia Suárez 1
  5. Alejandra Dobarro 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Oviedo
    info

    Universidad de Oviedo

    Oviedo, España

    ROR https://ror.org/006gksa02

Journal:
Revista de Psicología y Educación

ISSN: 1699-9517

Year of publication: 2016

Volume: 11

Issue: 1

Pages: 25-44

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Revista de Psicología y Educación

Abstract

The purpose of the study is the analysis of students’ perceived utility according to different methods of continuous assessment. Besides, there are of interest the differences between those methods, carried out through the use of an Personal Response System o “clickers”. In this study participated 243 university students. There were developed different sessions and assessment methods (questions showed individually or in group; continuous assessment; training evaluation; different incentives for participation). Results showed that students, in general, perceive these systems as useful to their daily and autonomous study. In the same way, results showed higher students’ perceived utility when their participation is considered in their grade and when they know the moment when the assessment session will be done

Bibliographic References

  • Anthis, K. (2011). Is it the clicker, or is it the question? Untangling the effects of student response system use. Teaching of Psychology, 38, 189-193.
  • Arribas, J. M. (2012). El rendimiento académico en función del sistema de evaluación empleado. Revista Electrónica de Investigación y Evaluación Educativa, 18, 1-15.
  • Delgado, A., y Cuello, O. (2009). Interacción entre la evaluación continua y la autoevaluación formativa: la potenciación del aprendizaje autónomo. Red-U. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 4, 1-13.
  • Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. Life Science Education, 6, 1920.
  • Carrillo de la Peña, M. T., y Pérez, J. (2012). Continuous assessment improved academic achievement and satisfaction of psychology students in Spain. Teaching of Psychology, 39, 45-47.
  • Coll, C., Rochera, M. J., Mayordomo, M. R., y Naranjo, M. (2007). Evaluación continua y ayuda al aprendizaje. Análisis de una experiencia de innovación en educación superior con apoyo de las TIC. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Psicoeducativa, 13, 783-804.
  • Crisp, B. (2012). Integrative assessment: Reframing assessment practice for current and future learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 37, 33-43.
  • Fies, C., y Marshall, J. (2006). Classroom response systems: A review of the literature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15, 101-109.
  • Fies, C., y Marshall, J. (2008). The C3 framework: evaluating classroom response system interactions in university classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 483-499.
  • Fitch, J. L. (2004). Student feedback in the college classroom: A technology solution. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52, 71-81.
  • Frías, M. D., Pascual, J. y García, F. (2000). Tamaño del efecto del tratamiento y significación estadística. Psicothema, 12, 236-240.
  • Gauci, S. A., Dantas, A. M., Williams, D. A., y Kemm, R. E. (2009). Promoting student-centered active learning in lectures with a personal response system. Advances in Physiology Education, 33, 60-71.
  • Gok, T. (2011). An evaluation of student response systems from the viewpoint of instructors and students. The Turkish online Journal of Educational Technology, 10, 67-83.
  • Gosh, S., y Renna, F. (2009). Using electronic response systems in economics classes. Journal of Economic Education, 40, 354-365.
  • Gray, K., Owens, K., Liang, X., y Steer, D. (2012). Assessing multimedia influences on student responses using a personal response system. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 392-402.
  • Hernández, R. (2012). Does continuous assessment in higher education support student learning? Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning, 64, 489-502.
  • Hoon, J. (2014). Closing the missing links and opening the relationships among the factors: A literature review on the use of clicker technology using the 3P model. Educational Technology & Society, 17, 150-168.
  • Kay, R. H. (2009). Examining gender differences in attitudes toward interactive classroom communications systems (ICCS). Computers & Education, 52, 730-740.
  • Kay, R. H., y LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers & Education 53, 819-827
  • Keller, C., Finkelstein, N., Perkins, K., Pollock, S., Turpen, C., y Dubson, M. (2007). Research-based practices for effective clicker use. In Hsu, L. et al. (Eds.), Physics education research conference (pp. 128-131). Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics.
  • King, D. B., y Joshi, S. (2008). Gender differences in the use and effectiveness of personal response devices. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 544-552.
  • López, V. M. (2012). Evaluación formativa y compartida en la universidad: clarificación de conceptos y propuestas de intervención desde la red interuniversitaria de evaluación formativa. Psychology, Society, & Education, 4, 117-130.
  • MacArthur, J. R., y Jones, L. L. (2008). A review of literature reports of clickers applicable to college chemistry classrooms. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9, 189-195.
  • Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and instruction. New York: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
  • Mayer, R. E., Stull, A., DeLeeuw, K., Almeroth, A., Bimber, B., Chun, D., (…), y Zhang, H. (2009). Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 51-57.
  • Morling, B., McAuliffe, M., Cohen, L., y DiLorenzo, T. (2008). Efficacy of personal response systems (“Clickers”) in large, introductory psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 35, 45-50.
  • Nicol, D. J., y Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 199– 218.
  • Oswald, K. M., y Rothen, S. E. (2014). Improving classroom clicker practices: Effects of incentives and feedback on retention. North American Journal of Psychology, 16, 79-88.
  • Tlhoaele, M., Hofman, A., Naidoo, A., y Winnips, K. (2014). Using clickers to facilitate interactive engagement activities in a lecture room for improved performance by students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51, 497-509.
  • Trees, A. R., y Jackson, M. H. (2007). The learning environment in clicker classrooms: student processes of learning and involvement in large university-level courses using student response systems. Learning, Media and Technology, 32, 21-40.
  • Valle, A., Cabanach, R. G., Rodríguez, S., Núñez, J. C., y GonzálezPienda, J. A. (2006). Metas académicas, estrategias cognitivas y estrategias de autorregulación en el estudio. Psicothema, 18, 165-170.
  • Vana, K., Silva, E., Muzyka., D., y Hirani, L. (2011). Effectiveness of an audience response system in teaching pharmacology to baccalaureate nursing students. CIN -Computers Informatics Nursing, 29, 326-334.
  • Weurlander, M., Söderberg, M., Scheja, M., Hult, H., y Wernerson, A. (2012). Exploring formative assessment as a tool for learning: students’ experiences of different methods of formative assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37, 747-760
  • White, P., Syncox, D., y Alters, B. (2011). Clicking for grades? Really? Investigating the use of clickers for awarding gradepoints in postsecondary education. Interactive Learning Environments, 19, 551-561.
  • Yourstone, S. A., Kraye, H. S., y Albaum, G. (2008). Classroom questioning with immediate electronic response: Do clickers improve learning? Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 6, 75–88.
Data source: Dialnet