Using Interactive Response Systems in Economics: utility and factors influencing students’ attitudes

[EN] The European Higher Education Area (EHEA) involves changing traditional methods to promote innovative teaching experiences. This paper has two main aims: a) to show evidence of the use of Interactive Response Systems (IRS) to identify gaps in the understanding of the course contents and b) to investigate factors influencing students’ attitudes towards the use of IRS. The experience was developed through a collective tutoring session in the subject of Economics using IRS. Economics is a first-year subject in the Degree of Business Administration and Management offered by the University of Cadiz, which includes contents of Microeconomics and Macroeconomics and uses economic models to explain the function of the economy and the behaviour of economic agents. Results show that IRS technique allows detecting gaps in learning and comprehension. From our econometric estimations, we also identify two strongly significant variables affecting students’ attitudes towards IRS: gender and received explanations regarding the use of IRS. Variables such as first enrolment in the subject and the number of hours devoted to studying have a positive and significant effect on the attitude to IRS, but at a lower level of significance (from 5% to 10%).Bares López, L.; Fernández Pérez, AM.; Ferrándiz León, E.; Flores Varo, ME.; León Rodríguez, MD. (2017). Using Interactive Response Systems in Economics: utility and factors influencing students’ attitudes. Multidisciplinary Journal for Education, Social and Technological Sciences. 4(1):16-36. doi:10.4995/muse.2017.5476.163641Anthis, 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. doi:10.1177/0098628311411895Butler, J. A. (1992). Use of teaching methods within the lecture format. Medical Teacher, 14(1), 11-25. doi:10.3109/01421599209044010Camacho-Mi-ano, M. D. M. and del Campo, C. (2014). Useful interactive teaching tool for learning: clickers in higher education. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-18.Cabrer, B., Sancho, A. and Serrano, G. (2001). Microeconometría y Decisión. Pirámide, Madrid.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.06-12-0205Carnaghan, C., & Webb, A. (2007). Investigating the Effects of Group Response Systems on Student Satisfaction, Learning, and Engagement in Accounting Education. Issues in Accounting Education, 22(3), 391-409. doi:10.2308/iace.2007.22.3.391Dallaire, D. H. (2011). Effective Use of Personal Response «Clicker» Systems in Psychology Courses. Teaching of Psychology, 38(3), 199-204. doi:10.1177/0098628311411898Emenike, 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. doi:10.1021/ed200207pFallon, M., & Forrest, S. L. (2011). High-Tech Versus Low-Tech Instructional Strategies. Teaching of Psychology, 38(3), 194-198. doi:10.1177/0098628311411896Fies, C., & Marshall, J. (2006). Classroom Response Systems: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 101-109. doi:10.1007/s10956-006-0360-1Gebru, M. T., Phelps, A. J., & Wulfsberg, G. (2012). Effect of clickers versus online homework on students’ long-term retention of general chemistry course material. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 13(3), 325-329. doi:10.1039/c2rp20033cGül, H., Gül, S. S., Kaya, E., & Alican, A. (2010). Main trends in the world of higher education, internationalization and institutional autonomy. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1878-1884. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.417Han, J. H., & Finkelstein, A. (2013). Understanding the effects of professors’ pedagogical development with Clicker Assessment and Feedback technologies and the impact on students’ engagement and learning in higher education. Computers & Education, 65, 64-76. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.002Kay, R., & Knaack, L. (2009). Exploring the Use of Audience Response Systems in Secondary School Science Classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(5), 382-392. doi:10.1007/s10956-009-9153-7Kennedy, G. E., & Cutts, Q. I. (2005). The association between students’ use of an electronic voting system and their learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(4), 260-268. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00133.xKing, S. O., & Robinson, C. L. (2009). ‘Pretty Lights’ and Maths! Increasing student engagement and enhancing learning through the use of electronic voting systems. Computers & Education, 53(1), 189-199. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.012Lasry, N. (2008). Clickers or Flashcards: Is There Really a Difference? The Physics Teacher, 46(4), 242-244. doi:10.1119/1.2895678Liu,T., Liang, J., Wang, H., Chan, T. and Wei, L. (2003). Embedding Educlick in Classroom to Enhance Interaction. In Lee, K., Mitchell, K. (eds.) Proceedings International Conference Computers in Education (ICCE), 117-125. Hong Kong (China).Ludvigsen, K., Krumsvik, R., & Furnes, B. (2015). Creating formative feedback spaces in large lectures. Computers & Education, 88, 48-63. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.04.002MacGeorge, E. L., Homan, S. R., Dunning, J. B., Elmore, D., Bodie, G. D., Evans, E., … Geddes, B. (2007). Student evaluation of audience response technology in large lecture classes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 125-145. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9053-6Morling, B., McAuliffe, M., Cohen, L., & DiLorenzo, T. M. (2008). Efficacy of Personal Response Systems («Clickers») in Large, Introductory Psychology Classes. Teaching of Psychology, 35(1), 45-50. doi:10.1177/009862830803500112Moss, K., & Crowley, M. (2011). Effective learning in science: The use of personal response systems with a wide range of audiences. Computers & Education, 56(1), 36-43. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.021Palmer, E. J., Devitt, P. G., De Young, N. J., & Morris, D. (2005). Assessment of an electronic voting system within the tutorial setting: A randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN54535861]. BMC Medical Education, 5(1). doi:10.1186/1472-6920-5-24Poirier, C. R., & Feldman, R. S. (2007). Promoting Active Learning Using Individual Response Technology in Large Introductory Psychology Classes. Teaching of Psychology, 34(3), 194-196. doi:10.1080/00986280701498665Schackow, T., Milton, C., Loya, L. and Friedman, M. (2004). Audience Response Systems: Effect on Learning in Family Medicine Residents. Family Medicine, 36, 496-504.Siau, K., Sheng, H., & Nah, F. F.-H. (2006). Use of a Classroom Response System to Enhance Classroom Interactivity. IEEE Transactions on Education, 49(3), 398-403. doi:10.1109/te.2006.879802Stowell, 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. doi:10.1080/00986280701700391Van Dijk, L. A., Van Der Berg, G. C., & Van Keulen, H. (2001). Interactive lectures in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 26(1), 15-28. doi:10.1080/03043790123124White, P., Syncox, D., & Alters, B. (2011). Clicking for grades? Really? Investigating the use of clickers for awarding grade-points in post-secondary education. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(5), 551-561. doi:10.1080/10494821003612638Wooldridge, J.M. (2003). Introductory econometrics, a modern approach. Second ed. South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati, OH