Background: This study examined students’ perceptions of and engagement with active student responding (ASR) techniques as they relate to student performance.
Objective: We replicate Zayac et al.'s study on ASR methods and expand on it by using an upper-level psychology course at multiple institutions and additional measures of engagement.
Method: The current study used a within-subjects, counter-balanced design, with data collected from 103 students at four universities.
Results: Though no differences in exam scores across ASR conditions were observed, there were differences in student perceptions and engagement. ASR techniques providing increased anonymity resulted in greater student perceptions and engagement than control conditions. Additionally, extraverted students reported greater cognitive and emotional engagement with nonanonymous ASR techniques.
Conclusion: Findings support some positive impacts of ASR techniques, especially for those that allow for increased student anonymity.
Implications for Teaching: Instructors should be selective and critical about adopting ASR techniques in the classroom, as anonymous ones may allow for increased student engagement and accommodations for some but have the potential for distraction or disengagement for others.
BartlingC. A. (1988). Longitudinal changes in the study habits of successful college students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48(2), 527–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448848202
2.
Brown-KramerC. R. (2021). Improving students’ study habits and course performance with a “learning how to learn” assignment. Teaching of Psychology, 48(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628320959926
3.
CampbellA. M.DavalosD. B.McCabeD. P.TroupL. J. (2011). Executive functions and extraversion. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(6), 720–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.06.018
CliffordS.SheagleyG.PistonS. (2021). Increasing precision without altering treatment effects: Repeated measures designs in survey experiments. American Political Science Review, 115(3), 1048–1065. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055421000241
6.
CostaP. T.McCraeR. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (Neo-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
7.
DiedenhofenB.MuschJ. (2015). Cocor: A comprehensive solution for the statistical comparison of correlations. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0121945. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131499
8.
ElickerJ. D.McConnellN. L. (2011). Interactive learning in the classroom: Is student response method related to performance?Teaching of Psychology, 38(3), 147–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628311411789
9.
GoldbergL. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg, the Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
10.
GoldbergL. R.JohnsonJ. A.EberH. W.HoganR.AshtonM. C.CloningerC. R.GoughH. C. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007
11.
Grier-ReedT.AppletonJ.RodriguezM.GanuzaZ.ReschlyA. L. (2012). Exploring the student engagement instrument and career perceptions with college students. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 2(2), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.5539/jedp.v2n2p85
12.
GunucS.KuzuA. (2015). Student engagement scale: Development, reliability and validity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(4), 587–610. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.938019
KellumK. K.CarrJ. E.DozierC. L. (2001). Response-card instruction and student learning in a college classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 28(2), 101–104. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP2802_06
15.
KomarrajuM.KarauS. J. (2005). The relationship between the big five personality traits and academic motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(3), 557–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.013
16.
KrebsC. A.KuhnS. A.BrewerA. T.DillerJ. W. (2021). Using interteaching to promote online learning outcomes. Journal of Behavioral Education, 32(1), 76–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-021-09434-5
17.
LarsenR. J.BussD. M. (2018). Personality psychology: Domains of knowledge about human nature (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
18.
LathamA.HillN. S. (2014). Preference for anonymous classroom participation: Linking student characteristics and reactions to electronic response systems. Journal of Management Education, 38(2), 192–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562913488109
19.
MalangaP. R.SweeneyW. J. (2008). Increasing active student responding in a university applied behavior analysis course: The effect of daily assessment and response cards on end of week quiz scores. Journal of Behavioral Education, 17(2), 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-007-9056-8
20.
MiyakeA.FriedmanN. P.EmersonM. J.WitzkiA. H.HowerterA.WagerT. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
21.
RidenB. S.TaylorJ. C.MantzorosT. (2020). Using electronic active student responding for students 2ith EBD. Beyond Behavior, 29(3), 174–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/1074295620948426
22.
RobertsL. D.Rajah-KanagasabaiC. J. (2013). I’d be so much more comfortable posting anonymously”: Identified versus anonymous participation in student discussion boards. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(5), 612–625. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.452
23.
RoedigerI. I. I.ButlerH. L. C. A. (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
24.
SanaF.WestonT.CepedaN. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers & Education, 62, 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.003
25.
StowellJ. R.NelsonJ. M. (2007). Benefits of electronic audience response systems on student participation, learning, and emotion. Teaching of Psychology, 34(4), 253–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280701700391
26.
ZayacR. M.RatkosT.FriederJ. E.PaulkA. (2016). A comparison of active student responding modalities in a general psychology course. Teaching of Psychology, 43(1), 43–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628315620879