An Empirical Investigation of Clicker Technology in Financial Accounting Principles.

The effects of clicker-use and active learning classroom activities on student performance in financial accounting principles were examined. A repeated measure design was used to compare performance on four exams between a clicker group and a non-clicker group, after controlling for GPA and age. A matched-pairs t-test was used to compare the effects of clickers and structured, peer-instruction (PI). In addition, students’ perceptions of clicker-use were evaluated against the literature. The results indicate that the integration of clickers with structured PI, significantly affects students’ performance. However, the use of clickers, in and of themselves, did not produce significantly higher performance results for students. Despite the limited performance effects, most of the students believe they learn more and perform better because of the clicker technology. They believe they are more actively engaged, are more motivated, and are more likely to attend class because of the clickers. Leisa L. Marshall and Anthony W. Varnon 8 Spring 2012 (Volume 8 Issue 1) The primary purpose for using the clicker technology in this study was to maintain the “feel” of a small classroom (faculty-student interaction) while teaching in a larger classroom. The clicker system allows the professor and the students to communicate with each other via the histogram display. The professor is able to replace visual inspection of students’ faces for understanding with class responses to the clicker questions. This feedback allows the professor to immediately assess students’ conceptual understanding and problem-solving capabilities and adjust the lecture accordingly. Many in the literature suggest that clickers are an active learning technique. Some have stated that clickers provide the mechanism for each student to engage their thought processes; allowing all students to move from the passive listener and to participate in the learning process. Thus, many clicker researchers imply, if not directly state, that the use of clickers increases performance. However, it is questionable that simply depressing a button on a remote control-type device translates into active learning. True enough, students move beyond passive listening by pushing a button on their remote device. Whether the “button pushing” on the remote device translates into “being engaged” is not visible or theoretically justified. In addition, the conflicting empirical clicker research evidence on actual performance (evaluated below) brings into question whether the clicker technology, in and of itself, is active learning. The current research seeks to determine whether or not the clicker technology is, in its’ own right, an active learning technique. Despite whether or not the use of clickers is deemed to be an active learning technique, the use of clickers provides a mechanism for “all” students to participate. As revealed in the literature section, students perceive that clickers increase their attention, motivation, course performance, and retention of material. In general, students’ perceptions across studies appear to be fairly consistent—students like using clickers. One purpose of this study is to ascertain whether students in financial accounting principles produce the same satisfaction levels with the clicker technology as reported in the literature. A second purpose of this study seeks to resolve the issue regarding the effect of clicker use on “actual” (versus perceived) student performance. As revealed in the literature review section, studies regarding the use of clickers in the classroom produce conflicting results; either increased performance or no effect. Carnaghan and Webb (2007) produced limited evidence that the implementation of active learning techniques simultaneously to the integration of clickers creates the increases in students’ performance. A review of the literature bears out this suggestion and provides the foundation for this study. A final purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect on performance of the combined use of peer instruction (PI) and clickers. This study was designed to isolate the effects of clickers alone and clickers with PI. A non-clicker group was compared to a clicker group with an element of both groups’ final grades consisting of class participation. Clicker technology was integrated during the entire semester in the clicker group with PI integrated after midterm. The next section provides a literature review of clicker research and the ensuing hypotheses. The subsequent section contains the methodology and is followed by the results and discussion section. Finally, the limitations of the study, conclusions, and future research appear in the final section. LITERATURE AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT Clicker technology researchers provide various theoretical rationales to support the use of clickers and their effects on students’ performance. Many provide the Dufresne et al. (1996) social constructivism theory as the rationale behind increased student performance with the clicker technology (Nichol and Boyle 2003). Dufresne’ et al. (1996) social constructivism relies heavily on PI. PI begins with posing a question to the students in class; where initially, students respond without conferring with classmates. The histogram of responses is revealed to the class; after which students are encouraged to discuss, in small groups, the question and responses. After the groups’ discussions, students are allowed to respond to the question a second time. An Empirical Investigation of Clicker Technology in Financial Accounting Principles Journal of Learning in Higher Education 9 Edmonds and Edmonds (2008) provide the “theoretical arguments made by accounting educators” . “that active learning promotes student performance” (p 422). Edmonds and Edmonds (2008) also rely on a subset of Bonwell and Eison’s (1991) characteristics that describe “active learning. ” More specifically, Edmonds and Edmonds (2008, p 423) put forth that the use of clicker technology involves five of Bonwell and Eison’s (1991) seven characteristics: 1. students are involved in more than pas-