ArticleCBE life sciences education2016
A Campus-Wide Investigation of Clicker Implementation: The Status of Peer Discussion in STEM Classes.
Article in CBE life sciences education, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Collaborative Teaching plus (CT+): A Timely, Flexible, and Dynamic Course Design Implemented during Emergency Remote Teaching in an Introductory Biology Course.CBE life sciences education · 2022Article
- Development of a Secondary Dental-Specific Database for Active Learning of Genetics in Dentistry Programs.Healthcare informatics research · 2022Article
- Predicting implementation of active learning by tenure-track teaching faculty using robust cluster analysis.International journal of STEM education · 2022Article
- Look Who's Talking: Teaching and Discourse Practices across Discipline, Position, Experience, and Class Size in STEM College Classrooms.Bioscience · 2021Article
- Article
- Comparison of Cluster Analysis Methodologies for Characterization of Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS) Data.CBE life sciences education · 2021Article
- "What Will I Experience in My College STEM Courses?" An Investigation of Student Predictions about Instructional Practices in Introductory Courses.CBE life sciences education · 2019Article
- Small changes, big gains: A curriculum-wide study of teaching practices and student learning in undergraduate biology.PloS one · 2019Article
- A Mixed-Methods Investigation of Clicker Implementation Styles in STEM.CBE life sciences education · 2018Article
- Teaching Genetics: Past, Present, and Future.Genetics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
At the University of Maine, middle and high school teachers observed more than 250 university science, technology, engineering, and mathematics classes and collected information on the nature of instruction, including how clickers were being used. Comparisons of classes taught with (n = 80) and without (n = 184) clickers show that, while instructional behaviors differ, the use of clickers alone does not significantly impact the time instructors spend lecturing. One possible explanation stems from the observation of three distinct modes of clicker use: peer discussion, in which students had the opportunity to talk with one another during clicker questions; individual thinking, in which no peer discussion was observed; and alternative collaboration, in which students had time for discussion, but it was not paired with clicker questions. Investigation of these modes revealed differences in the range of behaviors, the amount of time instructors lecture, and how challenging the clicker questions were to answer. Because instructors can vary their instructional style from one clicker question to the next, we also explored differences in how individual instructors incorporated peer discussion during clicker questions. These findings provide new insights into the range of clicker implementation at a campus-wide level and how such findings can be used to inform targeted professional development for faculty.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.