Clicker-integrated instruction and conventional instruction: what is the difference in students’ learning outcomes in chemistry? Abdou L J Jammeh 1 , Claude Karegeya 2 , Savita Ladage 3 1 African Centre of Excellence for Innovative Teaching and Learning Maths and Science (ACEITLMS),University of Rwanda-College of Education, Rwanda, 2 University of Rwanda - College of Education, Rwanda, 3 Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, India To achieve quality education for all reaffirms the belief that technology is one of the most powerful and proven vehicles to be encouraged. Instructional technologies have the potential to enhance creativity and critical and analytical thinking skills. These are components of quality education and clicker technology, for example, has the potential to enhance and engage learning under social constructivism learning approach. This handheld assessment tool is remotely connected to a touchscreen laptop through a Universal Serial Bus(USB) attached radio frequency transmitter to show the percentage of students' responses on a SMART Board through SMART Notebook software. Many studies found the potential of this instructional technology in teaching and learning, compared to conventional instruction. However, they either conducted a meta-analysis of the literature or conducted a mini-lecture to evaluate its impact. In the present study, however, clicker-integrated instruction and conventional are compared using mini-lectures with students and evaluation of their three-year (2017-2019) final year chemistry results. Purposively, 2593 students are sampled under different instructional environments. The results indicate that clicker-integrated instruction has the potential to improve learning outcomes, compared to conventional instruction. Further, the result from the regression analysis reveals that there is no relationship between examination results and assessment grades. Nevertheless, the result from the multiple regression suggests that the relative contribution of the model, stands on firm empirical ground, as it explained 3.5% of variance in results. These results implied that clicker-integrated instruction can be encouraged but notwithstanding, further research is encouraged to provide more detailed evidence of characteristics of learners using mixed method research. References 1. Bojinova, E., & Oigara, J. (2013). Teaching and Learning with Clickers in Higher Education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 25(2), 154-165. https://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/ 2. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. 3. Education Sector Policy, (2016-2030). Ministries of Basic and Secondary Education and Higher Education Research Science and Technology. Ministries of Basic and Secondary Education and Higher Education Research Science and Technology. http://www.edugambia.gm 4. Egelandsdal, K., & Krumsvik, R. J. (2017). Clickers and formative feedback at university lectures. Education Information Technology,22(6),55–74. https://doi.10.1007/s10639-015-9437-x 5. Hanover Independent Research. (2014). Progressive Science and Mathematics Initiative in The Gambia. Programme Evaluation. USA: World Bank. (Retrieved Jan. 2019): http://njc.tl/142 6. Moussa, P. B., Ousman, G., Solomon, O., Ryoko T. Y. X. (2020, December 2020). Technology in the 716 Classroom and Learning in Secondary Schools. [PRWP No. 9288]. Policy Research Working Africa Region, Office of the Chief Economist & Education Global Practice. https://njctl.org/gambia-2020-report/.
P04
© The Author(s), 2023
Made with FlippingBook Learn more on our blog