Use of clickers to improve student engagement in learning: Observations from the built environment discipline

Kulatunga, U and Rameezdeen, R (2014) Use of clickers to improve student engagement in learning: Observations from the built environment discipline. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 10(1), pp. 3-18. ISSN 1557-8771

Abstract

Student engagement and active learning have been identified as key areas for learning enhancement as students tend to understand and retain teaching material better and enjoy lectures when they are actively engaged. This would improve retention and progression of students and could lead to improved levels of academic success. Designing learning activities to improve student engagement has been considered by many universities. This article evaluates the use of 'Clickers' (a remote voting system) as a mechanism to improve student engagement within the Built Environment discipline. Focus group discussions and questionnaire surveys with students, interviews with staff members and personal observations were used to collect data. A positive correlation between student engagement and Clicker sessions was evident. Anonymously responding to questions, collaborative learning, and self-evaluation of performance have been able to improve student engagement for Clicker sessions. Effective feedback discussions based on the Clicker questions, knowledge sharing with peers, and reflecting more on the subject content have influenced deep learning among students, and hence, improved learning. The originality of this research stems from the fact that Clickers could be more useful for the Built Environment discipline, as its outward looking teaching and learning approach appropriately matches with that of Clickers technology.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: active learning: clickers: student engagement
Index terms: questionnaire, focus group, interview, student engagement, knowledge sharing, survey, self-evaluation, built environment, collaborative learning, retention, deep learning, active learning
Subjects: knowledge management, artificial intelligence, evaluation methods, data collection methods, learning methods, infrastructure and transport systems, student development, management
Topics: Human Resources, Digital Applications, Urban Studies, Information Management, Research Practice, Education, Quality Management
Descriptive scope: 4 PCEA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here