08832323.2015.1014459
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Faculty Perceptions of the Adoption and Use of
Clickers in the Legal Studies in Business Classroom
Denise M. Farag, Susan Park & Gundars Kaupins
To cite this article: Denise M. Farag, Susan Park & Gundars Kaupins (2015) Faculty Perceptions
of the Adoption and Use of Clickers in the Legal Studies in Business Classroom, Journal of
Education for Business, 90:4, 208-216, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1014459
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2015.1014459
Published online: 16 Mar 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 53
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 19:18
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 90: 208–216, 2015
Copyright Ó Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1014459
Faculty Perceptions of the Adoption and Use of
Clickers in the Legal Studies in Business Classroom
Denise M. Farag
Linfield College, McMinnville, Oregon, USA
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:18 11 January 2016
Susan Park and Gundars Kaupins
Boise State University, Boise, Idaho, USA
The use of clickers in the classroom can improve student engagement and motivation.
However, few studies have been conducted on faculty opinions of the use of clickers. The
authors measured clicker use in legal studies among business faculty and investigated
perceptions and factors associated with the adoption of clickers in the discipline. Survey
results indicate that most legal studies in business faculty have either never used or rarely
use clickers, and that very few faculty members in the discipline use clickers regularly.
Instructors perceive that clickers can improve teaching, but may be reluctant to adopt them
because of time constraints.
Keywords: clickers, higher education, legal studies in business, student response systems,
teaching with technology
Much research has focused on the use of clickers in higher
education. There is a plethora of articles regarding how
clickers can be used (Barber & Njus, 2007; Easton, 2009)
or on student perceptions of clickers (Caldwell, 2007). Previous researchers have analyzed student perceptions of
clickers in science (Duncan, 2005), physics (Reay, Bao, Li,
Warnakulasooriya, & Baugh, 2005), and K–12 (Penuel,
Boscardin, Masyn, & Crawford, 2007) courses. However,
less research has been done on faculty perceptions of
clicker use. Lincoln (2008) and Lewis (2013) provided two
of the few empirical surveys in a business-related field that
focuses on faculty perceptions regarding the adoption and
use of clickers. Park and Farag (2015) and Easton (2012)
found a dearth of literature concerning instructor perceptions of clickers and how clickers could be used in legal
studies in business education. Using clickers in legal studies
in business courses can be an effective teaching tool. They
can help instructors assess student knowledge of important
laws, as well as student opinions about legal topics and
future policy (Park & Farag, 2015). Here we assessed legal
studies of business faculty perceptions regarding clickers in
Correspondence should be addressed to Denise M. Farag, Linfield College, Business Department #A478, 900 SE Baker Street, McMinnville,
OR 97128, USA. E-mail: dfarag@linfield.edu
light of existing research on clickers. The results of this
study, which provide deeper understanding of existing perceptions about the use of clickers within the discipline, may
help instructors make better decisions about using this, and
other, teaching technologies.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Students often have difficulty paying attention through an
entire traditional classroom lecture. Research suggests that
students can pay attention for an average of 10–20 min during a lecture before their attention declines (Sousa, 2011;
Wilson & Korn, 2007). University instructors have
employed several strategies to help students stay engaged
in the classroom. One increasingly popular teaching tool
involves classroom response systems, or clickers (Fies &
Marshall, 2006). Clickers generally consist of three components: (a) a wireless handheld clicker device itself that often
contains a keypad permitting students to respond to information requested by instructors, (b) the instructor’s receiver
that connects to a classroom or laptop computer, and (c)
clicker software. Clicker software is used to create and
pose questions. It can be integrated with presentation software such as PowerPoint, and with learning management
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:18 11 January 2016
FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF CLICKERS IN LEGAL STUDIES IN BUSINESS
systems such as Blackboard (Barber & Njus, 2007; Caldwell, 2007). Students send responses to the questions via
their clickers, which provide faculty with immediate input
to assess their level of understanding and opinions. Instructors can summarize the data on bar charts or graphs within
seconds (Lantz, 2010; Lincoln, 2009; Yourstone, Kraye, &
Albaum, 2008). Other common uses of clickers include
assessing prior learning, testing student engagement with
assigned reading, providing feedback, breaking up lecture
sessions, administering summative assessments, promoting
peer learning, monitoring attendance, and fostering a sense
of community (Easton, 2009).
An increasing volume of research articles discusses the
various uses and benefits of clickers in the higher education
classroom based on student perceptions (Good, 2013).
Based on surveys of students, clicker use in the classroom
offers several advantages. Clickers can make class more
enjoyable (Carnaghan & Webb, 2007; Ghosh & Renna,
2009; Taneja, 2009), increase student engagement and
motivation (Bojinova & Oigara, 2013; Eastman, Iyer, &
Eastman, 2011; Ghosh & Renna, 2009; Taneja, 2009), and
create a positive learning environment (Kay & LeSage,
2009; Mareno, Bremner, & Emerson, 2010). Clickers have
been shown to improve college English listening and speaking skills (Yu, Chen, Kong, Sun, & Zheng, 2014) and student attitudes toward technology (Eastman et al., 2011).
Students report that clickers help to provide them feedback
and to understand theory underlying the topic they are
studying (Camacho-Mi~
nano & del Campo, 2014).
Research also has revealed several disadvantages related
to the use of clickers. For instance, some studies indicate a
lack of performance differences between students who use
clickers in the classroom versus those who listen to traditional
lectures in the classroom (Carnaghan, Edmonds, Lechner, &
Olds, 2011; Patterson, Kilpatrick, & Woebkenberg, 2010;
Tlhoaele, Hofman, Naidoo, & Winnips, 2014). One study
concluded that the use of clickers does not result in higher
grades (Llorens et al., 2014). Technology-based problems
(e.g., clickers or software not working) and increased costs to
students are also cited in the literature (Mareno et al., 2010).
Despite the possible disadvantages, “[c]licker technology presents an unrivalled opportunity to develop an
engaged community of conceptually-focused, problemsolving legal learners but this can only be achieved through
the engagement and commitment of managers, lecturers
and ultimately the students themselves” (Easton, 2009).
While much has been written about clickers in higher
education, few academic articles involve surveys of faculty
perceptions of clickers in business education courses.
Lincoln’s (2008) study on clickers revealed the results of a
survey of marketing educators based on the Unified Theory
of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), which
has been the basis of numerous studies focused on identifying factors that impact technology acceptance and use.
According to Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, and Davis (2003),
209
UTAUT is an empirically validated model consisting of 26
variables. The model helps explain about 70% of the variance in an educator’s acceptance and use of technology.
The questions in Lincoln’s UTAUT-based study cover performance expectancy (e.g., “Clickers are useful for my
teaching”), effort expectancy (e.g., “Learning how to operate clicker systems is easy”), social influence (e.g., “Our
students expect faculty to teach with clickers”), facilitating
conditions (e.g., “I have the resources necessary to teach
with clickers”), self-efficacy (e.g., “An on-campus person
is readily available to assist me with clicker difficulties”),
attitude toward technology (e.g., “Teaching with clickers is
a good idea”), and anxiety (e.g., “I feel apprehensive about
teaching with clickers”). The four moderating factors
include gender, age, experience, and voluntariness of use
(Venkatesh et al., 2003). The combination of the key determinants and the moderating factors have been found to significantly predict intention to use technology.
Lincoln (2008) found that “Teaching with clickers
increases my classroom preparation time” was a statement
that clicker users and nonusers agree on the most. However,
users agreed with the statement significantly (p < .01) higher
than nonusers. “Teaching with clickers is a good idea” also
had strong agreement from users and nonusers but users’
agreement was significantly (p < .05) higher than nonusers.
The statement with the least agreement was “I teach with
clickers because my colleagues do.” Nonusers had significantly (p < .01) higher agreement than users. Lincoln also
collected information about respondent gender, years of
teaching experience, and university size among campuses
throughout the United States, but this information was not
correlated with the 26 UTAUT questions.
Lewis, Fretwell, Ryan, and Parham (2013) also used the
UTAUT model to survey business faculty members at one
southeastern university through an online instrument. They
found that the relationship between performance expectancy and effort expectancy to use classroom technology
was stronger for men. Men tend to be more task-oriented
and focus on task accomplishment. The study focused on
classroom technology in general rather than clickers and
did not study the relationship of respondent demographic
characteristics to the model’s questions other than gender.
Others have studied respondent demographic characteristics in relationship to classroom technology. For example
Agbatogun (2001) found a positive relationship between
perceptions of e-learning and faculty years of teaching
experience. Similarly, Paver, Walker, and Hung (2014)
found a positive relationship between perceptions of classroom technology and faculty years of teaching experience.
According to Allen and Seaman (2012), women report
more communication with students through the use of technology but also experience more stress than men. Peluchette and Rust (2005) found that female faculty members
were more concerned about time constraints associated
with classroom technology. Xu and Meyer (2007) found
210
D. M. FARAG ET AL.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:18 11 January 2016
that more productive faculty use technology to help them be
more productive. Grasha and Yangarber-Hicks (2000)
linked an instructor’s feelings of competence with the decision to use technology in the classroom. Rosseau and Rogers (1998) found that older faculty members tend to use
fewer new technologies. Smaller classes are associated
with more faculty satisfaction and support for the use of
technology (Carr, 2000). Spotts, Bowman, and Mertz
(1997) found that female faculty had higher ratings than
male colleagues in their perceptions of classroom technology ease of use, increased student learning, and time
needed to learn how to use a technology.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
Given the lack of research on faculty opinions of clickers,
in this study we addressed the following research
objectives:
(a) To obtain a baseline measure of the prevalence of
clicker usage by legal studies in business faculty;
(b) To examine the factors associated with adoption and
usage of clickers by legal studies in business education instructors using variables in the UTAUT
model; and
(c) To uncover patterns of perceptions related to the use
of clickers for teaching in legal studies in business
courses relative to other factors, such as gender, academic rank, and years of teaching experience.
METHODOLOGY
As Lincoln (2008) did previously, we concluded that the
UTAUT would provide a comprehensive framework for
predicting the conditions under which clicker technology
adoption by legal studies in business faculty is likely to
emerge. Thus, the survey instrument used to gather the data
reported on in this study was based on UTAUT.
The UTAUT-based electronic survey developed for this
study was administered through Qualtrics Survey (Provo,
UT) software. The electronic survey, intended to collect
data from clicker users and nonusers, was sent to the membership of the Academy of Legal Studies in Business
(ALSB), an organization comprised of legal studies faculty
who teach undergraduate and graduate business law-related
courses. The ALSB has approximately 912 members
(Academy of Legal Studies in Business, 2014). Data were
collected in January, 2014, from 106 ALSB legal studies
faculty who responded to the survey request. Results from
the survey were then tabulated and analyzed.
RESULTS
Demographics
The sample, shown in Table 1, consisted mostly of men
(54.8%) who were assistant, associate, and full professors
(75.0%) with more than 13 years of teaching experience
(68.3%), but most having no teaching experience with
clickers (66.0%). Most respondents reported self-ratings of
teaching better than department average (74.0%). A majority of survey participants taught at schools having doctorate
programs (55.8%) with enrollments of 15,000 or more
(53.4%).
As shown in Table 2, the highest degree offered at a
respondent’s institution correlated significantly (p < .01)
with total enrollment at that institution. This result
makes intuitive sense because larger schools would
likely have more resources for higher degrees. The highest degree offered at the respondent’s institution and
gender were significantly (p < .01) correlated with the
respondent’s performance appraisal perceptions. Female
instructors tended to lower their perceptions of their performance appraisals.
Opinions About Clickers
Table 3 shows the level of agreement clicker users and nonusers had with the 26 UTAUT statements concerning the
use of clickers. On a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), the statement
with the strongest agreement was “Clickers would be easy
to use once I learned how to operate them” (3.65 rating).
The second highest was “Teaching with clickers would
increase my classroom preparation time” (3.59 rating).
Statements with the most respondent disagreement were
“Using clickers would increase my chances of getting a
raise” (1.86 rating) and “I would teach with clickers
because my colleagues do” (1.94 rating).
Nonusers appear to support negative opinions about
clickers more strongly than users. For example, nonusers
rated Statement 20 (“It would take too long to learn how to
teach with clickers”), Statement 21 (“I feel apprehensive
about teaching with clickers”), and Statement 18
(“Teaching with clickers will take too much time”) significantly higher (p < .01) than users. There were a few significant (p < .05) differences between users and nonusers when
the statements were positive about clickers. Users tended to
rate statements such as Statement 5 (“Using clickers would
make teaching more interesting”) significantly (p < .05)
higher than nonusers.
Factor Analysis
The 26 statements concerning clickers can be narrowed to a
few dimensions based on a factor analysis. Factor analysis
FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF CLICKERS IN LEGAL STUDIES IN BUSINESS
211
TABLE 1
Demographic Characteristics
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:18 11 January 2016
Demographic
Gender
Female
Male
Academic rank
Assistant professor
Associate professor
Professor
Lecturer
Adjunct
Other
Highest business degree offered at your institution
Associate
Bachelor
Master
Doctorate
Total enrollment at your institution
Under 5,000
5,000–14,999
15,000–19,999
20,000 or over
Years of teaching experience
Over 18
13–18
7–12
0–6
Experience teaching with clickers
I have never taught with clickers
I have taught with clickers once
I have taught with clickers a few times
I have taught with clickers several times
I always teach with clickers
My most recent teaching performance appraisal compared to others in my department is
Much better than department average
Better than department average
About department average
Not measured/do not know
results in Table 4 show six dimensions based on the principal components method and varimax rotation. Variables
with factor loadings of .4 or higher counted for the
dimensions.
Teaching quality was the dimension associated with the
most statements. With eleven statements loading on this
n
%
47
57
45.2
54.8
21
25
32
18
5
3
20.2
24.0
30.8
17.3
4.8
2.9
3
3
40
58
2.9
2.9
38.5
55.8
11
37
10
45
10.7
35.9
9.7
43.7
50
21
18
15
48.1
20.2
17.3
14.4
70
15
11
7
3
66.0
14.2
10.4
6.6
2.8
41
36
17
10
39.4
34.6
16.3
9.5
dimension, the average unweighted scores concerning
agreement with the statements was 3.09. The highest loaded
statements were “Teaching with clickers is a good idea”
(.892) and “I would like teaching with clickers” (.875). The
overall average score for statements loading at least §.4 on
this factor was 3.19.
TABLE 2
Correlations Between Demographic Variables
1
Gender (1)
Academic rank (2)
Highest degree offered at your institution (3)
Total enrollment at your institution (4)
Years of teaching experience (5)
Experience teaching with clickers (6)
Performance appraisal compared to others (7)
*p < .05. **p < .01.
2
3
4
5
6
7
¡.032
.088
.152
.084
.083
.338**
¡.085
¡.042
¡.088
.028
.078
¡.112
¡.099
.009
.027
¡.270**
¡.080
¡.286**
¡.187
.217*
.050
212
D. M. FARAG ET AL.
TABLE 3
User and Nonuser Views on Clickers
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:18 11 January 2016
Views on clickers
User
1 – Easy to use (Clickers would be easy to use once I learned how to operate them)
2 – Prep time (Teaching with clickers would increase my classroom preparation time)
3 – Chair support (My department chair/immediate supervisor would support teaching with clickers)
4 – Instruction available (On-campus instruction would be available to teach me how to use clickers)
5 – Interesting (Using clickers would make teaching more interesting)
6 – Useful (Clickers would be useful for my teaching)
7 – Guidance (On-campus guidance would be available to help me select the best clicker brand to use)
8 – Good idea (Teaching with clickers is a good idea)
9 – Learning easy (Learning how to operate clicker systems would be easy)
10 – Resources available (I would have the resources necessary to teach with clickers)
11 – Good time use (Teaching with clickers would make good use of my time in the classroom)
12 – Fun (Teaching with clickers would be fun)
13 – Assist available (An on-campus person would be readily available to assist me with clicker difficulties)
14 – Like teaching (I would like teaching with clickers)
15 – Increase quality (Using clickers would increase my teaching quality)
16 – Learning to best teach (Learning how to best teach with clickers would be easy)
17 – Increase productivity (Teaching with clickers would increase my teaching productivity)
18 – Time from normal (Teaching with clickers would take too much time from my normal teaching activities)
19 – Expect to raise evaluation scores (Teaching with clickers would increase my student evaluation scores)
20 – Too long to learn (It would take too long to learn how to teach with clickers to make it worth my effort)
21 – Apprehensive (I feel apprehensive about teaching with clickers)
22 – Intimidating (Teaching with clickers is somewhat intimidating to me)
23 – Chair teach (My department chair/immediate supervisor thinks I should teach with clickers)
24 – Expect to teach (Our students expect faculty to teach with clickers)
25 – Colleagues teach (I would teach with clickers because my colleagues do)
26 – Expect raise (Using clickers would increase my chances of getting a raise)
3.88
3.81
3.52
3.34
3.73
3.67
3.25
3.59
3.53
3.50
3.53
3.56
3.31
3.50
3.36
3.22
3.21
2.31
2.48
2.16
2.00
1.90
2.63
2.19
1.84
1.78
Nonuser
*
3.51
3.46
3.37
3.44
3.25*
3.19*
3.39
3.11*
3.10
3.10
3.01*
3.04*
3.10
2.93*
2.84*
2.94
2.83
3.06**
2.69
2.86**
2.71**
2.63**
2.20*
2.06
1.99
1.90
Total
Variance
3.65
3.59
3.43
3.41
3.40
3.67
3.34
3.28
3.26
3.25
3.20
3.19
3.16
3.11
3.03
3.03
2.97
2.82
2.64
2.61
2.47
2.38
2.37
2.11
1.94
1.86
0.855
0.978
0.922
1.044
1.038
1.062
1.055
1.061
.981
1.125
1.041
1.102
1.071
1.131
1.064
0.912
1.064
1.133
0.954
1.028
1.057
0.988
0.860
0.738
0.868
0.860
Note: Responses were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
*p < .05. **p < .01.
The second dimension relates to support respondents
receive in using clickers. The highest loading statements
were “On-campus instructors would be available to teach”
(.908) and “Have on-campus support to select the best
clicker to use” (.867). The average score of the statements
loading onto this factor was 3.31.
The third dimension involves respondent expectations
with clickers, such as getting a raise and improving student
evaluation scores. The highest loaded statement was
“Clickers would be easy to use once I learned how to operate them” (.783). The average score of statements loading
on this dimension was 2.18. This was the lowest score
among all dimensions.
The fourth dimension was ease of use. The highest
loaded statement (of three) was “Learning how to best teach
with clickers would be easy” (.899). The average score of
the three statements loading on this dimension was 3.31.
The fifth dimension was apprehension regarding clicker
use. The highest loaded statement was “I feel apprehensive
about teaching with clickers” (.913). The average score of
the statements was 2.42.
The sixth dimension was preparation time to use clickers. Dimension 6 featured “Teaching with clickers would
increase my class preparation time” with a .846 loading.
The statement had a 3.59 score which makes this
dimension’s average (in this case, a single measure) the
highest among the six dimensions.
Regression Analysis
The 26 UTAUT statements were organized by factors for
the linear regression analyses shown in Table 5. The 26
UTAUT statements consisted of the dependent variables
and demographic variables concerning gender, academic
rank, highest business degree offered at the respondent’s
institution, total enrollment at the respondent’s institution,
years of teaching experience, respondent experience teaching with clickers, and teaching performance appraisal ratings compared to others in the department.
Results showed that clicker experience for all but one
variable within the teaching quality factor showed significant values. Those with greater clicker experience tended
to support that teaching quality improved with clickers.
Clicker experience also had a significant positive association with a perception regarding ease of use (Factor 4) and
significant negative association with apprehension toward
clickers (Factor 5).
Other independent variables had much fewer associations with dependent variables. Having a higher degree was
significantly associated with some of the teaching quality
FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF CLICKERS IN LEGAL STUDIES IN BUSINESS
213
TABLE 4
Factor Analysis
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:18 11 January 2016
Component1
14
6
11
17
8
15
5
12
18
20
4
7
13
10
3
24
26
26
19
23
1
9
16
21
22
2
Like teaching
Useful
Good time use
Increase productivity
Good idea
Increase quality
Interesting
Fun
Time from normal
Long to learn
Instruction available
Guidance
Assist available
Resources available
Chair support
Expect to teach
Expect raise
Colleagues teach
Expect to raise evaluation scores
Chair teach
Easy to use
Learning easy
Learning to best teach
Apprehensive
Intimidating
Prep Time
1
2
3
4
5
6
Teaching quality
Support
Expectations
Ease of use
Apprehension
Prep time
.875
.867
.851
.837
.832
.829
.822
.807
¡.662
¡.594
¡.008
.024
.028
.262
.217
.238
.150
.286
.301
.293
.030
.320
.405
¡.043
.042
.248
.035
.190
.087
.066
.147
.155
¡.038
¡.029
¡.229
¡.280
.908
.867
.830
.724
.571
.285
.017
¡.148
¡.026
.182
.062
.170
.218
¡.024
¡.064
.055
.261
.149
.124
.096
.314
.140
.216
.245
¡.024
¡.068
¡.012
.038
.033
.013
.097
.783
.754
.749
.697
.575
.030
¡.002
.208
.063
.082
¡.009
.153
.048
.183
.139
.082
¡.031
.065
.131
¡.388
¡.466
.104
.153
.146
.126
¡.100
.074
.064
.107
¡.103
.064
.899
.826
.619
¡.135
¡.114
¡.026
.018
¡.037
¡.055
¡.017
.075
¡.088
.033
.084
.110
.176
.056
.100
¡.018
¡.162
¡.190
¡.124
.060
.241
.139
¡.338
¡.215
¡.020
¡.033
.913
.911
.064
.011
.049
.050
.041
.098
.191
.058
.105
.370
.248
.109
.062
.002
¡.119
.003
¡.015
¡.252
¡.007
.215
.371
..010
.093
¡.248
.025
.047
.846
Note: Extraction method: principal component analysis; Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization; rotation converged after six iterations. Bold
items represent variables that loaded onto the factors listed using the 0.4 standard.
(Factor 1) variables. The perception that using clickers was
a good idea and would increase quality had the strongest
positive association. Perceptions of performance appraisal
ratings were positively associated with some teaching quality variables (Factor 1). Teaching experience had some significant positive associations with perceptions of ease of
use (Factor 4). Independent variables with no significant
results include gender, academic rank, and highest degree
offered at the respondent’s institution.
DISCUSSION
Experience with clickers appears to be the most significant
of the variables associated with perceptions of the many
UTAUT statements about clickers. There was a particularly
high association between clicker experience and perceptions of teaching quality associated with clickers. This outcome is noteworthy—teachers who use clickers positively
associate their use with teaching quality. The most differences between users and nonusers related to the amount of
time expected to learn to teach with clickers, as well as
apprehension and intimidation regarding learning to use
them. This result may be due to nonusers’ lack of experience with clickers. It may also be because they use other
classroom technologies, or that other priorities, such as
research and teaching, may be higher.
Teaching experience showed significant positive associations with ease of use. The result makes some intuitive sense
because veteran instructors might know how to use a wide
variety of teaching tools—incorporating a new teaching technique might be easier for those instructors. Further indication
of experienced instructor support for ease of use is that they
significantly disagreed with Statement 20—”It would take
too long to learn how to teach with clickers to make it worth
my effort.” Though this statement falls under Factor 1 (teaching quality), it also may be reflective of expectations that indicate they believe learning to use clickers will be easy.
The highest degree offered at the respondent’s institution
was positively (and in some cases significantly) associated
with Factor 1 (teaching quality) variables. It would be
worth investigating whether schools with doctoral degrees
encourage a wide variety of technology as opposed to
schools without graduate degrees.
Though having high degree programs and a large school
enrollment are highly correlated, high degree programs
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:18 11 January 2016
214
TABLE 5
Regression Analyses
Independent variables
Dependent variable
Factor 1 (Teaching quality)
14
Like teaching
6
Useful
11
Good time use
17
Increase productivity
8
Good idea
15
Increase quality
5
Interesting
12
Fun
18
Time from normal
20
Long to learn
Factor 2 (Support)
4
Instruction available
7
Guidance
13
Assist available
10
Resources available
3
Chair support
Factor 3 (Expectations)
24
Expect to teach
26
Expect raise
25
Colleagues teach
19
Raise evaluation scores
23
Chair teach
Factor 4 (Ease of use)
1
Easy to use
9
Learning easy
16
Learning to best teach
Factor 5 (Apprehension)
21
Apprehensive
22
Intimidating
Factor 6 (Prep time)
2
Prep time
R2
F
Sig.
Gender
Acad. rank
High degree
Total enroll.
Teach exper.
Clicker exper.
Recent PA
.195
.215
.158
.148
.208
.196
.178
.162
.221
.305
3.260
3.723
2.555
2.363
3.566
3.307
2.884
2.625
3.846
5.904
.004*
.0018**
.019*
.029*
.002**
.003**
.009**
.016*
.001**
.000**
¡.181
.039
.009
.132
¡.301
.163
¡.042
¡.177
.151
.096
¡.033
¡.055
.009
¡.073
¡.059
¡.012
.075
.014
¡.035
¡.040
.359*
.356*
.279
.258
.416**
.424**
.224
.308
¡.165
¡.254
¡.175
¡.121
¡.158
¡.126
¡.172
¡.054
¡.136
¡.221*
¡.044
.183
.180
.161
.107
.239*
.140
.128
.232*
.181
¡.220*
¡.261**
.278**
.299**
.258**
.221*
.258**
.291**
.246**
.188
¡.439**
¡.438**
.202
.235*
.188*
.050
.153
.224*
.134
.177
¡.017
.007
.099
.105
.069
.168
.076
1.493
1.598
0.989
2.744
1.097
.179
.145
.444
.012*
.372
¡.340
¡.308
¡.214
¡.117
¡.022
¡.168
¡.194
¡.056
¡.077
¡.001
.163
.155
.084
.270
¡.046
.031
.071
.024
.086
.070
.099
.124
.142
.111
.131
.114
.043
.174
.357**
.161
¡.076
¡.099
¡.089
¡.009
.028
.069
.090
.090
.075
.127
1.011
1.350
1.334
1.095
1.962
.428
.236
.243
.373
.068
.052
.070
¡.257
¡.033
.078
¡.057
¡.058
.008
¡.053
.007
.171
¡.100
.154
.092
.157
¡.008
.034
¡.118
¡.022
¡.016
.025
.101
.092
.048
.012
.098
¡.093
¡.077
¡.116
.269**
.107
.111
.079
.192
.047
.144
.096
.188
2.279
1.435
3.086
.034*
.200
.006**
¡.038
.148
¡.270
.001
.048
¡.068
.009
¡.075
¡.075
¡.150
¡.083
¡.020
.184*
.142
.233**
.198*
.202*
.223**
¡.072
¡.089
¡.125
.234
.284
4.145
5.338
.001**
.000**
¡.368
¡.317
¡.042
¡.077
.137
.081
.051
.089
.067
¡.006
¡.414**
¡.454**
.080
.157
.056
0.792
.596
¡.097
.021
.181
¡.051
.023
.177
.069
Note: Independent variables include gender (gender of the respondent), acad. rank (academic rank), high. degree (highest degree offered at the respondent’s institution), total enrol. (total enrollment at
the respondent’s institution), teach exper. (years of teaching experience), clicker exper. (respondent experience with clickers), recent PA (recent perceived performance appraisal ratings compared to the
rest of the department).
*p < .05. **p < .01.
FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF CLICKERS IN LEGAL STUDIES IN BUSINESS
tended to be positively related to teaching quality statements and large school enrollment tended to be negatively
related. A number of possibilities for this result can be considered. Perhaps large classes in schools that have high
enrollment reduce the motivation for faculty to experiment
with clickers. Schools with high enrollment may also
encourage established teaching techniques. More in-depth
analyses of these schools would be appropriate.
215
apprehension, and feelings that clickers take long to learn
than nonusers. Gender, academic rank, total enrollment in the
respondent’s institution, and recent perceptions of performance appraisal ratings tended not to be associated with the
UTAUT variables.
REFERENCES
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:18 11 January 2016
Limitations and Implications for Future Research
As an initial study of the adoption and perceptions of
clickers in legal studies in business education, there were
some limitations that additional researchers should need
to address. As clicker experience is significantly associated with perceptions of teaching quality, an appropriate
follow-up study would be to pretest and post-test faculty
perceptions of the use of clickers. In other words, did faculty change their perceptions of clickers once they used
them?
Other variables can potentially influence the results,
such as race, seeing (but not using) clickers used in practice, different subjects taught, resources of the respondent’s
institution, and adequacy and availability of training. The
survey did not ask about alternatives to clickers, such as the
use of polling software such as Polleverywhere.com and
Top Hat, or simply counting the number of hands raised in
class. A study that compared the various alternatives is a
possible area of future research.
Although this study invited all active members of the
ALSB to participate, a larger sample that includes all legal
studies in business faculty in the United States would be
useful to see if the same results hold. An interesting question that remains unanswered is whether legal studies in
business faculty use clickers and other forms of classroom
technology more, less, or the same as faculty in other business disciplines.
It was surprising that clicker perceptions based on the
UTAUT model had little or no relationship with gender
given prior research that shows female instructor support
for the social aspects of technology in general. Perhaps
clickers might substitute for social interaction. Future
researchers could focus more depth on the gender variable
by considering motivational differences by gender in using
technologies such as clickers.
CONCLUSION
This study surveyed legal studies in business faculty about
their perceptions regarding the use of clickers. Clicker experience appears to be significantly associated with most of the
UTAUT statements related to teaching quality associated
with clickers. Clicker users tend to have less intimidation,
Academy of Legal Studies in Business. (2014). 2013–14 annual report/
minutes book. Oxford, OH: Author.
Agbatogun, A. (2001). Faculty members’ views of e-learning in Southwest
Nigerian universities. International Journal of Technology, Knowledge
and Society, 6(3), 2–19.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2012). Digital faculty: Professors, teaching, and
technology. Babson Survey Research Group Report. Retrieved from
http://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/server_files/DigitalFaculty.
htm
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social
cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barber, M., & Njus, D. (2007). Clicker evolution: Seeking intelligent design.
CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6, 1–8. doi:10.1187/cbe.06-12-0206
Bojinova, E., & Oigara, J. (2011). Teaching and learning with clickers: Are
clickers good for students? Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and
Learning Objects, 7, 169–184.
Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research
and best-practice tips. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6, 9–20.
doi:10.1187/cbe.06-12-0205
Camacho-Mi~nano, M., & del Campo, C. (2014). Useful interactive teaching tool for learning: clickers in higher education. Interactive Learning
Environments, doi:10.1080/10494820.2014.917108
Carnaghan, C., Edmonds, T. P, Lechner, T. A., & Olds, P. R. (2011). Using
student response systems in the accounting classroom: Strengths, strategies and limitations. Journal of Accounting Education, 29, 265–283.
doi:10.2308/iace.2007.22.3.391
Carnaghan, C., & Webb, A. (2007). Investigating the effects of group
response systems on student satisfaction, learning, and engagement in
accounting education. Issues in Accounting Education, 22, 391–409.
doi:10.2308/iace.2007.22.3.391
Carr, S. (2000). Many professors are optimistic on distance learning, survey finds. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(44), A35.
Duncan, D. (2005). Clickers in the classroom: How to enhance science
teaching using classroom response systems. San Francisco, CA: Pearson-Addison Wesley.
Eastman, J. K., Iyer, R., & Eastman, K. L. (2011). Business students’ perceptions, attitudes, and satisfaction with interactive technology: An
exploratory study. Journal of Education for Business, 86, 36–43.
doi:10.1080/08832321003774756
Easton, C. (2009). An examination of clicker technology use in legal education. Journal of Information, Law & Technology, 3. Retrieved from
http://go.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/2009_3/easton
Easton, C. (2012). Employing a classroom response system to teach law: A
case study. European Journal of Law and Technology, 3(1). Retrieved
from http:/ejlt.org/article/view/129/193
Fies, C., & Marshall, J. (2006). Classroom response systems: A review of
the literature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15, 101–
109. doi:10.1007/s10956-006-0360-1
Ghosh, S., & Renna, F. (2009). Using electronic response systems in economics classes. Journal of Economic Education, 40, 354–365.
doi:10.1080/00220480903297651
Good, K. C. (2013). Audience Response Systems in higher education
courses: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of
Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 10(5), 19–34.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:18 11 January 2016
216
D. M. FARAG ET AL.
Grasha, A. F., & Yangarber-Hicks, N. (2000). Integrating teaching styles
with instructional technology. College Teaching, 48, 2–10. doi:10.1080/
87567550009596080
Guernsey, J. B. (1977). H. Richard Crane: Oersted medalist for 1976.
American Journal of Physics, 45, 507. doi:10.1119/1.10947
Judson, E. (2002). Learning from past and present: Electronic response
systems in college lecture halls. Journal of Computers in Mathematics
and Science Teaching, 21, 167–181.
Kay, R. H., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of
using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers
& Education, 53, 819–827. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.001
Keogh, P., & Wang, Z. (2010). Clickers in instruction: One campus, multiple perspectives. Library Hi Tech, 28, 8–21.
Lantz, M. E. (2010). The use of “clickers” in the classroom: Teaching
innovation or merely an amusing novelty? Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 556–561. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.014
Lewis, C. C., Fretwell, C. E., Ryan, J., & Parham, J. B. (2013). Faculty use
of established and emerging technologies in higher education: A unified
theory of acceptance and use of technology perspective. International
Journal of Higher Education, 2(2), 22–34. doi:10.5430/ijhe.v2n2p22
Lincoln, D. J. (2008). Teaching with clickers in the large-size principles of
marketing class. Marketing Education Review, 18, 39–45.
Lincoln, D. J. (2009). Student response systems adoption and use in marketing
education: A status report. Marketing Education Review, 19(3), 25–40.
Llorens, S., Arribas, E., Arroyo-Jiminez, M. M., Artacho, E., Carmona, M.,
Domingo, B., . . . Najera, A. (2014). Evaluation of the possible impact of
clickers on the grade obtained by students in the radiology subject, at
the faculty of medicine in Albacete. In L. G. Chova, A. L. Martinez, &
I. C. Torres (Eds.), INTED2014 Proceedings: 8th International Technology, Education, and Development Conference (pp. 2707–2714). Valencia, Spain: IATED Academy.
Mareno, N., Bremner, M., & Emerson, C. (2010). The use of audience
response systems in nursing education: Best practice guidelines. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 7(1). doi:10.2202/
1548-923X.2049
Park, S., & Farag, D. (2015). Transforming the legal studies classroom: Clickers and engagement. Journal of Legal Studies Education, 32, 47–90.
Patterson, B., Kilpatrick, J., & Woebkenberg, E. (2010). Evidence for
teaching practice: The impact of clickers in a large classroom environment. Nurse Education Today, 30, 603–607. doi:10.1016/j.
nedt.2009.12.008
Paver, J., Walker, D., & Hung, W. (2014). Adjunct faculty characteristics
that may predict intention to integrate technology into instruction. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 38, 859–872.
doi:10.1080/10668926.2013.819790
Peluchette, J., & Rust, K. A. (2005). Technology use in the classroom:
Preferences of management faculty members. Journal of Education for
Business, 80, 200–205. doi:10.3200/JOEB.80.4.200-205
Penuel, W. R., Boscardin, C. K., Masyn, K., & Crawford, V. M. (2007).
Teaching with student response systems in elementary and secondary
education settings: A survey study. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 55, 315–346. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9023-4
Reay, N. W., Bao, L., Li, P., Warnakulasooriya, R., & Baugh, G. (2005).
Toward the effective use of voting machines in physics lectures. American Journal of Physics, 73, 554–558. doi:10.1119/1.1862638
Rosseau, G., & Rogers, W. (1998). Computer usage patterns of university
faculty members across the lifespan. Computers in Human Behavior, 14,
417–428. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(98)00014-4
Simpson, V., & Oliver, M. (2007). Electronic voting systems for lectures
then and now: A comparison of research and practice. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, 23, 187.
Sousa, D. A. (2011). How the brain learns (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Spotts, T. H., Bowman, M. A., & Mertz, C. (1997). Gender and use of
instructional technologies: A study of university faculty. Higher Education, 34, 421–436. doi:10.1023/A:1003035425837
Tan, P. J. B. (2013). Applying the UTAUT to understand factors affecting
the use of English e-learning websites in Taiwan. SAGE Open, 3(4), 1–
12. doi:10.1177/2158244013503837
Taneja, A. (2009). The influence of personal response systems on students’
perceived learning outcomes and course satisfaction. Journal of Circuits, Systems and Computers, 25(2), 5–11.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology
usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6,
144–176. doi:10.1287/isre.6.2.144
Tlhoaele, M., Hofman, A., Naidoo, A., & Winnips, K. (2014). Using clickers to facilitate interactive engagement activities in a lecture room for
improved performance by students. Innovations in Education and
Teaching
International,
51,
497–509.
doi:10.1080/
14703297.2013.796725
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management
Science, 46, 186–204. doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User
acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS
Quarterly, 27, 425–478.
Wilson, K., & Korn, J. H. (2007). Attention during lectures: Beyond ten
minutes. Teaching of Psychology, 34, 85–89. doi:10.1080/
00986280701291291
Xu, Y., & Meyer, K. A. (2007). Factors explaining faculty technology use
and productivity. The Internet and Higher Education, 10, 41–52.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.004
Yourstone, S. A., Kraye, H. S., & Albaum, G. (2008). Classroom questioning with immediate electronic response: Do clickers improve learning?
Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 6, 75–88.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4609.2007.00166.x
Yu, Z., Chen, W., Kong, Y., Sun, X. L., & Zheng, J. (2014). The impact of
clickers instruction on cognitive loads and listening and speaking skills
in college English class. PLoS ONE, 9, e106626. doi:10.1371/journal.
pone.0106626
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Faculty Perceptions of the Adoption and Use of
Clickers in the Legal Studies in Business Classroom
Denise M. Farag, Susan Park & Gundars Kaupins
To cite this article: Denise M. Farag, Susan Park & Gundars Kaupins (2015) Faculty Perceptions
of the Adoption and Use of Clickers in the Legal Studies in Business Classroom, Journal of
Education for Business, 90:4, 208-216, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1014459
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2015.1014459
Published online: 16 Mar 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 53
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 19:18
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 90: 208–216, 2015
Copyright Ó Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1014459
Faculty Perceptions of the Adoption and Use of
Clickers in the Legal Studies in Business Classroom
Denise M. Farag
Linfield College, McMinnville, Oregon, USA
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:18 11 January 2016
Susan Park and Gundars Kaupins
Boise State University, Boise, Idaho, USA
The use of clickers in the classroom can improve student engagement and motivation.
However, few studies have been conducted on faculty opinions of the use of clickers. The
authors measured clicker use in legal studies among business faculty and investigated
perceptions and factors associated with the adoption of clickers in the discipline. Survey
results indicate that most legal studies in business faculty have either never used or rarely
use clickers, and that very few faculty members in the discipline use clickers regularly.
Instructors perceive that clickers can improve teaching, but may be reluctant to adopt them
because of time constraints.
Keywords: clickers, higher education, legal studies in business, student response systems,
teaching with technology
Much research has focused on the use of clickers in higher
education. There is a plethora of articles regarding how
clickers can be used (Barber & Njus, 2007; Easton, 2009)
or on student perceptions of clickers (Caldwell, 2007). Previous researchers have analyzed student perceptions of
clickers in science (Duncan, 2005), physics (Reay, Bao, Li,
Warnakulasooriya, & Baugh, 2005), and K–12 (Penuel,
Boscardin, Masyn, & Crawford, 2007) courses. However,
less research has been done on faculty perceptions of
clicker use. Lincoln (2008) and Lewis (2013) provided two
of the few empirical surveys in a business-related field that
focuses on faculty perceptions regarding the adoption and
use of clickers. Park and Farag (2015) and Easton (2012)
found a dearth of literature concerning instructor perceptions of clickers and how clickers could be used in legal
studies in business education. Using clickers in legal studies
in business courses can be an effective teaching tool. They
can help instructors assess student knowledge of important
laws, as well as student opinions about legal topics and
future policy (Park & Farag, 2015). Here we assessed legal
studies of business faculty perceptions regarding clickers in
Correspondence should be addressed to Denise M. Farag, Linfield College, Business Department #A478, 900 SE Baker Street, McMinnville,
OR 97128, USA. E-mail: dfarag@linfield.edu
light of existing research on clickers. The results of this
study, which provide deeper understanding of existing perceptions about the use of clickers within the discipline, may
help instructors make better decisions about using this, and
other, teaching technologies.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Students often have difficulty paying attention through an
entire traditional classroom lecture. Research suggests that
students can pay attention for an average of 10–20 min during a lecture before their attention declines (Sousa, 2011;
Wilson & Korn, 2007). University instructors have
employed several strategies to help students stay engaged
in the classroom. One increasingly popular teaching tool
involves classroom response systems, or clickers (Fies &
Marshall, 2006). Clickers generally consist of three components: (a) a wireless handheld clicker device itself that often
contains a keypad permitting students to respond to information requested by instructors, (b) the instructor’s receiver
that connects to a classroom or laptop computer, and (c)
clicker software. Clicker software is used to create and
pose questions. It can be integrated with presentation software such as PowerPoint, and with learning management
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:18 11 January 2016
FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF CLICKERS IN LEGAL STUDIES IN BUSINESS
systems such as Blackboard (Barber & Njus, 2007; Caldwell, 2007). Students send responses to the questions via
their clickers, which provide faculty with immediate input
to assess their level of understanding and opinions. Instructors can summarize the data on bar charts or graphs within
seconds (Lantz, 2010; Lincoln, 2009; Yourstone, Kraye, &
Albaum, 2008). Other common uses of clickers include
assessing prior learning, testing student engagement with
assigned reading, providing feedback, breaking up lecture
sessions, administering summative assessments, promoting
peer learning, monitoring attendance, and fostering a sense
of community (Easton, 2009).
An increasing volume of research articles discusses the
various uses and benefits of clickers in the higher education
classroom based on student perceptions (Good, 2013).
Based on surveys of students, clicker use in the classroom
offers several advantages. Clickers can make class more
enjoyable (Carnaghan & Webb, 2007; Ghosh & Renna,
2009; Taneja, 2009), increase student engagement and
motivation (Bojinova & Oigara, 2013; Eastman, Iyer, &
Eastman, 2011; Ghosh & Renna, 2009; Taneja, 2009), and
create a positive learning environment (Kay & LeSage,
2009; Mareno, Bremner, & Emerson, 2010). Clickers have
been shown to improve college English listening and speaking skills (Yu, Chen, Kong, Sun, & Zheng, 2014) and student attitudes toward technology (Eastman et al., 2011).
Students report that clickers help to provide them feedback
and to understand theory underlying the topic they are
studying (Camacho-Mi~
nano & del Campo, 2014).
Research also has revealed several disadvantages related
to the use of clickers. For instance, some studies indicate a
lack of performance differences between students who use
clickers in the classroom versus those who listen to traditional
lectures in the classroom (Carnaghan, Edmonds, Lechner, &
Olds, 2011; Patterson, Kilpatrick, & Woebkenberg, 2010;
Tlhoaele, Hofman, Naidoo, & Winnips, 2014). One study
concluded that the use of clickers does not result in higher
grades (Llorens et al., 2014). Technology-based problems
(e.g., clickers or software not working) and increased costs to
students are also cited in the literature (Mareno et al., 2010).
Despite the possible disadvantages, “[c]licker technology presents an unrivalled opportunity to develop an
engaged community of conceptually-focused, problemsolving legal learners but this can only be achieved through
the engagement and commitment of managers, lecturers
and ultimately the students themselves” (Easton, 2009).
While much has been written about clickers in higher
education, few academic articles involve surveys of faculty
perceptions of clickers in business education courses.
Lincoln’s (2008) study on clickers revealed the results of a
survey of marketing educators based on the Unified Theory
of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), which
has been the basis of numerous studies focused on identifying factors that impact technology acceptance and use.
According to Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, and Davis (2003),
209
UTAUT is an empirically validated model consisting of 26
variables. The model helps explain about 70% of the variance in an educator’s acceptance and use of technology.
The questions in Lincoln’s UTAUT-based study cover performance expectancy (e.g., “Clickers are useful for my
teaching”), effort expectancy (e.g., “Learning how to operate clicker systems is easy”), social influence (e.g., “Our
students expect faculty to teach with clickers”), facilitating
conditions (e.g., “I have the resources necessary to teach
with clickers”), self-efficacy (e.g., “An on-campus person
is readily available to assist me with clicker difficulties”),
attitude toward technology (e.g., “Teaching with clickers is
a good idea”), and anxiety (e.g., “I feel apprehensive about
teaching with clickers”). The four moderating factors
include gender, age, experience, and voluntariness of use
(Venkatesh et al., 2003). The combination of the key determinants and the moderating factors have been found to significantly predict intention to use technology.
Lincoln (2008) found that “Teaching with clickers
increases my classroom preparation time” was a statement
that clicker users and nonusers agree on the most. However,
users agreed with the statement significantly (p < .01) higher
than nonusers. “Teaching with clickers is a good idea” also
had strong agreement from users and nonusers but users’
agreement was significantly (p < .05) higher than nonusers.
The statement with the least agreement was “I teach with
clickers because my colleagues do.” Nonusers had significantly (p < .01) higher agreement than users. Lincoln also
collected information about respondent gender, years of
teaching experience, and university size among campuses
throughout the United States, but this information was not
correlated with the 26 UTAUT questions.
Lewis, Fretwell, Ryan, and Parham (2013) also used the
UTAUT model to survey business faculty members at one
southeastern university through an online instrument. They
found that the relationship between performance expectancy and effort expectancy to use classroom technology
was stronger for men. Men tend to be more task-oriented
and focus on task accomplishment. The study focused on
classroom technology in general rather than clickers and
did not study the relationship of respondent demographic
characteristics to the model’s questions other than gender.
Others have studied respondent demographic characteristics in relationship to classroom technology. For example
Agbatogun (2001) found a positive relationship between
perceptions of e-learning and faculty years of teaching
experience. Similarly, Paver, Walker, and Hung (2014)
found a positive relationship between perceptions of classroom technology and faculty years of teaching experience.
According to Allen and Seaman (2012), women report
more communication with students through the use of technology but also experience more stress than men. Peluchette and Rust (2005) found that female faculty members
were more concerned about time constraints associated
with classroom technology. Xu and Meyer (2007) found
210
D. M. FARAG ET AL.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:18 11 January 2016
that more productive faculty use technology to help them be
more productive. Grasha and Yangarber-Hicks (2000)
linked an instructor’s feelings of competence with the decision to use technology in the classroom. Rosseau and Rogers (1998) found that older faculty members tend to use
fewer new technologies. Smaller classes are associated
with more faculty satisfaction and support for the use of
technology (Carr, 2000). Spotts, Bowman, and Mertz
(1997) found that female faculty had higher ratings than
male colleagues in their perceptions of classroom technology ease of use, increased student learning, and time
needed to learn how to use a technology.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
Given the lack of research on faculty opinions of clickers,
in this study we addressed the following research
objectives:
(a) To obtain a baseline measure of the prevalence of
clicker usage by legal studies in business faculty;
(b) To examine the factors associated with adoption and
usage of clickers by legal studies in business education instructors using variables in the UTAUT
model; and
(c) To uncover patterns of perceptions related to the use
of clickers for teaching in legal studies in business
courses relative to other factors, such as gender, academic rank, and years of teaching experience.
METHODOLOGY
As Lincoln (2008) did previously, we concluded that the
UTAUT would provide a comprehensive framework for
predicting the conditions under which clicker technology
adoption by legal studies in business faculty is likely to
emerge. Thus, the survey instrument used to gather the data
reported on in this study was based on UTAUT.
The UTAUT-based electronic survey developed for this
study was administered through Qualtrics Survey (Provo,
UT) software. The electronic survey, intended to collect
data from clicker users and nonusers, was sent to the membership of the Academy of Legal Studies in Business
(ALSB), an organization comprised of legal studies faculty
who teach undergraduate and graduate business law-related
courses. The ALSB has approximately 912 members
(Academy of Legal Studies in Business, 2014). Data were
collected in January, 2014, from 106 ALSB legal studies
faculty who responded to the survey request. Results from
the survey were then tabulated and analyzed.
RESULTS
Demographics
The sample, shown in Table 1, consisted mostly of men
(54.8%) who were assistant, associate, and full professors
(75.0%) with more than 13 years of teaching experience
(68.3%), but most having no teaching experience with
clickers (66.0%). Most respondents reported self-ratings of
teaching better than department average (74.0%). A majority of survey participants taught at schools having doctorate
programs (55.8%) with enrollments of 15,000 or more
(53.4%).
As shown in Table 2, the highest degree offered at a
respondent’s institution correlated significantly (p < .01)
with total enrollment at that institution. This result
makes intuitive sense because larger schools would
likely have more resources for higher degrees. The highest degree offered at the respondent’s institution and
gender were significantly (p < .01) correlated with the
respondent’s performance appraisal perceptions. Female
instructors tended to lower their perceptions of their performance appraisals.
Opinions About Clickers
Table 3 shows the level of agreement clicker users and nonusers had with the 26 UTAUT statements concerning the
use of clickers. On a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), the statement
with the strongest agreement was “Clickers would be easy
to use once I learned how to operate them” (3.65 rating).
The second highest was “Teaching with clickers would
increase my classroom preparation time” (3.59 rating).
Statements with the most respondent disagreement were
“Using clickers would increase my chances of getting a
raise” (1.86 rating) and “I would teach with clickers
because my colleagues do” (1.94 rating).
Nonusers appear to support negative opinions about
clickers more strongly than users. For example, nonusers
rated Statement 20 (“It would take too long to learn how to
teach with clickers”), Statement 21 (“I feel apprehensive
about teaching with clickers”), and Statement 18
(“Teaching with clickers will take too much time”) significantly higher (p < .01) than users. There were a few significant (p < .05) differences between users and nonusers when
the statements were positive about clickers. Users tended to
rate statements such as Statement 5 (“Using clickers would
make teaching more interesting”) significantly (p < .05)
higher than nonusers.
Factor Analysis
The 26 statements concerning clickers can be narrowed to a
few dimensions based on a factor analysis. Factor analysis
FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF CLICKERS IN LEGAL STUDIES IN BUSINESS
211
TABLE 1
Demographic Characteristics
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:18 11 January 2016
Demographic
Gender
Female
Male
Academic rank
Assistant professor
Associate professor
Professor
Lecturer
Adjunct
Other
Highest business degree offered at your institution
Associate
Bachelor
Master
Doctorate
Total enrollment at your institution
Under 5,000
5,000–14,999
15,000–19,999
20,000 or over
Years of teaching experience
Over 18
13–18
7–12
0–6
Experience teaching with clickers
I have never taught with clickers
I have taught with clickers once
I have taught with clickers a few times
I have taught with clickers several times
I always teach with clickers
My most recent teaching performance appraisal compared to others in my department is
Much better than department average
Better than department average
About department average
Not measured/do not know
results in Table 4 show six dimensions based on the principal components method and varimax rotation. Variables
with factor loadings of .4 or higher counted for the
dimensions.
Teaching quality was the dimension associated with the
most statements. With eleven statements loading on this
n
%
47
57
45.2
54.8
21
25
32
18
5
3
20.2
24.0
30.8
17.3
4.8
2.9
3
3
40
58
2.9
2.9
38.5
55.8
11
37
10
45
10.7
35.9
9.7
43.7
50
21
18
15
48.1
20.2
17.3
14.4
70
15
11
7
3
66.0
14.2
10.4
6.6
2.8
41
36
17
10
39.4
34.6
16.3
9.5
dimension, the average unweighted scores concerning
agreement with the statements was 3.09. The highest loaded
statements were “Teaching with clickers is a good idea”
(.892) and “I would like teaching with clickers” (.875). The
overall average score for statements loading at least §.4 on
this factor was 3.19.
TABLE 2
Correlations Between Demographic Variables
1
Gender (1)
Academic rank (2)
Highest degree offered at your institution (3)
Total enrollment at your institution (4)
Years of teaching experience (5)
Experience teaching with clickers (6)
Performance appraisal compared to others (7)
*p < .05. **p < .01.
2
3
4
5
6
7
¡.032
.088
.152
.084
.083
.338**
¡.085
¡.042
¡.088
.028
.078
¡.112
¡.099
.009
.027
¡.270**
¡.080
¡.286**
¡.187
.217*
.050
212
D. M. FARAG ET AL.
TABLE 3
User and Nonuser Views on Clickers
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:18 11 January 2016
Views on clickers
User
1 – Easy to use (Clickers would be easy to use once I learned how to operate them)
2 – Prep time (Teaching with clickers would increase my classroom preparation time)
3 – Chair support (My department chair/immediate supervisor would support teaching with clickers)
4 – Instruction available (On-campus instruction would be available to teach me how to use clickers)
5 – Interesting (Using clickers would make teaching more interesting)
6 – Useful (Clickers would be useful for my teaching)
7 – Guidance (On-campus guidance would be available to help me select the best clicker brand to use)
8 – Good idea (Teaching with clickers is a good idea)
9 – Learning easy (Learning how to operate clicker systems would be easy)
10 – Resources available (I would have the resources necessary to teach with clickers)
11 – Good time use (Teaching with clickers would make good use of my time in the classroom)
12 – Fun (Teaching with clickers would be fun)
13 – Assist available (An on-campus person would be readily available to assist me with clicker difficulties)
14 – Like teaching (I would like teaching with clickers)
15 – Increase quality (Using clickers would increase my teaching quality)
16 – Learning to best teach (Learning how to best teach with clickers would be easy)
17 – Increase productivity (Teaching with clickers would increase my teaching productivity)
18 – Time from normal (Teaching with clickers would take too much time from my normal teaching activities)
19 – Expect to raise evaluation scores (Teaching with clickers would increase my student evaluation scores)
20 – Too long to learn (It would take too long to learn how to teach with clickers to make it worth my effort)
21 – Apprehensive (I feel apprehensive about teaching with clickers)
22 – Intimidating (Teaching with clickers is somewhat intimidating to me)
23 – Chair teach (My department chair/immediate supervisor thinks I should teach with clickers)
24 – Expect to teach (Our students expect faculty to teach with clickers)
25 – Colleagues teach (I would teach with clickers because my colleagues do)
26 – Expect raise (Using clickers would increase my chances of getting a raise)
3.88
3.81
3.52
3.34
3.73
3.67
3.25
3.59
3.53
3.50
3.53
3.56
3.31
3.50
3.36
3.22
3.21
2.31
2.48
2.16
2.00
1.90
2.63
2.19
1.84
1.78
Nonuser
*
3.51
3.46
3.37
3.44
3.25*
3.19*
3.39
3.11*
3.10
3.10
3.01*
3.04*
3.10
2.93*
2.84*
2.94
2.83
3.06**
2.69
2.86**
2.71**
2.63**
2.20*
2.06
1.99
1.90
Total
Variance
3.65
3.59
3.43
3.41
3.40
3.67
3.34
3.28
3.26
3.25
3.20
3.19
3.16
3.11
3.03
3.03
2.97
2.82
2.64
2.61
2.47
2.38
2.37
2.11
1.94
1.86
0.855
0.978
0.922
1.044
1.038
1.062
1.055
1.061
.981
1.125
1.041
1.102
1.071
1.131
1.064
0.912
1.064
1.133
0.954
1.028
1.057
0.988
0.860
0.738
0.868
0.860
Note: Responses were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
*p < .05. **p < .01.
The second dimension relates to support respondents
receive in using clickers. The highest loading statements
were “On-campus instructors would be available to teach”
(.908) and “Have on-campus support to select the best
clicker to use” (.867). The average score of the statements
loading onto this factor was 3.31.
The third dimension involves respondent expectations
with clickers, such as getting a raise and improving student
evaluation scores. The highest loaded statement was
“Clickers would be easy to use once I learned how to operate them” (.783). The average score of statements loading
on this dimension was 2.18. This was the lowest score
among all dimensions.
The fourth dimension was ease of use. The highest
loaded statement (of three) was “Learning how to best teach
with clickers would be easy” (.899). The average score of
the three statements loading on this dimension was 3.31.
The fifth dimension was apprehension regarding clicker
use. The highest loaded statement was “I feel apprehensive
about teaching with clickers” (.913). The average score of
the statements was 2.42.
The sixth dimension was preparation time to use clickers. Dimension 6 featured “Teaching with clickers would
increase my class preparation time” with a .846 loading.
The statement had a 3.59 score which makes this
dimension’s average (in this case, a single measure) the
highest among the six dimensions.
Regression Analysis
The 26 UTAUT statements were organized by factors for
the linear regression analyses shown in Table 5. The 26
UTAUT statements consisted of the dependent variables
and demographic variables concerning gender, academic
rank, highest business degree offered at the respondent’s
institution, total enrollment at the respondent’s institution,
years of teaching experience, respondent experience teaching with clickers, and teaching performance appraisal ratings compared to others in the department.
Results showed that clicker experience for all but one
variable within the teaching quality factor showed significant values. Those with greater clicker experience tended
to support that teaching quality improved with clickers.
Clicker experience also had a significant positive association with a perception regarding ease of use (Factor 4) and
significant negative association with apprehension toward
clickers (Factor 5).
Other independent variables had much fewer associations with dependent variables. Having a higher degree was
significantly associated with some of the teaching quality
FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF CLICKERS IN LEGAL STUDIES IN BUSINESS
213
TABLE 4
Factor Analysis
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:18 11 January 2016
Component1
14
6
11
17
8
15
5
12
18
20
4
7
13
10
3
24
26
26
19
23
1
9
16
21
22
2
Like teaching
Useful
Good time use
Increase productivity
Good idea
Increase quality
Interesting
Fun
Time from normal
Long to learn
Instruction available
Guidance
Assist available
Resources available
Chair support
Expect to teach
Expect raise
Colleagues teach
Expect to raise evaluation scores
Chair teach
Easy to use
Learning easy
Learning to best teach
Apprehensive
Intimidating
Prep Time
1
2
3
4
5
6
Teaching quality
Support
Expectations
Ease of use
Apprehension
Prep time
.875
.867
.851
.837
.832
.829
.822
.807
¡.662
¡.594
¡.008
.024
.028
.262
.217
.238
.150
.286
.301
.293
.030
.320
.405
¡.043
.042
.248
.035
.190
.087
.066
.147
.155
¡.038
¡.029
¡.229
¡.280
.908
.867
.830
.724
.571
.285
.017
¡.148
¡.026
.182
.062
.170
.218
¡.024
¡.064
.055
.261
.149
.124
.096
.314
.140
.216
.245
¡.024
¡.068
¡.012
.038
.033
.013
.097
.783
.754
.749
.697
.575
.030
¡.002
.208
.063
.082
¡.009
.153
.048
.183
.139
.082
¡.031
.065
.131
¡.388
¡.466
.104
.153
.146
.126
¡.100
.074
.064
.107
¡.103
.064
.899
.826
.619
¡.135
¡.114
¡.026
.018
¡.037
¡.055
¡.017
.075
¡.088
.033
.084
.110
.176
.056
.100
¡.018
¡.162
¡.190
¡.124
.060
.241
.139
¡.338
¡.215
¡.020
¡.033
.913
.911
.064
.011
.049
.050
.041
.098
.191
.058
.105
.370
.248
.109
.062
.002
¡.119
.003
¡.015
¡.252
¡.007
.215
.371
..010
.093
¡.248
.025
.047
.846
Note: Extraction method: principal component analysis; Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization; rotation converged after six iterations. Bold
items represent variables that loaded onto the factors listed using the 0.4 standard.
(Factor 1) variables. The perception that using clickers was
a good idea and would increase quality had the strongest
positive association. Perceptions of performance appraisal
ratings were positively associated with some teaching quality variables (Factor 1). Teaching experience had some significant positive associations with perceptions of ease of
use (Factor 4). Independent variables with no significant
results include gender, academic rank, and highest degree
offered at the respondent’s institution.
DISCUSSION
Experience with clickers appears to be the most significant
of the variables associated with perceptions of the many
UTAUT statements about clickers. There was a particularly
high association between clicker experience and perceptions of teaching quality associated with clickers. This outcome is noteworthy—teachers who use clickers positively
associate their use with teaching quality. The most differences between users and nonusers related to the amount of
time expected to learn to teach with clickers, as well as
apprehension and intimidation regarding learning to use
them. This result may be due to nonusers’ lack of experience with clickers. It may also be because they use other
classroom technologies, or that other priorities, such as
research and teaching, may be higher.
Teaching experience showed significant positive associations with ease of use. The result makes some intuitive sense
because veteran instructors might know how to use a wide
variety of teaching tools—incorporating a new teaching technique might be easier for those instructors. Further indication
of experienced instructor support for ease of use is that they
significantly disagreed with Statement 20—”It would take
too long to learn how to teach with clickers to make it worth
my effort.” Though this statement falls under Factor 1 (teaching quality), it also may be reflective of expectations that indicate they believe learning to use clickers will be easy.
The highest degree offered at the respondent’s institution
was positively (and in some cases significantly) associated
with Factor 1 (teaching quality) variables. It would be
worth investigating whether schools with doctoral degrees
encourage a wide variety of technology as opposed to
schools without graduate degrees.
Though having high degree programs and a large school
enrollment are highly correlated, high degree programs
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:18 11 January 2016
214
TABLE 5
Regression Analyses
Independent variables
Dependent variable
Factor 1 (Teaching quality)
14
Like teaching
6
Useful
11
Good time use
17
Increase productivity
8
Good idea
15
Increase quality
5
Interesting
12
Fun
18
Time from normal
20
Long to learn
Factor 2 (Support)
4
Instruction available
7
Guidance
13
Assist available
10
Resources available
3
Chair support
Factor 3 (Expectations)
24
Expect to teach
26
Expect raise
25
Colleagues teach
19
Raise evaluation scores
23
Chair teach
Factor 4 (Ease of use)
1
Easy to use
9
Learning easy
16
Learning to best teach
Factor 5 (Apprehension)
21
Apprehensive
22
Intimidating
Factor 6 (Prep time)
2
Prep time
R2
F
Sig.
Gender
Acad. rank
High degree
Total enroll.
Teach exper.
Clicker exper.
Recent PA
.195
.215
.158
.148
.208
.196
.178
.162
.221
.305
3.260
3.723
2.555
2.363
3.566
3.307
2.884
2.625
3.846
5.904
.004*
.0018**
.019*
.029*
.002**
.003**
.009**
.016*
.001**
.000**
¡.181
.039
.009
.132
¡.301
.163
¡.042
¡.177
.151
.096
¡.033
¡.055
.009
¡.073
¡.059
¡.012
.075
.014
¡.035
¡.040
.359*
.356*
.279
.258
.416**
.424**
.224
.308
¡.165
¡.254
¡.175
¡.121
¡.158
¡.126
¡.172
¡.054
¡.136
¡.221*
¡.044
.183
.180
.161
.107
.239*
.140
.128
.232*
.181
¡.220*
¡.261**
.278**
.299**
.258**
.221*
.258**
.291**
.246**
.188
¡.439**
¡.438**
.202
.235*
.188*
.050
.153
.224*
.134
.177
¡.017
.007
.099
.105
.069
.168
.076
1.493
1.598
0.989
2.744
1.097
.179
.145
.444
.012*
.372
¡.340
¡.308
¡.214
¡.117
¡.022
¡.168
¡.194
¡.056
¡.077
¡.001
.163
.155
.084
.270
¡.046
.031
.071
.024
.086
.070
.099
.124
.142
.111
.131
.114
.043
.174
.357**
.161
¡.076
¡.099
¡.089
¡.009
.028
.069
.090
.090
.075
.127
1.011
1.350
1.334
1.095
1.962
.428
.236
.243
.373
.068
.052
.070
¡.257
¡.033
.078
¡.057
¡.058
.008
¡.053
.007
.171
¡.100
.154
.092
.157
¡.008
.034
¡.118
¡.022
¡.016
.025
.101
.092
.048
.012
.098
¡.093
¡.077
¡.116
.269**
.107
.111
.079
.192
.047
.144
.096
.188
2.279
1.435
3.086
.034*
.200
.006**
¡.038
.148
¡.270
.001
.048
¡.068
.009
¡.075
¡.075
¡.150
¡.083
¡.020
.184*
.142
.233**
.198*
.202*
.223**
¡.072
¡.089
¡.125
.234
.284
4.145
5.338
.001**
.000**
¡.368
¡.317
¡.042
¡.077
.137
.081
.051
.089
.067
¡.006
¡.414**
¡.454**
.080
.157
.056
0.792
.596
¡.097
.021
.181
¡.051
.023
.177
.069
Note: Independent variables include gender (gender of the respondent), acad. rank (academic rank), high. degree (highest degree offered at the respondent’s institution), total enrol. (total enrollment at
the respondent’s institution), teach exper. (years of teaching experience), clicker exper. (respondent experience with clickers), recent PA (recent perceived performance appraisal ratings compared to the
rest of the department).
*p < .05. **p < .01.
FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF CLICKERS IN LEGAL STUDIES IN BUSINESS
tended to be positively related to teaching quality statements and large school enrollment tended to be negatively
related. A number of possibilities for this result can be considered. Perhaps large classes in schools that have high
enrollment reduce the motivation for faculty to experiment
with clickers. Schools with high enrollment may also
encourage established teaching techniques. More in-depth
analyses of these schools would be appropriate.
215
apprehension, and feelings that clickers take long to learn
than nonusers. Gender, academic rank, total enrollment in the
respondent’s institution, and recent perceptions of performance appraisal ratings tended not to be associated with the
UTAUT variables.
REFERENCES
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:18 11 January 2016
Limitations and Implications for Future Research
As an initial study of the adoption and perceptions of
clickers in legal studies in business education, there were
some limitations that additional researchers should need
to address. As clicker experience is significantly associated with perceptions of teaching quality, an appropriate
follow-up study would be to pretest and post-test faculty
perceptions of the use of clickers. In other words, did faculty change their perceptions of clickers once they used
them?
Other variables can potentially influence the results,
such as race, seeing (but not using) clickers used in practice, different subjects taught, resources of the respondent’s
institution, and adequacy and availability of training. The
survey did not ask about alternatives to clickers, such as the
use of polling software such as Polleverywhere.com and
Top Hat, or simply counting the number of hands raised in
class. A study that compared the various alternatives is a
possible area of future research.
Although this study invited all active members of the
ALSB to participate, a larger sample that includes all legal
studies in business faculty in the United States would be
useful to see if the same results hold. An interesting question that remains unanswered is whether legal studies in
business faculty use clickers and other forms of classroom
technology more, less, or the same as faculty in other business disciplines.
It was surprising that clicker perceptions based on the
UTAUT model had little or no relationship with gender
given prior research that shows female instructor support
for the social aspects of technology in general. Perhaps
clickers might substitute for social interaction. Future
researchers could focus more depth on the gender variable
by considering motivational differences by gender in using
technologies such as clickers.
CONCLUSION
This study surveyed legal studies in business faculty about
their perceptions regarding the use of clickers. Clicker experience appears to be significantly associated with most of the
UTAUT statements related to teaching quality associated
with clickers. Clicker users tend to have less intimidation,
Academy of Legal Studies in Business. (2014). 2013–14 annual report/
minutes book. Oxford, OH: Author.
Agbatogun, A. (2001). Faculty members’ views of e-learning in Southwest
Nigerian universities. International Journal of Technology, Knowledge
and Society, 6(3), 2–19.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2012). Digital faculty: Professors, teaching, and
technology. Babson Survey Research Group Report. Retrieved from
http://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/server_files/DigitalFaculty.
htm
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social
cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barber, M., & Njus, D. (2007). Clicker evolution: Seeking intelligent design.
CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6, 1–8. doi:10.1187/cbe.06-12-0206
Bojinova, E., & Oigara, J. (2011). Teaching and learning with clickers: Are
clickers good for students? Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and
Learning Objects, 7, 169–184.
Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research
and best-practice tips. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6, 9–20.
doi:10.1187/cbe.06-12-0205
Camacho-Mi~nano, M., & del Campo, C. (2014). Useful interactive teaching tool for learning: clickers in higher education. Interactive Learning
Environments, doi:10.1080/10494820.2014.917108
Carnaghan, C., Edmonds, T. P, Lechner, T. A., & Olds, P. R. (2011). Using
student response systems in the accounting classroom: Strengths, strategies and limitations. Journal of Accounting Education, 29, 265–283.
doi:10.2308/iace.2007.22.3.391
Carnaghan, C., & Webb, A. (2007). Investigating the effects of group
response systems on student satisfaction, learning, and engagement in
accounting education. Issues in Accounting Education, 22, 391–409.
doi:10.2308/iace.2007.22.3.391
Carr, S. (2000). Many professors are optimistic on distance learning, survey finds. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(44), A35.
Duncan, D. (2005). Clickers in the classroom: How to enhance science
teaching using classroom response systems. San Francisco, CA: Pearson-Addison Wesley.
Eastman, J. K., Iyer, R., & Eastman, K. L. (2011). Business students’ perceptions, attitudes, and satisfaction with interactive technology: An
exploratory study. Journal of Education for Business, 86, 36–43.
doi:10.1080/08832321003774756
Easton, C. (2009). An examination of clicker technology use in legal education. Journal of Information, Law & Technology, 3. Retrieved from
http://go.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/2009_3/easton
Easton, C. (2012). Employing a classroom response system to teach law: A
case study. European Journal of Law and Technology, 3(1). Retrieved
from http:/ejlt.org/article/view/129/193
Fies, C., & Marshall, J. (2006). Classroom response systems: A review of
the literature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15, 101–
109. doi:10.1007/s10956-006-0360-1
Ghosh, S., & Renna, F. (2009). Using electronic response systems in economics classes. Journal of Economic Education, 40, 354–365.
doi:10.1080/00220480903297651
Good, K. C. (2013). Audience Response Systems in higher education
courses: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of
Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 10(5), 19–34.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:18 11 January 2016
216
D. M. FARAG ET AL.
Grasha, A. F., & Yangarber-Hicks, N. (2000). Integrating teaching styles
with instructional technology. College Teaching, 48, 2–10. doi:10.1080/
87567550009596080
Guernsey, J. B. (1977). H. Richard Crane: Oersted medalist for 1976.
American Journal of Physics, 45, 507. doi:10.1119/1.10947
Judson, E. (2002). Learning from past and present: Electronic response
systems in college lecture halls. Journal of Computers in Mathematics
and Science Teaching, 21, 167–181.
Kay, R. H., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of
using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers
& Education, 53, 819–827. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.001
Keogh, P., & Wang, Z. (2010). Clickers in instruction: One campus, multiple perspectives. Library Hi Tech, 28, 8–21.
Lantz, M. E. (2010). The use of “clickers” in the classroom: Teaching
innovation or merely an amusing novelty? Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 556–561. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.014
Lewis, C. C., Fretwell, C. E., Ryan, J., & Parham, J. B. (2013). Faculty use
of established and emerging technologies in higher education: A unified
theory of acceptance and use of technology perspective. International
Journal of Higher Education, 2(2), 22–34. doi:10.5430/ijhe.v2n2p22
Lincoln, D. J. (2008). Teaching with clickers in the large-size principles of
marketing class. Marketing Education Review, 18, 39–45.
Lincoln, D. J. (2009). Student response systems adoption and use in marketing
education: A status report. Marketing Education Review, 19(3), 25–40.
Llorens, S., Arribas, E., Arroyo-Jiminez, M. M., Artacho, E., Carmona, M.,
Domingo, B., . . . Najera, A. (2014). Evaluation of the possible impact of
clickers on the grade obtained by students in the radiology subject, at
the faculty of medicine in Albacete. In L. G. Chova, A. L. Martinez, &
I. C. Torres (Eds.), INTED2014 Proceedings: 8th International Technology, Education, and Development Conference (pp. 2707–2714). Valencia, Spain: IATED Academy.
Mareno, N., Bremner, M., & Emerson, C. (2010). The use of audience
response systems in nursing education: Best practice guidelines. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 7(1). doi:10.2202/
1548-923X.2049
Park, S., & Farag, D. (2015). Transforming the legal studies classroom: Clickers and engagement. Journal of Legal Studies Education, 32, 47–90.
Patterson, B., Kilpatrick, J., & Woebkenberg, E. (2010). Evidence for
teaching practice: The impact of clickers in a large classroom environment. Nurse Education Today, 30, 603–607. doi:10.1016/j.
nedt.2009.12.008
Paver, J., Walker, D., & Hung, W. (2014). Adjunct faculty characteristics
that may predict intention to integrate technology into instruction. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 38, 859–872.
doi:10.1080/10668926.2013.819790
Peluchette, J., & Rust, K. A. (2005). Technology use in the classroom:
Preferences of management faculty members. Journal of Education for
Business, 80, 200–205. doi:10.3200/JOEB.80.4.200-205
Penuel, W. R., Boscardin, C. K., Masyn, K., & Crawford, V. M. (2007).
Teaching with student response systems in elementary and secondary
education settings: A survey study. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 55, 315–346. doi:10.1007/s11423-006-9023-4
Reay, N. W., Bao, L., Li, P., Warnakulasooriya, R., & Baugh, G. (2005).
Toward the effective use of voting machines in physics lectures. American Journal of Physics, 73, 554–558. doi:10.1119/1.1862638
Rosseau, G., & Rogers, W. (1998). Computer usage patterns of university
faculty members across the lifespan. Computers in Human Behavior, 14,
417–428. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(98)00014-4
Simpson, V., & Oliver, M. (2007). Electronic voting systems for lectures
then and now: A comparison of research and practice. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, 23, 187.
Sousa, D. A. (2011). How the brain learns (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Spotts, T. H., Bowman, M. A., & Mertz, C. (1997). Gender and use of
instructional technologies: A study of university faculty. Higher Education, 34, 421–436. doi:10.1023/A:1003035425837
Tan, P. J. B. (2013). Applying the UTAUT to understand factors affecting
the use of English e-learning websites in Taiwan. SAGE Open, 3(4), 1–
12. doi:10.1177/2158244013503837
Taneja, A. (2009). The influence of personal response systems on students’
perceived learning outcomes and course satisfaction. Journal of Circuits, Systems and Computers, 25(2), 5–11.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology
usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6,
144–176. doi:10.1287/isre.6.2.144
Tlhoaele, M., Hofman, A., Naidoo, A., & Winnips, K. (2014). Using clickers to facilitate interactive engagement activities in a lecture room for
improved performance by students. Innovations in Education and
Teaching
International,
51,
497–509.
doi:10.1080/
14703297.2013.796725
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management
Science, 46, 186–204. doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User
acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS
Quarterly, 27, 425–478.
Wilson, K., & Korn, J. H. (2007). Attention during lectures: Beyond ten
minutes. Teaching of Psychology, 34, 85–89. doi:10.1080/
00986280701291291
Xu, Y., & Meyer, K. A. (2007). Factors explaining faculty technology use
and productivity. The Internet and Higher Education, 10, 41–52.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.004
Yourstone, S. A., Kraye, H. S., & Albaum, G. (2008). Classroom questioning with immediate electronic response: Do clickers improve learning?
Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 6, 75–88.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4609.2007.00166.x
Yu, Z., Chen, W., Kong, Y., Sun, X. L., & Zheng, J. (2014). The impact of
clickers instruction on cognitive loads and listening and speaking skills
in college English class. PLoS ONE, 9, e106626. doi:10.1371/journal.
pone.0106626