International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education

Teaching and Assessing Higher Order Thinking in the Mathematics Classroom with Clickers
  • Article Type: Research Article
  • International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 2015 - Volume 10 Issue 1, pp. 37-51
  • Published Online: 04 Apr 2015
  • Article Views: 4850 | Article Download: 5578
  • Open Access Full Text (PDF)
AMA 10th edition
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Rubin J, Rajakaruna M. Teaching and Assessing Higher Order Thinking in the Mathematics Classroom with Clickers. Int Elect J Math Ed. 2015;10(1), 37-51.
APA 6th edition
In-text citation: (Rubin & Rajakaruna, 2015)
Reference: Rubin, J., & Rajakaruna, M. (2015). Teaching and Assessing Higher Order Thinking in the Mathematics Classroom with Clickers. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 10(1), 37-51.
Chicago
In-text citation: (Rubin and Rajakaruna, 2015)
Reference: Rubin, Jim, and Manikya Rajakaruna. "Teaching and Assessing Higher Order Thinking in the Mathematics Classroom with Clickers". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 2015 10 no. 1 (2015): 37-51.
Harvard
In-text citation: (Rubin and Rajakaruna, 2015)
Reference: Rubin, J., and Rajakaruna, M. (2015). Teaching and Assessing Higher Order Thinking in the Mathematics Classroom with Clickers. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 10(1), pp. 37-51.
MLA
In-text citation: (Rubin and Rajakaruna, 2015)
Reference: Rubin, Jim et al. "Teaching and Assessing Higher Order Thinking in the Mathematics Classroom with Clickers". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 10, no. 1, 2015, pp. 37-51.
Vancouver
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Rubin J, Rajakaruna M. Teaching and Assessing Higher Order Thinking in the Mathematics Classroom with Clickers. Int Elect J Math Ed. 2015;10(1):37-51.

Abstract

Many schools have invested in clicker technology, due to the capacity of the software to track formative assessment and the increased motivation that students show for incorporating technology in the classroom. As with any adoption of new software that demands amending pedagogy and learning applications, the extent to which clickers are living up to expectations has not yet become apparent. The present study sought to explore the potential of using clickers to teach the reasoning processes behind solving higher order thinking word problems in a mathematics class. A pilot study was conducted with a college algebra class to refine questions used in the coursework and field test a survey to measure student attitudes towards the teaching methodology. The main study took place over the fall semester with a college algebra class (N=21).  Results showed increased student motivation and acumen for using the technology and higher test scores, but frustration on the part of both the teacher and students when trying to apply the pedagogy for the purpose of learning higher order thinking reasoning processes. The potential for the technology to offer an alternative for formative assessment was a strong positive element.

References

  • Bender, T.A. (1980). Processing multiple choice and recall test questions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Boston, MA. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED189160 
  • Berlak, H. (1985). Testing in a democracy. Educational Leadership43(2), 16-17.
  • Biggs, J.B. & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: the solo taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.
  • Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best practice tips. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9-20.
  • Collis, K. F. (1982). The solo taxonomy as a basis of assessing levels of reasoning in mathematical problem solving. Proceedings from the Sixth International Conference for the Psychology of Mathematical Education. Antwerp, Belgium: University of Antwerp.
  • Collis, K. G., Romberg, T.A., & Jurdak, M. E. (1986). A technique for assessing mathematical  problem-solving ability. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education17(3), 206-221.
  • Common Core State Standards Initiative (2015). About the common core state standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/
  • DeBourgh, G. A. (2008). Use of classroom “clickers” to promote acquisition of advanced
  • reasoning skills. Nurse Education in Practice, 8, 76-87.
  • Douglas, M., Wilson, J., & Ennis, S. (2012). Multiple-choice question tests: A convenient, flexible and effective learning tool? A case study. Innovations In Education And Teaching International49(2), 111-121.
  • Dowd, S. B. (1992). Multiple-choice and alternate-choice questions: Description and analysis. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED351376.pdf
  • Elias, J. L., & Merriam, S. B. (2005). Philosophical foundations of adult education (3rd ed.). Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.
  • Ennis, R. (1985). Large scale assessment of critical thinking in the fourth grade. Paper presented at  Issues in the Development of a Large-Scale Assessment of Critical Thinking Skills. The American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting. Chicago, Illinois.
  • Frederiksen, N. (1984). The real test bias, American Psychologist39(1), 1-10.
  • Hansen, J. D., & Dexter, L. (1997). Quality multiple-choice test questions: Item-writing. Journal of Education for Business,73(2), 94.
  • Hatch, J., Murray, J., & Moore, R. (2005). Manna from heaven or “clickers” from hell: Experiences with an electronic response system. Journal of College Science Teaching, 34(7), 36-39.
  • Kolikant, Y.B.D., Calkins, S., & Drane, D. (2010). “Clickers” as catalysts for transformation of teachers. College Teaching, 58,127-135.
  • Lin, S., & Singh, C. (2012). Can multiple-choice questions simulate free-response questions? AIP Conference Proceedings,1413(1), 47-50. doi:10.1063/1.3679990
  • Lockwood, D.F. (2003). Higher order thinking in teaching senior science. Retrieved from http://members.shaw.ca/donlockwood/mcquestions.htm
  • Liu, W.C. & Stengel, D. (2011). Improving student retention and performance in quantitative courses using clickers. The International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 18(1), 51-58.
  • Miller, R. G., Ashar, B. H., & Getz, K. J. (2003). Evaluation of an audience response system for the continuing education of health professionals. The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 23(2), 109-115.
  • National Education Association (2015). An educator’s guide to the “four Cs”. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/A-Guide-to-Four-Cs.pdf
  • Oermann, M. H., & Gaberson, K. B. (2006). Evaluation and testing in nursing education (2nd ed.). New York: Springer Publishing Company, Inc.
  • Popelka, S. R. (2010). Now we're really clicking! Mathematics Teacher104(4), 290-295.
  • Ray, W. (1978). Writing multiple-choice questions: The problem and a proposed solution. The History Teacher, 11(2), 211-218.
  • Resnick, L.B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Ribbens, E. (2007). Why I like personal response systems. Journal of College Science Teaching, 37(2), 60-62.
  • Romberg, T.A, Zarinnia, E.A., Collis, K.F. (1990). A new world view of assessment in mathematics. In G. Kulm (Ed.), Assessing Higher Order Thinking in Mathematics (pp. 21-38). Washington, DC:  American Association for the Advancement of Science.
  • Teaching Effectiveness Program. (2014). Writing multiple choice items that demand  critical thinking. University of Oregon. Retrieved from http://tep.uoregon.edu/resources/assessment/ multiplechoicequestions/sometechniques.html#problemsolution
  • Standards (2012). Retrieved from: www.corestandards.org/ October 30, 2012.
  • Sternberg and Baron. (1985). A triarchic approach to measuring critical thinking skills: a psychological view. Paper presented at symposium, Issues in the development of a  Large-Scale Assessment of Critical Thinking Skills. The American Educational Research Association annual Meeting. Chicago, Illinois.
  • Stuart, S. A. J., Brown, M. I., & Draper, S. W. (2004). Using an electronic voting system in logic lectures: One practitioner’s application. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 95-102.
  • Stupans, I. (2006). Multiple choice questions: Can they examine application of knowledge? Pharmacy Education6(1), 59-63. doi:10.1080/15602210600567916
  • Torres, C., Lopes, A., Babo, L., & Azevedo, J. (2011). Improving multiple-choice questions. US-China Education Review B1, 1-11.
  • Uhari, M., Renko, M., & Soini, H. (2003). Experiences of using an interactive audience response system in lectures. BMC Medical Education, 3(12). Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/ content/pdf/1472-6920-3-12.pdf
  • Wayne, W. (1982). Relative effectiveness of single and double multiple-choice questions in educational measurement. The Journal of Experimental Education, 51(1), 46-50.

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.