A critique of : McDaniel Mohr, T. (2013). Iclickers and student performance. International Review Of Economics Education, doi: /j.iree Samie Garcia May 20, 2015 EDET 780

 Little Remote  Help engage students  Adopted higher education institutions

 To determine if iclickers improves student exam performances

 Appalachian State University ◦ Business and Economic Statistics  3 Semesters  2010 Spring/Fall  2011 Spring ◦ Questions were presented to students  iClicker students  Non iClicker students ◦ Performance Measurement = Average of 4 exams

 Appalachian State University ◦ Business and Economic Statistics  3 Semesters  2010 Spring/Fall  2011 Spring ◦ Questions were presented to students  iClicker students  Non iClicker students ◦ Performance Measurement = Average of 4 exams

 iClicker Student ◦ Answered lecture questions with iclickers  Non iClicker Students ◦ Were given time to think about the question  Show of hands vote  Voluntary answer

 Encouraged attendance  Higher retention of information

 Attendance record biased  Frequently absent students

 Not really  Many benefits ◦ Grading automatic ◦ Increase attendance ◦ Can provide a brief break from lecture

 Research question clearly stated  Well-written  Organized  Useful charts

 Questions that can be examined ◦ What are the indirect effects? ◦ College student feedback ◦ Why do students feel the need to attend more classes when utilizing an iclicker? ◦ How beneficial is an iclicker in other courses? ◦ How can an iclicker increase and enhance peer discussion and interaction?

 McDaniel Mohr, T. (2013). Iclickers and student performance. International Review Of Economics Education, doi: /j.iree