Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2012

The Effects of Individual versus GroupIncentive Systems on Student Learning andAttitudes in a Large Lecture CourseSya Azmeela Binti Shariff

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact lib-ir@fsu.edu

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

THE EFFECTS OF INDIVIDUAL VERSUS GROUP INCENTIVE SYSTEMS ON STUDENT

LEARNING AND ATTITUDES IN A LARGE LECTURE COURSE

By

SYA AZMEELA BINTI SHARIFF

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2012

ii

Sya Shariff defended this dissertation on November 17, 2011.

The members of the supervisory committee were:

Dr. Robert Reiser

Professor Directing Dissertation

Dr. Jonathan Adams

University Representative

Dr. Aubteen Darabi

Committee Member

Dr. Tristan Johnson

Committee Member

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members,

and certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university

requirements.

iii

Kepada mak, ayah, along, kakngah dan boy, Terima kasih!

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge a number of people who have provided significant advice,

support, and encouragement in completing this dissertation. First of all, I would like to express

my appreciation to my doctoral committee chair, Dr. Robert A. Reiser for his endless advice,

encouragement, and guidance throughout my studies at Florida State University. He has been an

incredibly excellent mentor and advisor. I am deeply grateful for his thoughtful and meaningful

advice throughout the years. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Jonathan

Adams, Dr. Tristan Johnson, and Dr. Aubteen Darabi, for their thoughtful comments,

suggestions, and ideas for enhancing the study in completing this dissertation.

Special thanks go to Dr. Joseph Calhoun, without his cooperation this study would not

have been successful. He provided much guidance and support to make this study happen.

Lastly, I would like to thank my family members, my parents, my brothers and sister for

giving me encouragement and motivation for finishing my dissertation. And for that, I am deeply

grateful.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... ix

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1

Effects of Large Lecture Classes on Student Learning and Attitudes .......................................1 Strategies for Improving Learning in Large Lecture Classes ....................................................3

Active Learning ...................................................................................................................3 Group Incentives ..................................................................................................................8

Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................10 Research Questions ..................................................................................................................11 Hypotheses and Rationales ......................................................................................................11

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................12

Large Lecture Classes in Higher Education .............................................................................12 Problems with Large Lecture Classes ......................................................................................13 Potential Means of Overcoming Problems Associated with Large Lecture Classes ...............16

Active Learning Techniques ..............................................................................................16 Clicker Technology ............................................................................................................19

Incentives .................................................................................................................................22 Individual Incentives ..........................................................................................................22 Group Incentives ................................................................................................................23

CHAPTER III: METHOD .............................................................................................................26

Participants and Instructor .......................................................................................................26 Instructional Tools and Materials ............................................................................................27 Instructional Strategy ...............................................................................................................27 Independent Variable ...............................................................................................................28 Dependent Variables ................................................................................................................29

Learning .............................................................................................................................29 Attitudes .............................................................................................................................30 Procedures ................................................................................................................................30 Data Analysis ...........................................................................................................................32

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS .............................................................................................................33

Demographic Data ...................................................................................................................33 Tests for Assumptions and Power Analysis.............................................................................35 ANOVA Results for Student Learning ....................................................................................36

vi

ANOVA Results for Student Attitudes ....................................................................................40 Reliability ...........................................................................................................................40 Final Attitude Survey .........................................................................................................41 Two Mid-Semester Attitude Survey Results .....................................................................43 Open ended survey comments ...........................................................................................46

Student Interview Results ........................................................................................................49 Students Working with Several Partners ...........................................................................51 Many Students Felt They Benefitted from the Think-Pair-Share Discussions ..................52 Some Students Disliked Working with a Partner Because the Partner was not Prepared .53

Summary of Results .................................................................................................................54

CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................56

Discussion of Research Findings .............................................................................................56 Research Question 1 ..........................................................................................................56

Research Question 2 ..........................................................................................................59 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research ...................................................................62

APPENDIX A: STUDENT CONSENT FORM ............................................................................65

APPENDIX B: APPROVAL OF HUMAN SUBJECTS ..............................................................66

Appendix B-1: Approval of Human Subjects ..........................................................................66

APPENDIX C: INSTRUMENTS ..................................................................................................68

Appendix C-1: Participant Questionnaire ................................................................................69 Appendix C-2: Final Attitude Survey ......................................................................................70 Appendix C-3: Mid-Semester Attitude Survey........................................................................71 Appendix C-4: Student Interview Questions ...........................................................................72

APPENDIX D: STUDENT INTERVIEWS .................................................................................73

APPENDIX E: FINAL EXAM .....................................................................................................84

REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................97

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................107

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Number and Percent of Participants in Individual and Group Incentives Condition .......34 Table 2 Number and Percent of Participants by Gender ................................................................34 Table 3 Number and Percent of Students who are enrolled in Principles of Macroeconomics.....34 Table 4 Number and Percent of Student Classification .................................................................35 Table 5 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations by group on the 14 Think-pair-share Related Items on the Final Exam ................................................................................................................36 Table 6 Summary of ANOVA for Group Incentives and Individual Incentives Condition ..........36 Table 7 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations by Group for the 75 Items in the Final Exam .....37 Table 8 Summary of ANOVA for Group Incentives and Individual Incentives Condition ..........37 Table 9 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations by Group for the 75 Items on the Final Exam ....37 Table 10 Summary of ANOVA for Group Incentives and Individual Incentives Condition ........38 Table 11 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations by Partner Type for the 75 Items on the Final Exam ..............................................................................................................................................38 Table 12 Summary of ANOVA for Different Partner and Same Partner across Both Incentive Conditions ......................................................................................................................................38 Table 13 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations by Partner Type on the 14 Think-pair-share Related Items on the Final Exam ...................................................................................................39 Table 14 Summary of ANOVA for Different Partner and Same Partner across Both Incentive Conditions ......................................................................................................................................39 Table 15 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations by Type of Incentives for Students with the Same think-pair-share Partners on the 75 Items on the Final Exam ..............................................39 Table 16 Summary of ANOVA for Group Incentives and Individual Incentives Condition for Students with the Same Partner on All Think-pair-share Activities ..............................................40 Table 17 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations by Type of Incentives for Students with the Same Think-pair-share Partners on the 14 Think-pair-share Related Items on the Final Exam ...40 Table 18 Summary of ANOVA for Group Incentives and Individual Incentives Condition for Students with the Same Partner on All Think-pair-share Activities ..............................................40

viii

Table 19 Means and Standard Deviations for Students’ Attitudes on the Final Attitude Survey .41 Table 20 Summary of ANOVA for Students’ Attitude toward Clicker Items ..............................41 Table 21 Summary of ANOVA for Students’ Attitude toward Partnering and Peer Discussions 42 Table 22 Summary of ANOVA for Students’ Attitude toward Incentive Systems .......................42 Table 23 Summary of ANOVA for Students’ Attitude toward the Entire Course ........................43 Table 24 Means and Standard Deviations for Group and Individual Incentives Condition for the First Mid-Semester Attitude Survey ..............................................................................................43 Table 25 Means and Standard Deviations for Group and Individual Incentives Condition for the Second Mid-Semester Attitude Survey ..........................................................................................44 Table 26 Summary of ANOVA for Question 1 in the First Mid-semester Attitude Survey .........44 Table 27 Summary of ANOVA for Question 1 in the Second Mid-semester Attitude Survey .....45 Table 28 Summary of ANOVA for Question 2 in the First Mid-semester Attitude Survey .........45 Table 29 Summary of ANOVA for Question 2 in the Second Mid-semester Attitude Survey .....45 Table 30 Summary of ANOVA for Question 3 in the First Mid-semester Attitude Survey .........46 Table 31 Summary of ANOVA for Question 3 in the Second Mid-semester Attitude Survey .....46 Table 32 Number and Percent of Students who responded ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ to the Question ‘Did you enjoy working with a partner when answering clicker questions?’ ........................................47 Table 33 Chi Square Test between Incentives System and Students’ Preference towards Working with a Partner When Answering Clicker Questions ......................................................................47 Table 34 Positive Responses to Open-ended Questions from Students in the Individual and Group Incentives Condition ...........................................................................................................48 Table 35 Negative Responses to Open-ended Questions from Students in the Individual and Group Incentives Condition ...........................................................................................................48 Table 36 Demographics for Student Interview Participants ..........................................................50 Table 37 Coding Scheme for the Interview Data...........................................................................50

ix

ABSTRACT

Promoting active learning among students may result in greater learning and more positive

attitudes in university-level large lecture classes. One way of promoting active learning in large

lecture classes is via the use of a think-pair-share instructional strategy, which combines student

participation in class discussions via clicker technology with small group activities. However,

simply placing students in small groups does not insure that they will engage in meaningful peer

interaction within groups. A group incentive might be one means of increasing the likelihood

that students will engage in meaningful peer interaction and thus learn more and have more

positive attitudes. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of two incentive systems,

group incentives and individual incentives, on students’ learning and attitude in a university-

level large macroeconomics course that employs a think-pair-share instructional strategy with

clicker technology. However, the results did not support the hypothesis that the students who

were in the group incentives condition would perform better than students in the individual

incentive condition. The results also did not support the hypothesis that the students in the group

incentives condition would have more positive attitude towards (a) the think-pair-share items, (b)

partnering and peer discussion, (c) the incentive systems, and (d) the course as a whole. One-on-

one student interview data was coded, analyzed, and merged into themes. The main themes were

(a) students worked with several partners, rather than just one other student, (b) many students

felt they benefitted from the think-pair-share discussions, and (c) some students disliked working

with a partner because the partner was not prepared. Based on these findings, suggestions for

future research are offered.

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Large lecture classes are very prevalent in higher education today. Recently, there has

been an increase in the number of large lecture classes throughout universities, due to the

substantial increase in student enrollment and population (Mason & Verdel, 2001). Many

freshman and sophomore classes at the university level have enrollments of over 100 students.

Sociology, Economics, Chemistry, and Physics are examples of such courses (Mason & Verdel,

2001).

Different people have defined large lecture classes in different ways. For example, Leufer

(2007) and Mateo & Fernandez (1996) define classes within a range of 60 to 149 students as

large and classes with more than 150 students as very large. Other researchers define large

classes as class size that exceeds 90 students (Kokkelenberg, Dillon, & Christy, 2008); exceeds

100 students (Mason & Verdel, 2001; Toby, 1988); or exceeds 250 students (Armstrong, Chang,

& Brickman, 2007). For the purpose of this paper, large lecture classes will be defined as classes

that have more than 200 students enrolled during the semester.

Effects of Large Lecture Classes on Student Learning and Attitudes

Oftentimes in many cases, as the class sizes increases, instructors and students face new

challenges, issues, and problems (McKeachie, Hofer, & Svinicki, 2006; Mulryan-Kyne, 2010;

Weaver & Qi, 2005). One of the prominent problems associated with large lecture classes relates

to the negative effects on student learning. Research literature shows that students in large

lecture classes oftentimes do not learn as much as they should (Mulryan-Kyne, 2010). For

example, evidence indicates that large class sizes are negatively affecting students’ grades

(Kokkelenberg et al., 2008). Moreover, students in large lecture classes are not performing on

tests and final exams as well as students who are enrolled in smaller class sizes. Among the

courses in which this has been the case are introductory course in macroeconomics (Raimondo,

Esposito, & Gershenberg, 1990), the type of course in which the proposed study will take place.

2

Not only do large lecture classes have a negative effect on learning in general, but they

have also been shown to adversely affect student attainment of higher-order thinking. The results

of several studies reveal that students in large lecture classes often fail to do well on measures of

learning that involves higher-order thinking skills (Arias & Walker, 2004; Kokkelenberg et al.,

2008; Raimondo et al., 1990).

Higher-order thinking skills involve students learning at the levels of analysis,

application, and evaluation in Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956). Additionally, higher-order

thinking requires students to interpret, analyze, or manipulate information. Students who have

mastered higher-order thinking are able to go beyond the information given to them; they are

able to engage in processes such as reasoning, problem solving, discovery learning, organizing,

and argumentation (Torff, 2003). Higher-order thinking skills are needed and critical in all areas

and fields of study. Students should be able to attain and achieve higher levels of thinking skills

when they regularly practice using these types of skills. Once harnessed, these skills can have an

impact in many subject areas.

It is important to attain higher-order thinking skills since it can impact the ability of

students to learn and ultimately affect their success in higher education (Mayer, Stull, DeLeeuw,

Almeroth, Bimber, Chun, Bulger, Campbell, Knight, & Zhang, 2009). Higher-order thinking

skills are valuable for students since it can help them prepare for the challenges of subsequent

intermediate courses and advanced academic work (Mulryan-Kyne, 2010; Raimondo et al.,

1990). Furthermore, many researchers have noted the importance of higher-order thinking skills

in student’s academic and real world achievements (Mulryan-Kyne, 2010; Torff, 2003).

In addition to the problems associated with students’ learning, there is also a problem

with students' attitudes in large lecture classes. A few researchers report that large lecture classes

have a negative influence on student attitudes (Carbone & Greenberg, 1998; Leufer, 2007).

Another research study found that there is a general dissatisfaction among students within large

lecture classes (Carbone & Greenberg, 1998). Some of the problems include the environment

and nature of the course that is being taught, inadequacy of the classroom setting, and the lack of

availability of adequate facilities and resources (Carbone & Greenberg, 1998). Research has also

indicated that the instructor’s teaching experience, style of presentation, and content delivery

method, as well as the student seating arrangement and location of equipment in a large lecture

class may have a negative effect on student attitudes (Leufer, 2007).

3

Some students have reported feeling uncomfortable, confused, and anonymous in large

lecture classes (Mulryan-Kyne, 2010). In addition, students have indicated that they experience a

sense of disengagement in large classes where there is a lack of opportunity for discussion and

interaction between the instructor and students (Carbone & Greenberg, 1998; Mulryan-Kyne,

2010; Ward & Jenkins, 1992). Hence, students oftentimes prefer to adopt a passive manner

where they are afraid to ask questions or contribute to class discussions (Addison, Wright, &

Milner, 2009; Mulryan-Kyne, 2010).

When class sizes are large, students do not interact as much with their peers (McKeachie

et al., 2006). The large class size, combined with auditorium seating, inhibits student interaction,

especially small group interaction, with their peers during class because it is time consuming for

instructors to rearrange student seating so as to enable students to interact with one another. In

this type of setting, the instructor must control the students’ conduct and movement as they

adjust their seating arrangements. This may take upwards of five minutes and be quite disruptive

(Foster, Krohn, McCleary, Aspiranti, Nalls, Quillivan, Taylor, & Williams, 2009). These

limitations may explain why instructors avoid having students interact with each other within

small groups in large classroom settings.

There have been many suggestions to help overcome the issues of ineffective learning

and poor attitudes in large lecture classes. One of the key suggestions to enhance student’s

learning performance and higher-order thinking skills in large lecture classes is to get students

more actively involved in the learning process by increasing student participation in class

activities (Goldsmid & Wilson, 1980). Similarly, another researcher mentioned that instructors

should make the students in large lecture classes feel as though they are active participants in the

class (Aronson, 1987). Below are descriptions of some learning strategies for improving learning

in large lecture classes.

Strategies for Improving Learning in Large Lecture Classes

Active Learning

A number of studies have shown that active learning seems to be an effective means of

improving student learning in university classes, especially large lecture classes (Birk & Foster,

1993; Crouch & Mazur, 2001; Freeman, O'Connor, Parks, Cunningham, Hurley, Haak, Dirks, &

Wenderoth, 2007; Mazur, 1997). Active learning is described as anything that involves students

4

engaged in activities during a lesson and thinking about the activities they are engaged in

(Bonwell & Eison, 1991). In other words, active learning means having students actively

involved in classroom activities throughout a lesson, rather than having them be passive listeners

during a lesson that primarily consists of an instructor delivering a lecture.

Studies have shown that students who participate in class activities and discussions are

motivated to learn and think (Gauci, Dantas, Williams, & Kemm, 2009). Active students in these

studies achieved higher exam scores compared to students who rarely participated in class

discussions. This may be because the instructors gave students the opportunity to talk about the

concepts and therefore the students were able to explore different viewpoints. Furthermore,

research has shown that students learn better when they are actively talking and interacting

(Goldsmid & Wilson, 1980). This approach may facilitate a better understanding of the concepts

being taught.

There are various methods or techniques used to encourage students to be actively

involved in learning activities during class. Some of the active learning techniques include class

or small group discussions, demonstrations, role plays, games, and practical exercises. These

techniques used in classrooms have been shown to increase students’ exam scores over the

traditional lecture format (Yoder & Hochevar, 2005). Furthermore, there are also other

techniques that can be used to encourage student participation in large lecture classes. Among

them includes calling on students by name (Boniecki & Moore, 2003), using clicker technology

(Crossgrove & Curran, 2008; White, Syncox, & Alters, 2010), initiating cooperative learning

group discussions (McKeachie et al., 2006), and providing extra credit and incentives for

participation (Boniecki & Moore, 2003; Foster et al., 2009; Len, 2007).

Clicker technology. One means of increasing student participation in class discussion is

via the use of clicker technology. A clicker is a remote hand-held device used by each individual

student to transmit and record their responses to questions presented by the instructor. The

clicker system allows all students to actively participate in class activities and anonymously

answer questions (e.g. multiple-choice, survey, true and false). Instructors usually present these

sorts of questions within a prepared PowerPoint presentation. When they do so, students can use

the clicker system to respond to each question. Computer technology records the percentage of

students who choose each response, thus enabling the instructor to determine whether most of

the students have correctly answered each question, and thus giving the instructor the

5

opportunity to provide additional instruction and/or remediation when it is needed (Crouch &

Mazur, 2001; Mazur, 1997).

Clickers have been used in many large lecture classes in order to encourage students to

participate in class activities. Clickers have been used in many disciplines such as Mathematics,

Biology, Chemistry, Psychology, and Economics. In some cases, clickers can be used to change

large lecture courses into small group discussions by having each group discussing higher-order

thinking questions, and having students respond to the questions individually with their clickers,

and perhaps engaging in further discussion after they do so. Furthermore, technology

advancements such as clickers have helped instructors to enhance their teaching strategy and

provide more opportunities for students to engage in class activities, while keeping their students

motivated and engaged in what is going on in class (Addison et al., 2009).

Besides using clickers to enhance student participation in large lecture classes, one of the

main uses for clickers is that it helps to ensure students’ understanding of the fundamental

concepts taught in class. More importantly, clickers are used to identify a knowledge gap,

misconception, confusion or misunderstanding of the course materials being presented.

Identifying students’ misconceptions can be very beneficial to the academic success of students

at the university level in courses like chemistry, economics, and other areas (Penhale, 1998;

Phelps, 1996; Robinson & Niaz, 1991).

Many studies have reported that clicker use positively affects students’ attitudes and

experiences in large lecture classes, which leads to better student understanding and being more

responsive in class (Addison et al., 2009; Cue, 1998; Draper & Brown, 2004; MacArthur &

Jones, 2008; Trees & Jackson, 2007). For example, students prefer to participate and respond to

questions when their answer choices or responses are anonymous and unknown to the instructor

and other students (Freeman et al., 2007). Due to the anonymity, the number of students

responding to questions in class has increased (Beekes, 2006).

In addition to students' positive attitude towards clickers, research has shown that clickers

also have positive effect on students’ learning. A study by (Giers & Kreiner, 2009) indicated that

clicker questions given during lectures significantly increased students’ quiz and test scores.

Other researches show that students who use clickers in the classroom earn higher exam scores

when compared to those who did not use clickers in class (Morling, McAuliffe, Cohen, &

DiLorenzo, 2008; Poirier & Feldman, 2007). According to the researchers, the increase in exam

6

scores was possibly related to the increase of the active learning and student engagement along

with clicker use in class.

Previous studies have also indicated that the use of clickers, combined with cooperative

learning activities, has been shown to enhance learning gains (Crossgrove & Curran, 2008;

MacArthur & Jones, 2008; Smith, Wood, Adams, Wieman, Knight, Guild, & Su, 2009).

Cooperative learning activities allow students to work together and learn from one another by

exchanging knowledge and experience (Boud, Cohen, & Sampson, 2001). In cooperative

learning groups, students learn through listening to each other’s opinions, values, and beliefs, as

well as giving and receiving feedback. Cooperative learning activities have been shown to

enhance students’ thinking, comprehension, social skills, and attitude (Carmichael, 2009).

Small group peer interaction. Another type of active learning strategy is small group

peer interaction within large classes. Small groups that involve peer interaction activities

typically involve teams of 2 to 5 members working together to achieve a purpose or goal. In

order to be successful in a group, members should be able to work cooperatively and

communicate freely and openly with other members in the group (Cooper & Robinson, 2000).

Small group activities allow students to interact with one another during a lesson. When

students interact with each other, they are able to help one another see things from different

perspectives and learn more about the topic. Providing the opportunity for student interaction in

class is important as it allows students to exchange information with each other during class.

Through interaction, students can also clarify the information they have just learned with their

peers and the instructor (McKeachie et al., 2006). They are able to compare multiple

perspectives and ideas while trying to gain new insights into what they have just learned.

However, there have been reports of an imbalance in participation among small group

members. For example, there are cases in which certain students dominate the discussions while

other students stay quiet (Addison et al., 2009; Boud et al., 2001; Hoekstra, 2008). This

dominance of active students should be avoided because it often results in the passive students

not fully benefitting from the learning activity (Bruffee, 1994; Hoekstra, 2008).

One way of getting students to be more actively involved and engaged in class is by

having them participate in small group cooperative activities (McKeachie et al., 2006).

Researchers recommend that large lecture classes should incorporate small group cooperative

activities during class sessions (Pychyl, Clark, & Abarbanel, 1999).

7

One of the key tenets of cooperative learning is that cooperative groups are most effective

when all of the members of the group fully engage in group discussions (Johnson, Johnson, &

Smith, 1991). According to Cooper & Robinson (2000), small group activities contributes to

effective learning by enhancing critical thinking, promoting social and emotional development,

and providing feedback.

Research has shown that having students regularly interact with one another during a

lesson often results in greater student learning. Student interaction in class has shown to be

highly correlated with learning (Addison et al., 2009). Research indicates that positive effects on

future exam performance results from allowing students to discuss possible exam items. Students

are able to perform better on exams because they have had the opportunity to interact and discuss

the questions among their peers in class and group discussions (Harton, Richardson, Barreras,

Rockloff, & Latane, 2002).

In addition, other researchers report that student performance on exams and grades suffer

when students interact less with each other during class discussion (Boud et al., 2001; Foster et

al., 2009). Many students benefit from class discussions because such discussions allow them to

have the opportunity to ask questions and attempt to answer questions about the topic, resulting

in a better understanding of what they are learning.

Think-pair-share. Another method of using an active learning approach within large

classes is by combining student participation in class discussions via clicker technology with

small group peer interaction. This is also known as the think-pair-share method (Mazur, 1997).

Think-pair-share is a simple cooperative-learning exercise. In a think-pair-share activity, the

instructor will ask a question or pose a problem during the lecture. Students are then given a

minute or more to individually think about an answer (think). Subsequently a student will pair up

(pair) with another student to discuss and share their answers (share) (Carbone, 1998). The pair

will try to determine the correct responses before they have to submit their final response via

clickers. Think-pair-share helps to structure the students’ group discussions. Students are given

questions to discuss in order to limit off-task thinking and off-task behavior, and everyone is

accountable to report their responses and their reasoning to a partner.

Think-pair-share is a strategy that can be used to get many students actively involved in

class discussions and activities (Rao & DiCarlo, 2000). Through think-pair-share, students are

able to learn more by sharing and discussing their thoughts and ideas with one another.

8

According to Cross (1987), active learners or students retain information longer compared to

those who are passive learners. A study has shown that the think-pair-share technique is a simple

and easy cooperative learning exercise that promotes students’ participation in class and increase

students’ interaction with other students and also the instructor in a large classroom (Rao &

DiCarlo, 2000).

However, putting students into small groups doesn’t necessarily mean that they will

engage in meaningful learning. The potential problem with think-pair-share is that some students

may not be actively involved in small group activities. For example, there are times when certain

group members are not fully participating and engaging in group discussions.

One of the possible reasons why students do not engage in meaningful discussions is that

they are self-conscious about their level of knowledge. In some cases, students are afraid to err

and to seem unintelligent (Smith, 1992). Students with little knowledge may feel that they have

nothing to contribute or feel intimidated about participating.

A related problem is that there is often a lack of incentives for students to participate.

Students who may not feel they have the necessary knowledge to correctly answer a question

may feel that they will not benefit from participating. On the other hand, students with more

knowledge may feel that there is no incentive for them to participate (Addison et al., 2009).

On some occasions, students may be relatively quiet if there is limited or no incentive to

get involved in small group or think-pair-share activities. Their silence usually indicates that they

are not interested in the group discussion or they lack of credit for participating in such

discussions (Addison et al., 2009; Smith, 1992). On the other hand, some inactive students may

be so intimidated by the prospect of discussion that even the promise of extrinsic incentives will

not get them to engage in discussion (Foster et al., 2009).

Group Incentives

Perhaps one way to increase the likelihood that students in small groups will actively

engage in sharing and discussing among group members is to provide group and individual

incentives. A group incentive is a strategy for getting students actively involved in small group

activities.

Group incentives are given to students in a form of points that will contribute to their

total score in the course. The group incentives or points are earned based on the performance of

9

all the members within the small group. For example, if all members within a group respond to a

question correctly, each of them will earn some points.

Students may be more likely to work with his or her group members if as a result they

will be able to earn group points. In other words, they may be likely to encourage each other and

help one another so that they can earn those extra points. Therefore, group incentives are likely

to serve to develop a sense of positive interdependence.

Positive interdependence is a term derived from cooperative learning literature. Positive

interdependence is a situation in which students perceive that they are linked with other members

of a group in such a way that they cannot succeed unless the other group members do so

(Johnson et al., 1991). In other words, positive interdependence is a tendency where students

perceive that their success is linked to the success of other students in the group. In this setting,

students must coordinate their efforts with the efforts of the other group members to complete a

task. When this principle is ignored, students are not concerned about other students’

participation because it does not affect their scores or grades.

A group incentive system based on positive interdependence is one which students in a

group receive some type of bonus or reward if all the members of the group successfully perform

some task. In this situation, the success of one student depends on the success of his or her group

members. All group members need to work hard and perform competently if they want to

succeed in their tasks and assignments. They either sink or swim together (Johnson et al., 1991).

Studies have shown that a group incentive system based on positive interdependence helps

increase students’ participation and involvement in class (Ames, 1981; Brewer & Klein, 2006;

Klein, Erchul, & Pridemore, 1994).

Besides increasing student involvement in small groups, positive interdependence can

help promote student learning (Boniecki & Moore, 2003; Brush, 1997). In small groups that

exhibit positive interdependence, students have a responsibility to learn the assigned material and

ensure that all members of the group learn it as well. Students can do this by encouraging each

other to participate in group discussions, sharing resources and ideas, and providing mutual

support.

Students have shown a positive attitude towards the use of group incentives, indicating

that under this type of incentive system they benefited from working with others and were able to

generate better ideas as a group (Brewer & Klein, 2006). Research provides evidence that

10

students who work cooperatively learn more and have more positive attitudes than students who

work individually (Humphreys, Johnson, & Johnson, 1982).

Based upon what we have just discussed, using a group incentive system in classes in

which a think-pair-share strategy is employed might help to improve student learning. The use

of group incentives might encourage students to become more active in the learning process and,

as a result, learn more. However, so as to not ignore the skills and knowledge that individual

students bring to the learning situation, it may also be important to provide individual incentives.

Individual incentives are often in the form of points students earn for correctly answering a

question even if the other group members do not answer correctly. In this study, group and

individuals incentives will be employed, with the treatment group being offered both individual

and group incentives and the control group being offered only an individual incentive. However,

the total number of incentive points students in the two groups were able to earn were the same.

Purpose of the Study

Promoting active learning among students may result in greater learning and more

positive attitudes in large lecture classes. One way of promoting active learning in large lecture

classes is via the use of a think-pair-share instructional strategy, which combines student

participation in class discussions via clicker technology with small group activities. However,

simply placing students in small groups does not insure that they will engage in meaningful peer

interaction within groups. A group incentive might be one means of increasing the likelihood

that students will engage in meaningful peer interaction and thus learn more and have more

positive attitudes.

While group incentives might increase learning and improve student attitudes in large

lecture classes, there has been limited research examining this question. Previous research on

group incentives has been mainly focused on students in small size classes. Also little research

has been conducted on the effects of group incentives in classes in which a think-pair-share

approach is employed. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of two

incentive systems, group incentives and individual incentives, on students’ learning and attitude

in a macroeconomics course that employs a think-pair-share instructional strategy. As

previously indicated, students in the treatment group were offered both individual and group

11

incentives and the control group was offered only an individual incentive. However, the total

number of incentive points students in the two groups were able to earn were the same.

As noted above, the two dependent variables that were examined in this study are student

learning and student attitudes. In this study, student learning was measured based on student

performance on a final cumulative exam. Student attitudes were measured by two mid-semester

attitude surveys and one final attitude survey that was distributed during the semester and one-

on-one student interviews that were conducted throughout the semester. Questions on the final

attitude survey measured students’ attitudes towards (a) the think-pair-share items, (b) the

partnering and peer discussion approach, (c) the incentive system, and (d) the course.

Research Questions

The research questions presented below were investigated in this study:

1. When a think-pair-share instructional strategy is employed, what are the relative effects of

group incentives versus individual incentives on students’ performance on the final exam

items that are aligned with the think-pair-share items?

2. When a think-pair-share instructional strategy is employed, what are the relative effects of

group incentives versus individual incentives on student’s attitudes?

Hypotheses and Rationales

There were two main hypotheses in this study. For the first hypothesis, I anticipated that

group incentives would have a positive effect on students’ performance on the final exam items

that were aligned with the think-pair-share items. This hypothesis was based on the notion that

because students in the group incentive condition would know that they would be rewarded if

both members of the group answered a question correctly, they would work hard to insure that

both members did so. By offering a group incentive and having students working together as a

group, it was expected that students in the group incentives condition would be more likely to

determine the correct answers. For the second hypothesis, I anticipated that students in the group

incentives condition would have more positive attitudes because that condition would encourage

students to interact and work with one another, thus enabling them to learn more as well as earn

a reward for doing so.

12

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Large Lecture Classes in Higher Education

University student enrollments are on the rise. In order to accommodate the increasing

number of students, universities are offering more large lecture classes as a movement toward

greater efficiency. The large lectures are a fact of life at universities and are often available to

students who are enrolled in lower-level undergraduate courses, such as introductory courses to

psychology, science, and economics. As pointed out by Stanley and Porter (2002), large lecture

classes are becoming more prevalent in many universities. Often, they are gateway courses to

students’ major fields of study.

Although these classes are accommodating a large number of students (of more than

100), it is important to provide all students with opportunities for optimal growth and learning

within the large lecture classes. There have been many studies that have explored the nature of

large lecture classes and how it affects the instructor’s instructional approach and students’

learning experiences within such conditions. The results of these studies were mixed.

A few of the studies claimed that there are benefits for instructors and students in large

lecture classes. For instructors, one of the benefits of large lecture classes is the ability to use

their time efficiently while accommodating student interest in the respective courses (Wilson &

Tauxe, 1986). By teaching the large lecture course, instructors are able to reduce the work load

for his or her colleagues, with the help of teaching assistants. Meanwhile, a single instructor is

able to reach more students at one time instead of teaching multiple course sections of smaller

class sizes at different times. Therefore, instructors can save a lot of time and instead use that

time to prepare class materials. This is clearly cost-effective for the universities since they do not

have to pay multiple instructors to teach the large amount of students.

Although large lecture classes can be cost-effective and time efficient, many researchers

claim that there are a number of challenges, problems, and concerns for instructors and students

alike. These concerns will be elaborated in the next section of this chapter.

13

Problems with Large Lecture Classes

Many researchers are concerned with the challenges and problems of large lecture classes

in higher education. Among some of the problems are (a) lower levels of student learning

(Raimondo et al., 1990; Tseng, 2010), (b) poor student attitude and motivation with the learning

experience (Bogan, 1996; Feldman, 1984; McConnell & Sosin, 1984; McKeachie, 1980), (c)

lack of student participation in the learning process (Raimondo et al., 1990; Tseng, 2010), and

(d) lower frequency of instructor interaction with students and providing less feedback to

students.

Student learning is one of the main concerns in large lecture classes. Students’

performance on tests and exams are deteriorating due to their learning experience in large lecture

classes. For example, a study by Hou (1994), Raimondo et al. (1990), and Tseng (2010),

indicated that students who were enrolled in large lecture introductory economics course were

likely to earn lower scores on quizzes and exams, and their grades in the one of the subsequent

upper-level courses were lower when compared to those students that were enrolled in smaller

size introductory economics course.

On the contrary, other researchers have reported on the little associations between the

large lecture classes and students’ achievement. For instance, Slavin (1989) indicated that there

is no significant correlation between small class sizes and academic achievement. In other words,

students’ learning performance is not affected by the class size. In another example, Hancock

(1996) examined the effects of class size on student achievement in statistics. In his study,

students’ achievement in large-lecture courses was compared against those in smaller-sized

classes. However, the results indicated that there were no differences in students’ achievement

(performance on tests) between the two different class sizes.

Kennedy and Siegfried (1997) also found similar results where they indicated that large

class sizes does not affect or reduce the students’ ability to learn the principles of economics. In

their study, they examined the students’ performance on (a) recognition and understanding of

basic terms and principles, (b) explicit application of basic terms, concepts and principles, and

(c) implicit application of basic terms, concepts, and principles. As we have indicated earlier,

there are various ways to assess students’ learning and performance in large lecture classes. By

breaking down the different types of performances, Kennedy and Siegfried were able to assess

students’ attainment in lower-level versus higher-level cognitive skill.

14

One of the concerns with student learning in large lecture classes is that there is a slower

development of higher-level thinking skills for students who were enrolled in large lecture

introductory to economics courses (Raimondo et al., 1990). This is probably because there seems

to be less opportunity for students to engage in activities that enhance higher-order cognitive

skills. Instructors in large lecture classes are not using activities that help to enhance higher-order

cognitive skills among students.

Another problem with large lecture classes is the students’ poor attitudes and motivation

with the learning experience. Perhaps, students’ poor performance in large lecture classes might

relate to their poor attitude towards their learning experience. For example, McConnell and Sosin

(1984) found that students developed poor attitudes about large lecture classes as a result of not

feeling as satisfied with the learning experience that they would have in smaller-sized classes,

and having less interaction in class. In addition, Carbone and Greenberg (1998) indicated that

students who were enrolled in large lecture courses reported higher levels of course

dissatisfaction when compared to the smaller-sized classes. Similarly in other studies, the

students’ and instructors’ attitude and motivation toward learning seems to be more negatively

affected by large lecture classes (Feldman, 1984; McConnell & Sosin, 1984; McKeachie, 1980).

Also, according to the survey conducted by Wulff, Nyquist, and Abbott (1987), it is reported that

the students in large lecture classes are more likely to lose attention, easily became distracted by

others (e.g. student conversation, classroom noise), and were less motivated because of the

nature of the class which tends to be impersonal and also lack of individual accountability. This

shows that the nature of the large lecture classes (e.g. instructional approach and class activities)

are affecting students’ attitude and motivation towards their learning experience. Thus, it affects

their learning.

Another concern with large lecture classes relates to the lack of student participation in

the learning process. Most of the students in large lecture classes are passive learners (Bogan,

1996). Students tend to be quiet and are reluctant to participate in class discussions. These

students prefer to hold back from participating in a large class discussion because they are

concerned about other students’ perception towards them (e.g., they might appear stupid).

Another reason students are withholding from talking in large lecture classes is because they

need more time to collect their thoughts before participating in the class discussion. In most

15

cases, by the time the students have figured out what they want to say, the discussion has already

moved on.

The lack of student participation is not surprising since the instructional approaches used

in large lecture classes are usually less conducive to student participation. Furthermore, since

students are dissatisfied with the learning experience, they are less likely to participate in

activities that are conducted within large lecture classes. Student participation is important in

order to enhance student learning. A study by Herr (1989) indicated that students who are

involved (active participation in learning activities) usually learn the material better than the

students who are not involved.

Besides having active student participation in large lecture classes, it is also important to

have student-instructor rapport in order to enhance student learning. This brings us to the final

concern with large lecture classes, where there is a lower frequency of instructor interaction with

students and less provision of feedback to students. Students in large lecture classes often

perceive that there is little or no opportunity to interact with the instructor (Salemi, 2009). Other

times, there is also lack of discussion within large lecture class and students are not asking as

many questions during class (Raimondo et al., 1990). The lack of instructor and student

interaction tends to hinder student understanding of course material (Tseng, 2010).

Student-instructor interaction is important as it allows both parties to build two-way

relationships and open channels for further communication. The rapport build among student and

instructor helps to personalize the class for the students. In other words, the instructor is able to

get a better picture of the students’ understanding of the course material, and therefore is able to

personalize the instruction. Thus, having a good relationship with the instructor will help

students to open up and seek more information about course materials that are unclear to them.

This will encourage and motivate them to put more effort into learning and become more active

in class. Both students and instructor benefit from having a good student-instructor rapport where

it encourages students to become more active and engaged in the learning process (Bloom,

1984).

Based on the problems and concerns discussed earlier, we will now focus on some of the

means for overcoming such problems.

16

Potential Means of Overcoming Problems Associated with Large Lecture Classes

Several studies have examined various ways of overcoming problems and concerns

associated with large lecture classes. The following sub-section provides a few instructional

approaches that can be used by instructors and students in large lectures.

Active Learning Techniques

There is no specific definition for active learning, although many researchers agree that

active learning occurs when students are given the opportunity to have an active role and engage

in the learning process. In other words, active learning is the process of engaging students in

doing something (e.g. listening and talking to one another and being able to reflect individually)

other than simply listening to lectures and taking notes to retain information (McKeachie &

Hofer, 2001). Besides listening to lectures, students are encouraged to read, write, discuss, or

become engaged in solving problems that can help to enhance higher-order thinking skills such

as analysis and synthesis (Chickering & Gamson 1987; Fink, 2003). Therefore, active learning

provides a conducive learning environment for students doing other activities to engage in

learning besides passively listening to lectures and thus reduces student dependence on the

instructor for knowledge acquisition (Millis & Cottell, 1998).

Several studies have shown that active learning is an effective teaching technique and

students learn best when they are involved in active learning, especially when they are required

to actively engage with the material and apply the concepts that are being taught (Goldsmith &

Wilson, 1980; Hake 1998; Johnson et al., 1991; Maloney, O'Kuma, Hieggelke, & Heuvelen,

2001; Smith, Sheppard, Johnson, & Johnson, 2005; Thornton & Sokolof 1998). Furthermore,

these studies mentioned that active learning helps to improve critical thinking and interpersonal

skills, increase motivation, retention, and transfer of new information.

Many studies have been done where they adapted lectures to involve students more

directly and engage actively in the learning process in large lecture classes (Bonwell & Eison,

1991; Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Michaelsen, Fink, & Knight, 1997). Some of the activities

suggested by researchers include brainstorming, using think pair share activities, formative

quizzes, debates, student presentations, and role playing.

Even though active learning can be quite beneficial and effective for students in most

classes, it can be quite a challenge to find ways to implement active learning in large lecture

17

classes. For example, several large lecture classes (e.g. science courses) are taught using a lecture

format, even when instructors are aware of the benefits and advantage of getting students

involved and engaged in the learning process (Bransford et al., 1999; Powell, 2003). Instructors

often find it a challenge to guide and assist students when they are unable to interact with them

individually. One way to overcome this challenge is to use cooperative learning strategies.

Cooperative learning. Cooperative learning is regarded as one of the important active

learning techniques where students in large lecture classes engage in small-group activities

(Pychyl, Clark, & Abarbanel, 1999). Cooperative learning activities encourages students to work

in small groups in order to achieve success instead of competing for grades. In this setting,

students are able to mutually provide help to others by sharing the information and knowledge

they have learned about the concepts. At the same time, students become aware of their own

knowledge, they are able to clarify and reaffirm their own knowledge, fill in their knowledge

gaps, and correct their misconceptions about topics that are being discussed. By getting involved

in the small group activities, it enables students to build an elaborate understanding of the

material. Most importantly, cooperative learning activities are able to increase student

participation and make large lecture classes seem less impersonal.

There are other benefits to implementing cooperative learning activities in classrooms.

Research shows that student participation in cooperative groups improves and enhances their

learning when compared to individual learning. For example, Cooper & Robinson (2000)

indicated that cooperative learning activities help to promote cognitive collaboration, enhance

critical thinking skills, provides feedback, and promotes social and emotional development. In

another study, Ebert-May, Brewer, & Allred (1997) indicated that small group activities

increased students’ self-efficacy about doing, analyzing, and explaining science concepts when

compared to students in traditional classes. Several studies indicated that the cooperative

learning techniques in college science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)

courses had a significant positive effect on students’ achievement, persistence, and attitude

(Springer, Stanne, & Donovan, 1999).

Although cooperative learning can be beneficial and effective, there are also challenges

and problems when implementing such a technique, especially in large class sizes. There will

always be risks involved when implementing active learning approaches in classrooms (Bonwell

& Eison, 1991). For example, the risk is that not all students will participate fairly in the

18

activities. Besides, there is a risk of students’ inability to learn sufficient content when presented

with this learning technique. Also, not everyone will be able to engage in good quality

discussions during the small group activity. Therefore, small group activities might not provide a

successful learning experience for all students.

Perhaps one other method of overcoming the challenges of using cooperative learning

techniques in large lecture classes is the use of a think-pair-share approach where instructors are

able to encourage a higher degree of student response and help students stay on task during

lectures.

Think-pair-share. The think-pair-share technique was introduced by Lyman (1981) in

order to encourage student classroom participation. First of all, the instructor usually starts the

class lectures for a period of time. In the middle of the lecture, he or she may stop to pose a

question, problem or issue for students to ponder individually (think). Next, students are

encouraged to turn to the person sitting next to them (pair) so that they can share their responses

with that person (share). In some cases, students and their partners are given the opportunity to

share their responses with the class. By engaging in this activity, students are able to confirm

their understanding, prepare for the subsequent class lecture, or reevaluate the learning material

that was learned in class (Cooper & Robinson, 2000).

Think-pair-share activities provide several benefits to students. Think-pair-share

activities increase student engagement precisely because they provide regular, structured

opportunities for students to work actively on solving problems related to course contents. A

think-pair-share activity not only engages students in higher-order thinking but also provides

immediate information on student understanding of the course content (Cooper & Robinson,

2000). By having this information, instructors are able to then shape the remaining lecture time

based on this feedback. Concurrently, students are able to get immediate and explicit feedback

on the strength or weakness of their understanding. Immediate and prompt feedback has been

identified as one of the best predictors of effective teaching and learning (Chickering & Gamson,

1987).

Besides using the think-pair-share technique, the current technology advancement has

provided opportunities for students to enhance learning in large lecture classes. One example of a

technology tool that has been used in large lecture classes is the use of clickers.

19

Clicker Technology

Besides the active learning techniques discussed earlier, clickers have recently become

more prevalent in large lecture classes (MacGeorge, Homan, Dunning Jr., Elmore, Bodie, Evans,

Khichadia, & Lichti, 2008). Clickers are also referred to by several names including audience

response system (ARS), student response systems (SRS), personal response systems (PRS), and

classroom performance systems (CPS) (Cain & Robinson, 2008; Premkumar & Coupal, 2008). A

clicker is an interactive tool that is considered to enhance, but not replace, traditional lectures by

increasing student learning and engagement (Cain & Robinson, 2008; Menon, Moffett, Enriquez,

Martinez, Dev, & Grappone, 2004).

Several studies that examined and assessed clickers use in lecture courses produced

mixed results. These studies looked at how clickers affect students’ participation in class, student

interaction, academic performance, and student attitudes. The results of these studies are

discussed in the next section.

Benefit of clickers. Studies indicate that there are several benefits of using clickers in

lectures. Among the benefits of using clickers is that it (a) helps increase class participation and

student engagement during class, (b) initiates student-student discussion and interaction in small

group activities, (c) allows students to actively discuss misconceptions to build knowledge, (d)

increases the quality of learning, and (e) allows instructors to receive feedback from students

during lectures.

One of the major benefits of the clickers is that it encourages students to participate in

class discussions. Perhaps the anonymity feature of clickers allows students to willingly

participate and respond to clicker questions without feeling judged by their peers and instructor

(Banks, 2006; Durbin & Durbin, 2006). Study results have shown that student participation

increased in classes that uses clickers when compared to classes that do not use clickers (Bullock

et al., 2002; Caldwell, 2007; Jones, Connolly, Gear, & Read, 2001; Stuart, Brown, & Draper,

2004).

One of the benefits of using clickers is that it initiates student-student discussions. For

example, one way to initiate a discussion among students is to pose a challenging or

controversial clicker question where students will typically have some disagreement

(Immerwahr, 2009). The discussion activity allows students to have a chance to express and

share their ideas, opinions, viewpoint, and thoughts about certain concepts that are being

20

discussed. Perhaps when students begin to see that others are willing to share their ideas, they

themselves become more comfortable and confident to share their own ideas or thoughts with the

other students. Studies have reported that some students prefer to share their explanations of the

answers to the clicker questions with the peers in class, instead of the instructor (Caldwell, 2007;

Nicol & Boyle, 2003). Furthermore, the discussions allow students to explore different

viewpoints and alternatives to their own understanding of the concepts being discussed.

Another advantage of clickers is that it allows students to actively discuss misconceptions

to build knowledge (Brewer, 2004; Draper & Brown, 2004; Nicol & Boyle, 2003). In most of

these cases, students were encouraged to discuss the clicker questions with their peers (e.g. small

groups) before clicking in their answer on the clicker device. The discussion with peers allows

them to think about the question in more detail, explore alternative viewpoints, and seek different

explanations from their peers. Therefore, students are able to enhance their own understanding

on a certain concept based on the discussions. In another example, responses to clicker questions

provide useful information to students where they are able to see where they stand (in terms of

their understanding of certain concepts) in relation to their classmates (Immerwahr, 2009). This

can be informative since it encourages students to discover any misconceptions and

misunderstanding about the concepts being learned and thus initiates further discussion among

students and instructor.

One other advantage of clickers is that it increases the quality of learning. Studies have

reported that the use of clickers increases students’ learning performance (Brewer, 2004;

Caldwell, 2007; Carnaghan & Webb, 2007; Horowitz, 2006). Several studies also indicated that

students in classes using clickers significantly outperform students in regular traditional lecture

class formats (Fagan, Crouch & Mazur, 2002; Preszler et al., 2007; Slain et al., 2004).

Furthermore, students claimed that they learn more when clickers were used in class (Nicol &

Boyle, 2003; Siau et al., 2006; Slain et al., 2004). In these cases, students claim that the questions

encourage them to think more about the concepts learned when they are forced to answer it via

clickers.

The other benefit of clickers is that instructors are able to receive feedback from students

during lectures. According to Beatty (2004) and Hake (1998), the clicker questions encourage

students to think about the concepts learned instead of just listening to lectures as they usually do

in regular lecture classes. The responses to clicker questions provide immediate information on

21

students’ level of understanding about a certain concept. For example, the responses from clicker

questions allow instructors to assess student’s grasp of the knowledge that is being taught. Also,

instructors are able to view an accurate tabulated response in real time. Using the students’

response to clicker questions, instructors can modify the next part of a lecture so that it fits the

students’ level of understanding of certain concepts. Then, instructors can provide more feedback

with examples if they find that a substantial percentage of the students in class are having a hard

time understanding the concepts.

Challenges of using clickers. However, the use of clickers may be challenging for

instructors and students and therefore might affect students’ learning. Some of the challenges of

using clickers include (a) technology-based challenges, (b) challenges of responding to student

feedback, and (c) students claiming that discussion lead to a waste of time.

One of the challenges of using clickers is that there is a possibility of a technological

issue with using the device. For example, clicker devices may not work properly or the

instructor’s computer may not receive the signal. This has happened numerous times and it can

be stressful when students are being evaluated (Sharma, Khachan, Chan, & O’Byrne, 2005; Siau

et al., 2006).

It also can be a challenge to adjust instructional strategies based on students’ clicker

responses. One of the main concerns is to find out the level of students’ understanding of a

concept. If the results to clicker responses show that students still do not understand the learning

material or concept, it can be another added concern for the instructor to quickly change and

adjust the teaching style in order to provide a better explanation to the students. Instructors who

are fairly new and inexperienced may face some issues or problems with using contingent

teaching and this may cause frustration (Hu et al., 2006).

Students may also face some challenges of using clickers. Not all discussions are

expected to run smoothly when clickers are used. According to Nicol & Boyle (2003), some

students are more active compared to others and prefer to dominate group discussions.

Furthermore, students who have different perspectives and solutions from their partners can

sometimes lead to them feeling confused, intimidated, and perhaps cause anxiety (Nicol &

Boyle, 2003). According to Draper & Brown (2004), some students feel that clicker activities

distract them from the concepts or lessons that are being lectured in class.

22

Despite the challenges of implementing clicker activities, there is still room for

improvement in overcoming the issues and concerns. One of the probable solutions to the

problems that arise when using clickers is to combine their use with the think-pair-share

technique that was mentioned earlier in this chapter.

As mentioned earlier, the think-pair-share technique is a useful class activity where

students are encouraged to pair up and engage in discussions in order to answer questions or

problems posed by the instructor. It might also be beneficial to use clickers to collect students’

responses to the think-pair-share questions. Therefore, the think-pair-share approach and clicker

technology was used in this study.

Incentives

In addition to the think-pair-share approach and clicker technology, a reward method can

be beneficial for students learning. Furthermore, a think-pair-share activity relies on students’

willingness to learn together, share ideas and knowledge, react to one another’s ideas, and adjust

ideas based upon the comments of others. In order to encourage students to be involved in the

think-pair-share activity, oftentimes, it is necessary to offer them incentives. According to Smith

(1992) and Len (2006), the lack of sufficient incentives seems to be one reason why students

have less participation in large lecture classes. Classroom incentives can be defined as rewards

earned by students based on their performance on certain tasks.

Research shows that elaborated peer discussions are intensified when an adequate reward

structure is used (Slavin, 1987). Reward structures are meant to encourage students to contribute

their effort, skills, and knowledge in order to perform tasks. In this study, rewards will be divided

into two categories, which are individual incentives and group incentives.

Individual Incentives

When individual incentives are employed, students are assigned individual rewards based

on the quantity or quality of their individual achievements and performances. In this case, each

student is accountable for their own individual performance, thus receiving individual incentives.

Individual incentives are expected to stimulate and help sustain the students’ effort toward

attaining a valued and achievable goal. Therefore, when students are able to earn and appreciate

the value of the rewards, they should be able to increase their effort and attention toward

23

achieving the goal (Locke, Feren, McCaleb, Shaw, & Denny, 1980). In many cases, a reward or

incentive that is considered valuable to students is class points that can accumulate to and can

used to earn a better course grade.

However, one of the challenges of individual incentives is that oftentimes students are

only focused on earning individual rewards, which does not affect their participation in group

activities such as the think-pair-share activities. In other words, when rewards are given to

individuals, students are usually not interested in the knowledge acquisition of other members of

the group when there is a group activity involved. Thus, the individualistic reward has little or no

consequences for the goal attainment of others (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998; Slavin, 1995).

To overcome this problem, group incentives are often employed, in the hope that they will

enhance the group activity (e.g. think-pair-share) and encourage students to work together to

earn incentives as a group.

Group Incentives

Group incentives or rewards are earned based on (a) each member’s performance as an

individual and (b) the collective performance of the group on tasks that are provided by the

instructors. For example, if all group members are performing well, the group will be rewarded

for their effort.

There are many benefits of providing group incentives to students. One of the benefits of

group incentives is that it encourages students to help one another in their group, regardless of

their level of knowledge in a particular area (Webb, 1991). Group incentives based on the

individual achievement of each group member helps to ensure that knowledgeable students take

the initiative to help their group members learn the concept or material instead of just focusing

on completing the group task. At the same time, the students who are less knowledgeable are

able to seek or ask for help without feeling scared or intimidated, knowing that if they do not

seek assistance, they may not succeed at a task and thus let their fellow group members down

(Slavin, 1991). This way, students are likely to help their group members by explaining and

sharing answers since they are teammates. In other words, students may be more inclined to help

each other see that everyone in the group knows what they are supposed to know and contributes

to the group. The fact that all students are striving toward a common goal (i.e., obtaining the

24

group incentive) helps them to overcome the fear of asking for help from their group members.

Thus, this type of interdependent reward structure increases cooperation among group members.

Another benefit of group incentives is that it encourages interaction among group

members (Slavin, 1987; Webb, 1991). Since the incentives are earned based on each individual

member’s performance, group members are motivated to make sure that everyone in the group

learns the material. Therefore, group incentives encourage students to talk to each other and

share their knowledge. Also, students are able to work with each other and learn from one

another if they see that there are rewards at stake.

Another benefit of group incentives is that they create an interpersonal reward structure

among group members. For example, group members will give or withhold social reinforcers

(e.g., praise, encouragement) in response to their group member’s efforts (Slavin, 1983). Thus,

students feel appreciated for their effort in achieving group success. This will motivate students

to work harder at becoming productive group members.

A common group reward structure that is based on the nature of cooperative learning is

known as positive reward interdependence. Positive reward interdependence is a mutual reward

given to groups that have individual members putting effort into achieving successful group

tasks (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1998). For example, besides receiving individual scores on

an exam, students may receive a certain number of points if all group members are able to

perform the task correctly.

Studies have shown that a group incentive system based on positive interdependence

helps increase students’ participation and involvement in class (Ames, 1981; Brewer & Klein,

2006; Klein et al., 1994). Furthermore, positive reward interdependence explains the relationship

between cooperation and achievement, since individuals will increase their achievement only if

there is a specific group contingency that reinforces them to do so (Hays, 1976).

On the other hand, there have been arguments where researchers claim that group

rewards inhibit motivation (Kohn, 1986). Damon (1984) and Kohn (1986) do not recommend

using group rewards in fear that they may undermine long-term motivation. However, there has

not been strong evidence that proves their claim.

The notion that group incentives inhibit student motivation has contributed to many

educators’ reluctance to use group rewards (Cameron & Pierce, 1994). However, as noted above,

in several studies group incentives have had a positive effect on student learning. Therefore in

25

this study, it was decided to examine the differences in students’ performance when one group of

students only receives bonus points for individual performance, whereas students in the other

group can earn the same number of bonus points, but some of those points can only be earned

based on the performance of the group the student is in.

Also, although there have been studies that involve using group incentives in relatively

small classes, there have not been many on studies examining the use of group incentives in

large lecture classes, especially in those large classes in which think-pair-share activities are

employed. Therefore, this study was conducted to examine the effect of group incentives versus

individual incentives on learning and attitudes in a large lecture course.

26

CHAPTER III

METHOD

Participants and Instructor

The participants for this study were undergraduate students who were registered for the

Principles of Macroeconomics course offered in Fall 2010 semester at The Florida State

University. Enrollment for this course exceeded 400 students per large course section. The

majority of students enrolled in this course were freshmen and sophomore since it met one of the

general education undergraduate degree requirements. There were slightly more females than

males registered for both sections of the course, with the majority of students being Caucasian.

The majority of students in the course was not an economics major and had little

knowledge about the macroeconomics. The course was designed primarily for these types of

students. The course focused on topics such as money and banking, inflation, unemployment, the

measurement and determination of national income, and government fiscal and monetary policy.

The Principles of Macroeconomics course is a prerequisite for most upper division economics

courses, and also is a prerequisite course for all business majors and most majors in the social

sciences.

Since the course is a prerequisite for most majors, there were many sections open for

students throughout the Spring and Fall semesters. Although that there were many sections open

to students, with different instructors teaching on different days and times, the course content

was consistent across all sections. However, this study was focused on two large course sections

only. Both sections had classes on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. The first section’s class

began at 1:25PM until 2:15PM, while the other section’s class began at 2:30PM until 3:20PM.

For this study, the class sections were randomly assigned to the group incentives condition and

individual incentives condition.

Both of the class sections chosen for this study had the same instructor. The instructor

was a lecturer in the Department of Economics. He has seven years of experience teaching large

classes of Principles of Macroeconomics and Principles of Microeconomics at Florida State

27

University. The number of students he has taught range from 200 to 500 per section for each

semester and he usually teaches two sections per semester.

Instructional Tools and Materials

For this course, the textbook used was Macroeconomics: Private and Public Choice, 13th

edition by Gwartney, Stroup, Sobel and Macpherson (2008). Most of the chapters from this

book was used as part of the course content. The course content was presented on PowerPoint

slides, which included video clips of interviews and documentaries, illustrations, diagrams, and

think-pair-share questions.

Besides the textbook, students enrolled in the class were required to purchase a clicker

device, which they used throughout the semester in order to record their responses to think-pair-

share questions. As a result of the students using their clickers, the instructor was able to track

and record student’s individual responses to the think-pair-share items and reward them

additional points.

Instructional Strategy

Each class session used the same basic instructional strategy that the instructor typically

employs. The instructor usually began the class with a synopsis of the previous class session and

provided the class with a list of objectives for the day. He then began discussing the new

concepts to be taught. The instructor often used PowerPoint slides, videos of documentaries and

interviews, and graphs to teach the new concepts to the class. During most class periods, the

instructor presented students with one or two think-pair-share questions. Each of these questions

was presented after the instructor had finished discussing a particular topic. When students are

presented with a think-pair-share question, they are expected to think about the answer to the

question (think), then get together with their partner (pair) and discuss what they think the

correct answer is (share). After a minute or two, each student is asked to indicate his or her

answer choice by using the clickers.

In this class, most of the think-pair-share questions required students to engage in higher-

order thinking skills such as analysis, application, and evaluation (Bloom, 1956). An example of

this type of question appears below:

28

Suppose you received a 3 percent increase in your nominal wage. Over the year, inflation

ran about 6 percent. Which of the following is true?

a) Your real wage fell.

b) Your nominal wage fell.

c) Both your nominal and real wages decreased.

d) Although your nominal wage fell, you real wage increased.

e) Both nominal and real wages increased.

In addition, some of the think-pair-share questions assessed the students’ knowledge and

comprehension skills. Bloom (1956) classify these as lower order thinking skills. Below is an

example of a think-pair-share question that measures lower order thinking skills:

If a used car dealer purchases a used car for $3,000, refurbishes it, and sells it for

$8,000, the

a) dealer contributes value added equal to $5,000, but nothing is added to GDP.

b) dealer contributes value added equal to $5,000, and consequently $5,000 is added to

GDP.

c) dealer contributes nothing to production because only existing goods are involved.

d) dealer contributes value added equal to $8,000, but only $5,000 is added to GDP.

After the students have keyed in their answers to a think-pair-share question on their

clickers, the instructor then showed the students’ answer choices on a histogram. If most students

answer the think-pair-share question correctly, the instructor only had a brief discussion about

the topic. On the other hand, the instructor initiated a discussion within the class if he saw that

more than 40% of students answered a question incorrectly. In such cases, the instructor would

get students engaged in the discussion by asking questions and reviewing the list of answer

choices. After the discussion, the instructor would provide feedback, and provide other

examples that could help students understand the concepts clearly.

Independent Variable

In the instructional strategy that is described above, the portion that was different

involved the type of incentive system that was used to award students points based on their

responses to the think-pair-share questions. In the individual incentives condition, the number of

points students earned was not dependent on their partner’s answers. In the group incentives

29

condition, the points a student earned was dependent in part on his or her partner’s performance.

In particular, a student would earn some credit if he or she answered a question correctly, but

would earn the maximum additional credit if both the student and his or her partner answer it

correctly. By setting up the system in which some of a student’s points are earned based upon his

or her partner’s performance, I am trying to foster positive interdependence.

The total number of points students would be able to earn on think-pair-share questions

over the course of the semester was approximately 1% of the total points they can earn in the

entire course. This comes out to approximately 100 points during the course of the semester.

Each question was worth a total of four points.

The way these points can be earned was varied across the two conditions. In both

conditions, students could receive one point simply for responding to a think-pair-share question.

This is to encourage students to attempt to answer the think-pair-share questions.

In the individual incentives condition, students could get an additional three points if they

answered a question correctly. In contrast, in the group incentives condition, students could earn

one additional point if they answered correctly, plus two more points if they and their partner

answered the question correctly, making it a total of four points.

Dependent Variables

The dependent variables that were examined in this study were student learning and

student attitude towards the course. The manner in which these dependent variables were

examined is described below.

Learning

Student learning was measured by student performance on the final cumulative exam

(Appendix E). The purpose of the final exam was to assess students’ ability to recall and use the

knowledge and skills taught in the class. Some of the questions measured lower order thinking

skills (knowledge and comprehension) while others measured higher-order thinking skills

(application, analysis, and evaluation).

The cumulative final exam consisted of 75 multiple-choice items that measured the

student’s ability to employ lower order thinking skills and higher-order thinking skills.

Approximately 14 of the items on the final exam covered the same skills as the think-pair-share

30

items that were used during the semester. The remaining items covered other skills and

knowledge that were taught during the course. The students’ performance on the final exam was

examined as a measure of student learning.

Attitudes

Student attitude was measured using two attitude surveys during the course of the

semester (Appendix C-2 and C-3). The mid-semester attitude survey (Appendix C-3) was

administered two times, on weeks 6 and 10 during the semester. The three questions on the

survey measured the students’ perception towards the points system used for think-pair-share

clicker questions. Students answered the questions using a Likert scale, ranging from strongly

agree to strongly disagree. The survey was administered online through Blackboard. Points was

awarded to students who completed the survey.

The final attitude survey (Appendix C-2) had a total of 16 questions that measured

students’ attitudes towards (a) the think-pair-share items, (b) the partnering and peer discussion

approach, (c) the incentive system, and (d) the course. At least three questions were used to

measure each type of attitudes. Response options for those 16 questions were in a form of Likert

scale, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The survey was administered online

through Blackboard during the final week of the semester. Students was awarded additional

incentive points to encourage them to complete the survey.

Student attitude was also measured by using one-on-one student interviews. The

interview was conducted in order to better understand the nature of the students’ attitudes toward

the clicker activities that took place in the class. The interview questions are included in the

appendices (Appendix C-4). The interviews were conducted separately with each individual.

Procedures

The study took place during the Fall 2010 semester. At the beginning of the semester, the

instructor randomly assigned his two class sections of the introductory macroeconomics class

into either the group incentives condition or the individual incentives condition. The instructor

briefly explained to students the purpose of the study and administered consent forms (Appendix

A). Students were informed that their scores on think-pair-share questions and their exam scores

would not be shared with anyone other than the researcher and the course instructor. At the end

31

of the briefing, students would have a chance to either accept or opt-out of the study by signing

their consent forms. Once students had given their consent to participate in the study, the

researcher collected demographic data from students.

Starting in the third week of the semester, think-pair-share items was used during each

class session until the end of the semester, with one or two such questions being used during

each class session. The reason for waiting to use the system until the third week was twofold.

First, usually by the third week of the semester, the number of students registered for the course

has stabilized. Second, before beginning data collection, the instructor preferred that students

should get used to using the clickers. Therefore, students would get a chance to practice using the

clicker device to answer questions for a few weeks before implementing the point system. Thus,

the think-pair-share point system officially started during the third week of the semester. During

the same week, a demographic survey (Appendix C-1) was distributed via Blackboard. Students

was given a week to complete the survey and was given additional incentive points for

completing the survey.

All class sessions was audio recorded and posted on the course website on Blackboard.

The researcher attended and observed at least one class session per week for each section.

One-on-one interviews were conducted with students from both the Individual and Group

Incentives condition between weeks 8 and 11. An email was sent to all students on October 6,

2010 as an invitation to participate in the student interviews. A second email invitation was sent

a few weeks later on October 19, 2010 to invite more student interview participants. Student

interviews were conducted between October 8th and November 5th, 2010. The interview

participants were met individually and the interviews were conducted by the researcher. Each

interview session was conducted briefly for about 5 to 10 minutes. The interview sessions were

tape recorded with the participants’ consent.

The final exam was administered during the final exam week. Students were given two

hours to complete the final exam. The final attitude survey was administered in class during the

last week of the semester, prior to the final exam week. Students were informed that their

responses would be kept confidential from the instructor.

32

Data Analysis

An ANOVA test was conducted to assess whether there were differences in student

learning among students in the individual and group incentives condition. An ANOVA was

conducted to assess whether there were differences in student attitude towards the points system

used for think-pair-share clicker questions in both the individual and group incentives condition.

Four ANOVA tests were conducted to assess whether there were differences in student attitude

towards (a) the think-pair-share items, (b) partnering and peer discussion, (c) the incentive

systems, and (d) the course as a whole.

A chi-square test revealed that there was no difference between the two groups with

regard to the percentage of students who enjoyed working with a partner when answering clicker

questions. Student interview data was analyzed and merged into themes.

Based upon a power analysis, with an expected sample size of 400 and with alpha set

at.05, the probability of detecting a small effect (d=0.10) is 17% and the probability of detecting

a moderate effect (d=0.30) is 85%.

33

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

This chapter reports the results from the data analyses that were conducted for this study.

Prior to the primary data analyses, a preliminary analysis was conducted to test for assumptions

in parametric statistics. In the primary data analyses section, the results of statistical tests for

each hypothesis are discussed under the corresponding dependent measure. The subsequent

portions of this section describe the results related to each of these dependent measures. Finally,

a summary of the results of the primary data analyses is presented.

In this study, two dependent variables were examined, student learning and student

attitudes. The effect of the group incentives on student learning was measured by the final exam

that was administered at the end of the semester. The effect of the group incentives on student

attitude was measured by the mid-semester attitude surveys (Appendix C-3) and final attitude

survey (Appendix C-2).

Demographic Data

A total of 863 students from two sections of the Principles of Macroeconomic course in

term Fall 2010 were invited to participate in the study. Of the 450 students in the individual

incentives condition, 419 students opted to participate in the study, and of the 413 students in the

group incentives condition, 391 opted to participate in the study. A total of 810 students opted to

participate in the study. Based upon a power analysis and the probability of detecting a moderate

effect (d=0.30) of 85%, the researcher expected at least 400 students to comprise the study

sample. This target was met since a total of 810 students opted to participate in the study.

However, only a total of 101 students from both individual and group incentive

conditions participated in all of the think-pair-share activities throughout the semester (see Table

1). The results presented in this study reflect the total of students that gave consent and also those

that participated in all of the think-pair-share activities. Among the 101 students that participated

in the study, 50 (49.5%) were female and 51 (50.5%) were male (see Table 2).

34

Table 1 Number and Percent of Participants in Individual and Group Incentives Condition

Type of Incentives N %

Individual Incentives 58 57.4

Group Incentives 43 42.6

Total 101 100.0

Table 2 Number and Percent of Participants by Gender

Gender

Individual Incentives

Group Incentives

Total

N % N % N %

Female 32 64.0 18 36.0 50 49.5

Male 26 51.0 25 49.0 51 50.5

Total 58 43 101

Number and percent for students who are enrolled in the Principles of Macroeconomics

course are presented in Table 3. Number and percent for students who are classified as freshman,

sophomore, junior, and senior are presented in Table 4.

Table 3 Number and Percent of Students who are enrolled in Principles of Macroeconomics

Individual Incentives

Group Incentives

Total

N % N % N %

First time enrolled in Fall 2010 51 58.0 37 42.0 88 87.1

Previously enrolled in macroeconomics at FSU

2 100.0 - - 2 2.0

Previously enrolled in macroeconomics in high school or at another college

5 45.5 6 54.5 11 10.9

Total 58 43 101

35

Table 4 Number and Percent of Student Classification

Individual Incentives

Group Incentives

Total

N % N % N %

Freshman 19 46.3 22 53.7 41 40.6

Sophomore 29 63.0 17 37.0 46 45.5

Junior 9 75.0 3 25.0 12 11.9

Senior 1 50.0 1 50.0 2 2.0

Total 58 43 101

Based on these responses, the data were applied to each research question. The statistical

analysis follows the order of the research questions and hypotheses as stated earlier in Chapter 3.

Tests for Assumptions and Power Analysis

Prior to conducting the analyses of variance for the two dependent variables, three

assumptions related to ANOVA were examined, namely (a) the normal distribution assumption,

(b) the independent observation assumption, and (c) the homogeneity of variance assumption.

For the first dependent variable of student learning, all three assumptions were met.

However, the second dependent variable of student attitudes did not meet the normal distribution

assumption. The results from the histogram show that the data distribution is slightly skewed to

the right.

Nevertheless, the one-way ANOVA is considered a robust test against the normality

assumption. This means that it tolerates violations to its normality assumption rather well. With

regards the normality of group data, the one-way ANOVA can tolerate data that is non-normal

(skewed or kurtosis distributions) with only a small effect on the Type I error rate.

A power analysis was also conducted. It revealed that with a sample size of 98 and with

alpha set at.05, the probability of detecting a small effect (d=0.10) was 8% and the probability of

detecting a moderate effect (d=0.30) was 31%.

36

ANOVA Results for Student Learning

Student learning was measured by student performance on the 14 items on the final exam

that covered the same skills as the think-pair-share items that were used during the semester.

Table 5 shows the means and standard deviations on those 14 items on the final exam for the

students in each of the two groups. An ANOVA revealed that there was no significant difference

between the means F(1,97) = 1.37, p> .05, ŋ2 =0.0139 (see Table 6). These results did not

support the hypothesis that the students who were in the group incentives condition would

perform better than the students in the individual incentives condition on the 14 final exam items

that were related to the think-pair-share questions.

Table 5 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations by Group on the 14 Think-pair-share Related Items on the Final Exam

Type of Incentives n M SD

Group 42 10.98 (2.24)

Individual 57 11.47 (1.97)

Note. The maximum possible score on these items was 14.

Table 6 Summary of ANOVA for Group Incentives and Individual Incentives condition

Sum of

Squares df

Mean Square

F p

Between Groups 5.985 1 5.985 1.372 .244

Within Groups 423.187 97 4.363

Total 429.172 98

A further analysis of the student learning was conducted by measuring the students’

performance on all of the 75 items on the final exam. Table 7 shows the mean scores and

standard deviations for both groups on all of the 75 items on the final exam. An ANOVA

revealed that there was no significant difference between the means F(1,97) = 1.57, p> .05, ŋ2

=0.0159 (see Table 8). These results indicated that the students in the group incentives condition

did not perform better than students in the individual incentives condition on the final exam.

37

Table 7 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations by Group for the 75 Items on the Final Exam

Type of Incentives n M SD

Group 42 58.38 (8.39)

Individual 57 60.51 (8.31)

Note. The maximum possible score for the Final Exam is 75.

Table 8 Summary of ANOVA for Group Incentives and Individual Incentives condition

Sum of

Squares df

Mean Square

F p

Between Groups 109.486 1 109.486 1.573 .213

Within Groups 6750.150 97 69.589

Total 6859.636 98

In addition to looking at the scores for the entire final exam for those students who

participated in the think-pair-share activity throughout the entire semester, this study also

examined whether there were any differences in performance among all the students in the two

incentive group conditions. Table 9 below shows the means of the students in the two incentive

group conditions on all 75 items in the final exam. Results of the statistical test show there was a

significant difference F(1,780) = 9.11, p< .05, ŋ2 =0.0115 (see Table 10). However, this is likely

due to the fact that there were such a large number of participants in each group. When

examining the actual descriptive statistics, the difference of the means between the two groups

was very small whereas the difference between the number of participants in the two groups was

rather large; meaning that effect size for this statistically significant difference was small (d

=.02). In other words, although that this result was statistically significant, it was not of any

practical importance.

Table 9 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations by Group for the 75 Items on the Final Exam

Type of Incentives n M SD

Group 373 56.35 9.57

Individual 409 58.38 9.18

Note. The maximum possible score for the Final Exam is 75.

38

Table 10 Summary of ANOVA for Group Incentives and Individual Incentives Condition

Sum of

Squares df

Mean Square

F p

Between Groups 800.227 1 800.227 9.114 .003*

Within Groups 68487.007 780 87.804

Total 69287.234 781 *p<.05

In addition to comparing the differences in performance among students in the group

incentive condition versus students in the individual incentive condition, this study also

examined whether there were any differences in final exam performance among those students

who had the same think-pair-share activity partners throughout the entire semester versus those

students who switched partners during the semester. When the performance of those two groups

of students on the overall 75 item final exam was compared, there was no significant difference

between the two groups (see Tables 11 and 12). Moreover, there was no significant difference

between the two groups when they were compared on their performance on the 14 final exam

items that were related to the think-pair-share questions (see Tables 13 and 14).

Table 11 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations by Partner Type for the 75 Items on the Final Exam

Type of Partner n M SD

Different partner 82 59.87 (8.11)

Same partner 17 58.35 (9.67)

Note. The maximum possible score for the Final Exam is 75.

Table 12 Summary of ANOVA for Different Partner and Same Partner across Both Incentive Conditions

Sum of

Squares df

Mean Square

F p

Between Groups 32.230 1 32.230 .458 .500

Within Groups 6827.407 97 70.386

Total 6859.636 98

39

Table 13 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations by Partner Type on the 14 Think-pair-share Related Items on the Final Exam

Type of Partner n M SD

Different partner 82 11.27 (2.07)

Same partner 17 11.24 (2.25)

Note. The maximum possible score for the Final Exam is 14.

Table 14 Summary of ANOVA for Different Partner and Same Partner across Both Incentive Conditions

Sum of

Squares df

Mean Square

F p

Between Groups .015 1 .015 .003 .953

Within Groups 429.156 97 4.424

Total 429.172 98

Finally, the study also examined the learning performance of those few students who

maintained the same think-pair-share activity partner throughout the entire semester (n =17, after

eliminating one student for whom there was incomplete data). These students were categorized

according to which treatment group (group incentive or individual incentive) they were in. The

learning performance of the students in these two groups was compared on (a) the 14 final exam

items that were related to the think-pair-share questions, as well as on (b) all 75 questions in the

final. As indicated in Tables 15-18, there were no statistically significant differences in the

students’ performance between the two incentive groups on either of these sets of exam items.

Table 15 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations by Type of Incentives for Students with the Same Think-pair-share Partners on the 75 Items on the Final Exam

Type of Incentives N M SD

Group 6 56.33 14.98

Individual 11 59.45 5.79

Note. The maximum possible score for the Final Exam is 75.

40

Table 16 Summary of ANOVA for Group Incentives and Individual Incentives Condition for Students with the Same Partner on All Think-pair-share Activities

Sum of

Squares df

Mean Square

F p

Between Groups 37.822 1 37.822 .389 .542

Within Groups 1458.061 15 97.204

Total 1495.882 16

Table 17 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations by Type of Incentives for Students with the Same Think-pair-share Partners on the 14 Think-pair-share Related Items on the Final Exam

Type of Incentives N M SD

Group 6 10.83 3.31

Individual 11 11.45 1.58

Note. The maximum possible score for the Final Exam is 14.

Table 18 Summary of ANOVA for Group Incentives and Individual Incentives Condition for Students with the Same Partner on All Think-pair-share Activities

Sum of

Squares df

Mean Square

F p

Between Groups 1.498 1 1.498 .282 .603

Within Groups 79.561 15 5.304

Total 81.059 16

ANOVA Results for Student Attitudes

Reliability

Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient was used to determine the reliability of the final

attitude survey items. The results indicated an overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.87. This

implies that over half of the variability was fairly reliable.

The reliability of the final attitude survey was assessed. The reliability tests show that the

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for students’ attitude towards clicker items is 0.30, think-pair-share

approach is 0.66, incentive systems is 0.85, and entire course is 0.88.

41

Final Attitude Survey

The final attitude survey (Appendix C-2) had a total of 16 questions that measured

students’ attitudes towards (a) the think-pair-share items, (b) the partnering and peer discussion

approach, (c) the incentive system, and (d) the course. There were between three to six questions

in the survey that were used to measure each type of attitude.

Four ANOVAs were employed to determine the effects of the incentive conditions on

each type of attitude. Table 19 shows the means and standard deviations for students’ responses

on each subset of student attitudes.

Table 19 Means and Standard Deviations for Students’ Attitudes on the Final Attitude Survey

Number of items

Group

Individual

(n=38)

(n=54)

M SD M SD

Clicker items 3 3.26 (0.52)

3.23 (0.50)

Partnering and peer discussions 4 3.65a (0.57)

3.56b (0.65)

Incentive systems 6 4.00 (0.70)

3.98 (0.74)

Entire course 3 4.05 (0.73) 3.99 (0.94)

Notes. The choice of responses ranges from Strongly Disagree=1 to Strongly Agree=5. an=37 bn=53

Student attitude towards the clicker items. For the first subset of student attitudes, the

ANOVA test revealed that there was no significant difference between the means of the students’

attitudes towards the clicker items, F(1,90) = 0.70, p> .05, ŋ2 =0.0077 (see Table 20). We can

conclude that in this case, the group incentives system does not affect students’ attitudes towards

the clicker items.

Table 20 Summary of ANOVA for Students’ Attitude toward Clicker Items

Sum of

Squares df

Mean Square

F p

Between Groups .018 1 .018 .070 .792

Within Groups 23.508 90 .261

Total 23.527 91

42

Student attitude towards partnering and peer discussion. The ANOVA test for the

second subset of student attitudes indicated that there was no significant difference between the

means of the students’ attitudes towards partnering and peer discussion, F(1,88) = 0.481, p> .05,

ŋ2 =0.0054 (see Table 21). In this case, we can conclude that the group incentives system does

not affect students’ attitudes towards the partnering and peer discussion approach.

Table 21 Summary of ANOVA for Students’ Attitude toward Partnering and Peer Discussions

Sum of

Squares df

Mean Square

F p

Between Groups .185 1 .185 .481 .490

Within Groups 33.763 88 .384

Total 33.947 89

Student attitude towards the incentive systems. The third ANOVA test for this subset

of student attitudes indicated that there was no significant difference between the means of the

students’ attitudes towards the incentive systems, F(1,90) = 0.036, p> .05, ŋ2 =0.0004 (see Table

22). In this case, we can conclude that the group incentives system does not affect students’

attitudes towards the incentive systems approach.

Table 22 Summary of ANOVA for Students’ Attitude toward Incentive Systems

Sum of

Squares df

Mean Square

F p

Between Groups .019 1 .019 .036 .850

Within Groups 47.439 90 .527

Total 47.457 91

Student attitude towards the entire course. The fourth ANOVA test for this subset of

student attitudes indicated that there was no significant difference between the means of the

students’ attitudes towards the entire course, F(1,90) = 0.104, p> .05, ŋ2 =0.0011 (see Table 23).

In this case, we can conclude that the group incentives system does not affect students’ attitudes

towards the entire course.

43

Table 23 Summary of ANOVA for Students’ Attitude toward the Entire Course

Sum of

Squares df

Mean Square

F p

Between Groups .077 1 .077 .104 .747

Within Groups 66.448 90 .738

Total 66.525 91

Two Mid-Semester Attitude Survey Results

The two mid-semester attitude surveys were administered online via Blackboard during

the semester, on week 6 and week 10 (Appendix C-3). The three questions on the survey

measured the students’ perceptions towards the points system used for think-pair-share clicker

questions. Answer choices were in a form of a Likert scale, ranging from strongly agree to

strongly disagree. Means and standard deviations for the two groups on the two mid-semester

attitude surveys are shown in Table 24 and 25. ANOVA tests indicated that there were no

significant differences on any of the mid-semester attitude survey items.

Table 24 Means and Standard Deviations for Group and Individual Incentives Condition for the First Mid-Semester Attitude Survey

Survey Items

Individual Incentives

Group

Incentives

(n=53)

(n=41) M SD

M SD

Q1: I think that the points rewarded for clicker questions have influenced me to work closely with my partner.

4.00 (0.76) 3.85 (0.96)

Q2: I like the points system used for clicker questions in this class.

4.49 (0.64)

4.61 (0.49)

Q3: The points system awarded for correctly answering clicker questions in this course has helped me to learn more.

4.40 (0.66) 4.34 (0.73)

Note. The choice of responses ranges from Strongly Disagree=1 to Strongly Agree=5.

44

Table 25 Means and Standard Deviations for Group and Individual Incentives Condition for the Second Mid-Semester Attitude Survey

Survey Items

Individual Incentives

Group

Incentives

(n=48)

(n=35) M SD

M SD

Q1: I think that the points rewarded for clicker questions have influenced me to work closely with my partner.

4.08 (0.77) 4.06 (0.94)

Q2: I like the points system used for clicker questions in this class.

4.46 (0.65)

4.37 (0.81)

Q3: The points system awarded for correctly answering clicker questions in this course has helped me to learn more.

4.29 (0.68) 4.40 (0.78)

Note. The choice of responses ranges from Strongly Disagree=1 to Strongly Agree=5.

Student attitude towards Question 1 in the Mid-semester attitude survey. The

ANOVA test results for the first and second mid-semester attitude survey revealed that there was

no significant difference between the means of student attitude towards the points rewarded for

clicker questions influencing students to work closely with their partner, F(1,92) = 0.679, p> .05,

ŋ2 =0.007 (see Table 26); F(1,81) = 0.020, p> .05, ŋ2 =0.0002 (see Table 27). At week 6 and

week 10, we can conclude that the incentives conditions did not differentially affect students’

attitudes towards working closely with their partner.

Table 26 Summary of ANOVA for Question 1 in the First Mid-semester Attitude Survey

Sum of

Squares df

Mean Square

F p

Between Groups .495 1 .495 .679 .412

Within Groups 67.122 92 .730

Total 67.617 93

45

Table 27 Summary of ANOVA for Question 1 in the Second Mid-semester Attitude Survey

Sum of

Squares df

Mean Square

F p

Between Groups .014 1 .014 .020 .889

Within Groups 57.552 81 .711

Total 57.566 82

Student attitude towards Question 2 in the Mid-semester attitude survey. The

ANOVA test results for the first and second mid-semester attitude survey revealed that there was

no significant difference between the means of student attitude towards the point system used for

clicker questions in their respective classes, F(1,92) = 0.975, p> .05, ŋ2 =0.010 (see Table 28);

F(1,81) = 0.294, p> .05, ŋ2 =0.004 (see Table 29). At week 6 and week 10, we can conclude that

the incentive conditions did not differentially affect student attitudes towards the points system

used for clicker questions in classes.

Table 28 Summary of ANOVA for Question 2 in the First Mid-semester Attitude Survey

Sum of

Squares df

Mean Square

F p

Between Groups .328 1 .328 .975 .326

Within Groups 31.001 92 .337

Total 31.330 93

Table 29 Summary of ANOVA for Question 2 in the Second Mid-semester Attitude Survey

Sum of

Squares df

Mean Square

F p

Between Groups .153 1 .153 .294 .589

Within Groups 42.088 81 .520

Total 42.241 82

Student attitude towards Question 3 in the Mid-semester attitude survey. The

ANOVA test results for the first and second mid-semester attitude survey revealed that there was

no significant difference between the means of student attitude towards the points system

46

awarded for correctly answering clicker questions in the course and helped them learn more,

F(1,92) = 0.975, p> .05, ŋ2 =0.010 (see Table 30); F(1,81) = 0.294, p> .05, ŋ2 =0.004 (see Table

31). At week 6 and week 10, we can conclude that the incentives conditions did not differentially

affect student opinions as to the whether the points system they were working under helped them

learn more.

Table 30 Summary of ANOVA for Question 3 in the First Mid-semester Attitude Survey

Sum of

Squares df

Mean Square

F p

Between Groups .069 1 .069 .145 .704

Within Groups 43.899 92 .477

Total 43.968 93

Table 31 Summary of ANOVA for Question 3 in the Second Mid-semester Attitude Survey

Sum of

Squares df

Mean Square

F p

Between Groups .238 1 .238 .455 .502

Within Groups 42.317 81 .522

Total 42.554 82

Open ended survey comments

One of the methods used to gather student attitudes was an open ended question on the

Final Attitude Survey (Appendix C-2). The question was a two part question. The first question

asked the students whether they enjoyed working with a partner when answering clicker

questions. The second part of the question was an open ended question where students were

asked to elaborate on their response to the first part of the question. As shown in Table 32, in the

individual incentives condition, 86.9% of students responded that they enjoyed working with

their partner, whereas in the group incentives condition, 85.5% responded that they enjoyed

doing so.

47

Table 32 Number and Percent of Students who responded ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ to the Question ‘Did you enjoy working with a partner when answering clicker questions?’ Did you enjoy working with a partner when answering clicker questions?

Individual Incentives (n=297)

Group Incentives (n=221)

Yes 258 (86.9%) 189 (85.5%)

No 39 (13.1%) 32 (14.5%)

Table 33 Chi Square Test between Incentives System and Students’ Preference towards Working with a Partner When Answering Clicker Questions

Value Df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 4.16 2 .125

Likelihood Ratio 4.19 2 .123

When looking at the positive open-ended comments among students in the individual

incentive group (Table 34), we can see that there were four general ideas that were most

prevalent. Students in this condition basically commented positively on the notion that when

working with a partner they were able to exchange viewpoints (28.7%), identify correct answers

(21.3%), learn to understand concepts better (17.7%), and identify misconceptions (11.7%).

The most frequently stated types of open-ended comments among students in the group

incentives condition were very similar to the frequently stated comments of the students in the

individual incentive condition. Among students in this group incentives condition, the most

frequently state comments were that the partner activities helped them to identify correct answers

(25.8%), exchange viewpoints (22.3%), learn to identify concepts better (19.7%), and identify

misconceptions (7.9%).

Turning to the negative comments, there were only two types of comments that were

made by at least three percent of the students in either condition. As shown in Table 35,

approximately seven percent (7.3%) of the students in the individual incentives condition and six

percent (6.1%) in group incentives condition indicated concerns about their partners. These

students raised such concerns as their partners were not active in discussions, didn’t

communicate well, and were not as knowledgeable as they were. A few students mentioned that

48

they felt awkward when asked to work with a partner in class and didn’t feel comfortable when

working with a stranger.

The other negative comment made by at least three percent of the students in each group

was that that they preferred to work alone rather than participate in a discussion activity with a

partner. As shown in Table 35, approximately five percent (4.8%) of the students in the group

incentives condition and three percent (3.0%) in the individual incentives condition expressed

this type of sentiment.

Table 34 Positive Responses to Open-ended Questions from Students in the Individual and Group Incentives Condition

Categories

Individual Incentives

(n=300)

Group Incentives (n=229)

N % N %

Exchange viewpoints 86 28.7 51 22.3

Identify correct answers 64 21.3 59 25.8

Learn to understand concepts better 53 17.7 45 19.7

Identify misconceptions 35 11.7 18 7.9

Initiate critical thinking 11 3.7 6 2.6

Meet other peers in class 6 2.0 0 0.0

Able to explain to others 5 1.7 6 2.6

Debate 0 0.0 4 1.7

Table 35 Negative Responses to Open-ended Questions from Students in the Individual and Group Incentives Condition

Categories

Individual Incentives (n=300)

Group Incentives (n=229)

N % N %

Partner Issues 22 7.3 14 6.1

Preference to work alone 9 3.0 11 4.8

Time consuming 8 2.7 3 1.3

49

Table 35 Negative Responses to Open-ended Questions from Students in the Individual and Group Incentives Condition (continued)

Categories

Individual Incentives (n=300)

Group Incentives (n=229)

N % N %

Unnecessary activity 7 2.3 3 1.3

Other impact 5 1.7 7 3.1

No difference 4 1.3 6 2.6

Points / incentive issues 3 1.0 1 0.4

Technical Issues 2 0.7 0 0.0

Student Interview Results

Interviews were conducted with students from both the Individual and Group Incentives

condition. Student interviews were conducted between October 8th and November 5th, 2010.

A total of 19 students responded to both email invitations and indicated that they were

available to participate in the student interview. However, only nine students were able to

actually participate and attend the interview sessions. The student participants were met

individually and the interviews were conducted by the researcher. A list of the interview

questions is included in the appendices (Appendix C-4). Each interview session was conducted

briefly for about 5 to 10 minutes. The interview sessions were tape recorded with the

participants’ consent.

Among the nine students that participated in the interview, there were six female and

three male students. There were five Caucasian, two African American, and two Hispanic

students. Seven students were in the Individual Incentives condition while the other two students

were in the Group Incentives condition. Table 36 below shows the demographics of the student

interview participants.

50

Table 36 Demographics for Student Interview Participants

Pseudonym Major Year Gender Incentive Condition

Alison Communication NFA (Lower) Sophomore F Individual

Andrea Hospitality Management NFA Freshman F Individual

Ashley Business NFA Freshman F Group

Elizabeth Literature Senior F Individual

Ibis Chemical Science Junior F Individual

Nathan Mathematics Freshman M Individual

Robert Business NFA Freshman M Individual

Stephanie Social Science Junior F Individual

Mitchell Business NFA Freshman M Group

Coding Interview Data

The interview data was transcribed and the results from the one-on-one interview with

the student participants can be found in the appendices (Appendix D). The words in the

dialogues were highlighted for coding purposes. The interview data was coded into numerical

values that represent different categories and sub-categories (see Table 37). The categories were

identified based on the interview questions. The sub-categories were discovered based on the

responses from the student interviews. A numerical value was used to label the sub-categories.

Table 37 Coding Scheme for the Interview Data

Categories Code Sub-categories

Experience with clickers 1100 Previously used clickers

1200 Have not previously used clickers

Preferences of clicker questions

2100 Individual clicker questions

2200 Think-pair-share clicker questions

2300 Both individual and think-pair-share

Experience with partners

3100 Partner with one student

3200 Partner with several students

3300 Same partner(s)

3400 Different partner(s)

3500 No partner

Nature of discussion activities

4100 Students discuss all clicker questions regardless

4200 Provide answers to partner without having discussion

Benefits of think-pair-share activity

5100 Reassures their answer choices

5200 Identify student's understanding of concept

51

Table 37 Coding Scheme for the Interview Data (continued)

Categories Code Sub-categories

5300 Identify misconceptions

5400 Get feedback

5500 Initiate discussions among peers

5600 Introduce students to peers in class

5700 Collect points for getting answers correct

Problems

6100 Students not actively involved in discussions

6200 Clicker questions were wordy and was difficult to understand

6300 Partner(s) are not trusted

6400 Partner(s) did not do readings before class

Based on further analysis of the sub-categories, a few themes emerged from the

interviews. The themes were identified based on the common answers that came out of the

student interviews. Some of the major themes that emerged were:

Students worked with several partners, rather than just one other student

Many students felt they benefitted from the think-pair-share discussions

Some students disliked working with a partner because the partner was not

prepared

Students Working with Several Partners

Several student interview participants indicated that they participated in the think-pair-

share activities when they were required to. Students would work with a partner to answer the

think-pair-share questions. However, students claimed that there were times that they would

work with more than one partner. Some students indicated that their discussions and answers

were sometimes influenced by the other students surrounding them. Instead of just partnering up

with one person, students tended to discuss the think-pair-share questions with several students

sitting around them. For Logan (Individual Incentive), he said that is was unavoidable. He said:

Students collaborate with more than just one person, more than just your partner. So it goes back to the majority, because people talk to more than just one person or their partner. So it goes back to self-assurance.

Mitch (Group Incentives) added, “I have a few (friends) that I work with, whoever is next to me

pretty much, but it’s usually the same three people.” Also, Andrea (Individual Incentive)

52

mentioned that she had six good friends that sat together in class and they would often discuss

the think-pair-share questions together.

Many Students Felt They Benefitted from the Think-Pair-Share Discussions

Students mentioned that the think-pair-share activities opened up a way for students to

talk to each other and discuss about the topics. In his interview, Logan (Individual Incentives)

said, “I think the partnering forces people to talk with someone else. And I think you get better

results that way.” He further explained that he is more comfortable discussing with someone

before answering the think-pair-share questions. Nathan (Individual Incentive) said that, “It

might help to introduce you to other people or so forth.” In a way, the think-pair-share activity

helps to initiate a discussion among students as well as an ice-breaking session for students

within the class.

Several students valued the opportunity in having a partner to discuss with when

answering the think-pair-share questions. For some students, it was an opportunity to reassure

them that their answers were correct. Logan (Individual Incentives) said, “That doesn’t

necessarily mean that we don’t know the material, it’s just reassuring; self-assuring. You just ask

someone.” Mitch (Group Incentives) also added that, “If more than one person know the answer,

I think that will help. You can actually learn it.”

Several student interview participants mentioned that they were confident with their

answers to think-pair-share questions since they were prepared before attending class, but at the

same time, they indicated that were glad to discuss the questions with their partners. In her

interview, Ibis (Individual Incentive) said that:

Depending on the question, I might know more about it or she (friend) might know more about it. So like, depending on the question, if nobody really knows, we’ll look into our notes and we’ll discuss the different things we wrote and stuff.

For most students, they would make a point to defend their answer choice when

discussing with their partner. Alison (Individual Incentive) said:

We’ll kind of discuss it. And you argue your point versus their (partner) point. And sometimes, you’ll change and I agree that sometimes you’ll change your answer or see their valid point.

53

In her interview, Stephanie (Individual Incentives) describes the discussion:

It’s more efficient because you get both opinions on the questions and explain why you chose that answer. So sometimes it makes me change my answer or it may feel or I may feel comfortable with my answer. Basically it depends on how confident you are.

Ashley (Group Incentive) pointed that:

Most of the time we would choose the same answer. Like that’s how we’ll be confident of the answer. But if I choose one and the other person choose one, and the answer is shown, then we’ll make our conclusion from that, we’ll discuss it. And we’ll make our choice from whatever we see might be closer to the right answer. And if we have no clue, then we’ll just go with what we see, I suppose.

In the end, it’s all about how confident they are with their answers. These students prefer

their own answer choice if they are able to defend their answer choice versus their partner’s

answer choices. However, if they can see that the partner is capable of defending their answer

choices better, then students tend to go with their partner’s answer choice. Overall, students felt

they benefitted from the think-pair-share discussion activities.

Some Students Disliked Working with a Partner Because the Partner was not Prepared

In contrast, a couple of students disliked working with partners during the think-pair-

share activities, primarily because they felt they were prepared to answer the think-pair-share

questions, but their partners were not. Therefore, they much preferred to work alone on the

think-pair-share questions. For example, Alison (Individual Incentive) said she prefers to work

alone since she is pretty much confident with her answer choices. She said:

I do the readings before class and I do the quizzes. So a lot of people that I seem to sit next to don’t. So they don’t know what’s coming. Going into it, they don’t know.

Even though both Alison and Elizabeth disliked working with a partner, they still

cooperated and worked with a partner when they are required to. Alison also mentioned that:

I don’t like the pairing method at all just because I don’t think that it helps anything. I guess it’s good when you can talk to somebody next to you. But, if you don’t know that person next to you, you’re not going to trust them.

54

Elizabeth (Individual Incentive) stated that she would prefer to answer the questions herself. She

further added, “I feel like I know the right answer. I don’t really like partner things. I really

don’t.”

Summary of Results

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of two incentive systems, group

incentives and individual incentives, on students’ learning and attitude in a macroeconomics

course that employs a think-pair-share instructional strategy. Student data was collected

throughout the semester which related to the student participation in think-pair-share activities,

their final exam scores on items relating to think-pair-share items, and their attitude towards

clicker items, partnering and peer discussion approach, incentive systems, and entire course.

SPSS was used to analyze the data. An ANOVA test was conducted to assess whether

there were differences in student learning among students in the individual and group incentives

condition. The results did not support the hypothesis that the students who were in the group

incentives condition performed better than students in the individual incentive condition.

An ANOVA was conducted to assess whether there were differences in student attitude

towards the points system used for think-pair-share clicker questions in both the individual and

group incentives condition. The results indicated there was no significant difference.

Four ANOVA tests were conducted to assess whether there were differences in student

attitude towards clicker items, partnering and peer discussion approach, incentive systems, and

entire course. The results did not support the hypothesis that the students in the group incentives

condition would have more positive attitude towards (a) the think-pair-share items, (b) partnering

and peer discussion, (c) the incentive systems, and (d) the course as a whole.

A chi-square test revealed that there was no difference between the two groups with

regard to the percentage of students who enjoyed working with a partner when answering clicker

questions. Indeed, more than 85% of the students in each incentive condition responded

positively when they were asked if they enjoyed working with a partner.

Student interview data was coded, analyzed, and merged into themes. The main themes

were (a) students worked with several partners, rather than just one other student, (b) many

students felt they benefitted from the think-pair-share discussions, and (c) some students disliked

working with a partner because the partner was not prepared.

55

Based on the results, both hypotheses in this study are rejected. More in-depth discussion

of the results is included in Chapter 5.

56

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of two incentive systems, group

incentives and individual incentives, on students’ learning and attitude in a macroeconomics

course that employed a think-pair-share instructional strategy.

Two research questions were investigated for this study. The first research question

examined the relative effects of group incentives versus individual incentives on students’

performance on the final exam. The second research question examined the relative effects of the

two incentives systems on students’ attitudes.

The results indicated that there were no significant differences between the two groups on

students’ performance on the final exam. Similarly, there were no significant difference between

the group incentive and individual incentive condition on students’ attitude. Possible reasons for

these results are discussed in this chapter.

Discussion of Research Findings

Research Question 1

When a think-pair-share instructional strategy is employed, what are the relative effects

of group incentives versus individual incentives on students’ performance on the final exam

items that are aligned with the think-pair-share items?

The focus of this question was on the effects of group incentives on students’

performance on the final exam items that were related to the think-pair-share items. In this study,

it was hypothesized that the implementation of the group incentives in a large lecture course

would result in improved performance on the final exam.

The results of this study did not support the hypothesis that students in the group

incentives condition would achieve higher final exam scores on the items that were related to the

think-pair-share questions. Of the maximum possible score of 14 items correct, the mean score

57

for the individual incentives condition was 11.47 and the mean score for the group incentives

condition was 10.98. There was no significant difference in these scores between the two groups.

A further analysis also showed that there was no significant difference in students’ performance

between the two groups on all of the 75 items on the final exam.

The study was planned so that the students in the group incentives condition would

discuss questions with their partners and engage in think-pair-share sessions at least two or three

times a week over the nine week period that the study was conducted. In this study, students in

the group incentives condition would work together and encourage each other in an effort to

achieve their goal, which was to get correct answers for the think-pair-share questions in order to

obtain the maximum group incentive points. In other words, the think-pair-share activity would

foster positive interdependence among students in the group incentives condition. And, as a

result of students working together at least once or twice on a weekly basis, it was expected that

the students in the group incentives condition would learn more than their counterparts in the

individual incentives condition. However, this was not the case for this study. The possible

reasons why this was not the case is described below.

One of the likely reasons why students in the group incentives condition did not do better

than students in the individual incentives condition in student learning was that the number of

times the students got together to participate in the think-pair-share activities was less than

anticipated. At the beginning of the semester, it was anticipated that students in the group

incentives condition would participate once or twice a week in the think-pair-share activities, but

it turned out the think-pair-share activities were conducted much less frequently than that. In

fact, the think-pair-share activities were conducted just once a week at best.

One of the reasons for this was that the faculty member ran into various technical

problems. For example, sometimes the clickers didn’t work or the instructor failed to upload the

student participant list before class. Moreover, on some occasions, the instructor decided not to

use the think-pair-share strategy because he did not think it would not work well with some

topics. As a result of students not participating in think-pair-share activities as frequently as we

would have expected, they had less opportunity to share their ideas and notions, and therefore

had less opportunity to learn from one another.

Another possible reason why students in the group incentive condition did not perform

better than the students in the individual incentives condition may be because early in the

58

semester the students learned that, due to technical problems, sometimes they did not earn the

group incentive points even when they had participated in the think-pair-share activities and

managed to get the answers correct. Once students became aware of this fact, it is likely that

some of them became less motivated to try to teach one another in the think-pair-share activities

in order to answer the questions correctly. This may have resulted in the students in the group

incentives not learning as much as they would have if they had tried to learn from one another.

Another reason why the group incentives condition may not have been effective was that

some students were not adequately prepared to discuss the think-pair-share questions in small

groups. Evidence for this fact comes from the student interviews where a few students indicated

that their partners had not done the readings in advanced. In those cases where the students had

not come prepared to class, it was unlikely they had much to share with their partners and could

not learn much from one another. Thus, the think-pair-share strategy was less effective in these

cases. Given that the students were not well prepared, they could not share a lot of useful

information. Thus, it lessens the possible effectiveness of the group incentives treatment.

Another explanation for why there was no difference in learning between the two groups

may be that the incentives that were offered to the groups were not sufficient enough to

encourage them to work with one another in the think-pair-share activities. The number of

possible points students could earn through the think-pair-share activities represented

approximately 1% of the possible grade points. Given that the points that could be earned during

the think-pair-share activity among those in the group incentives condition were such a small

part of the grade, it is not that surprising that it had little effect on student behavior and learning.

In future studies, researchers might want to consider increasing the group incentives points so

that it might have a larger effect on student learning.

Moreover, student interviews and observations of the activities that took place when the

students were in groups indicated that there were little discussions among students regarding the

think-pair-share questions that had been posed by the instructor. Oftentimes, students were just

stating what the answer was without having any discussions about it. Some students seemed to

not be paying attention to what their partners were saying, preferring to just answer the question

themselves. Because there were less sharing of information among, it is unlikely that they were

learning from one another. Initially, we anticipated that students would share information with

59

one another. It seems that this was not the case. Thus, the think-pair-share activity did not have

the intended impact on student learning.

Another set of problems arose from the fact that students would often work in larger

groups, rather than working in pairs, when presented with a think-pair-share question. This

situation resulted in at least two problems. Firstly, we anticipated having a very large sample size

because there would be close to 200 pairs of students working in the group incentives condition.

This was not the case in this study. Since students often got together in larger groups, or were

absent or did not appear to be working in groups, we ended up only having approximately 25

pairs in each condition, approximately one-eighth of the number that was anticipated, thus

lessening the power of the study. Secondly, even if we had included all the students whether they

were in groups of two or larger, it was apparent that they were not taking the think-pair-share

activities seriously. When the larger groups were formed, not everyone was benefitting from the

discussions that were supposed to take place. During the discussions, some students were not

paying attention while others had side conversations with others around them. When students

worked in larger groups, as large as six, observations indicated that not everyone was fully

engaged in the discussion. This resulted in students not taking the maximum benefit of the think-

pair-share activities. This likely lessened the effect of the think-pair-share activities and the

group incentives on student learning. In light of this problem and the other likely reasons

mentioned above, it is not surprising that there was no difference in student learning between the

students in the two incentive conditions.

Research Question 2

When think-pair-share instructional strategy is employed, what are the relative effects of

group incentives versus individual incentives on student’s attitudes?

This question focused on the effects of group incentives on student attitudes. As

previously indicated, the end-of-semester student attitude survey measured student attitudes

towards (a) the partnering and peer discussion approach, (b) the incentive system used within

their group, (c) the clicker items and (d) the course as a whole. In this study, it was hypothesized

that the implementation of the group incentives in a large lecture course would result in a higher

positive attitude towards each of these various aspects of the course. However, results indicated

that there were no significant differences in attitudes between students in the two incentive

60

groups. There are a number of likely reasons why there was no difference in students’ attitude.

These reasons are discussed below, organized according to the four categories of attitudes that

were measured.

Students’ attitude towards partnering and peer discussion. The results indicated that

in both incentive conditions, students’ attitudes towards the partnering and peer discussion

approach were moderately positive. On a 5-point Likert scale (with 5 being the most positive),

students in the group incentives condition had an average attitude score of 3.65 whereas students

in the individual incentives condition had an average attitude score of 3.56. There was no

significant difference between the two incentive conditions with regard to students’ attitude

towards partnering and the peer discussion approach. The probable reasons are discussed below.

One of the probable reasons there was no difference in students’ attitudes towards

partnering and peer discussion might be because students realized that they would not earn group

incentive points if both persons in the group did not get the answer correctly. Recognizing this

fact and realizing that the performance of their partner was crucial to them getting group

incentive points, may have discouraged some of the students. This may have resulted in students

in the group incentives condition not having a higher positive attitude towards the partnering and

peer discussion approach. A few students were concerned about this because in many cases they

felt that their partners were not well-prepared. In this case, students most likely did not like

working with a partner and instead preferred to work alone.

Another reason why students in the group incentives condition were not highly positive

about partnering was that they did not really feel that the partnering served the function that it

was supposed to serve. It was supposed to give students the opportunity to share ideas and judge

the value of their thoughts. Instead, oftentimes it seems that students just exchanged answers

without explaining the reasoning behind their answers. This was confirmed by a few students in

the one-on-one student interviews. Therefore, the value that we thought would come about as a

result of partnering rarely occurred. Perhaps students in the group incentives condition

recognized this and therefore they were not that enthused about the partnering and peer

discussion approach.

Students’ attitude towards incentive systems. The average attitude scores towards the

incentive systems for students in the group incentives condition was 4.00 and for students in the

individual incentives condition it was 3.98. This indicated that students’ attitudes towards the

61

incentive systems were moderately positive, however they were not significantly different

between the two incentive conditions.

One reason there was no difference in students’ attitude towards the incentive systems

might be because students in the group incentives condition did not have enough opportunities to

earn group incentive points. The reason they did not have enough opportunity to earn the group

incentive points was due to the technical problems that were mentioned previously. Moreover,

ignoring the technical problems, there were very few points that the students could earn. As

mentioned earlier, the incentive points were only going to be about 1% of their grade. When

students recognized that only a small portion of their grade was affected by the group incentive

points, it is likely that they did not bother to give much effort to the think-pair-share activities

and thus did not feel particularly positive about them.

Classroom observations of how students interacted with one another when they did work

with their partners serve as another indication that the students may not have been very

influenced by the incentives system. In particular, students seemed to interact in the same

manner whether or not their small groups’ discussion centered around think-pair-share questions

(where students could discuss the questions and earn group incentive points) versus the clicker

questions (where students could discuss the questions, but did not earn group incentive points).

In other words, whether there was a group incentive available or not, when a clicker question

was presented to students in the group incentives condition, their actions in the small group (with

their partner) were basically the same. This seems to indicate that the group incentives treatment

had very little effect on their behavior, and most likely had little effect on their attitudes.

Students’ attitude towards clicker items. As noted in the results section, students’

attitudes towards the clicker items were slightly positive. Students in the group incentives

condition had an average attitude score of 3.26 whereas students in the individual incentives

condition had an average attitude score of 3.23. However, the scores were not significantly

different from one another.

A likely reason that there was no difference in students’ attitude towards the clicker items

was due to the low reliability of the items measuring student attitudes toward clicker items. The

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the attitude survey items measuring students’ attitude towards

clicker items was 0.30, which is considered very low. According to George and Mallery (2003),

a reliability that is less than 0.5 is considered unacceptable. Given the fact that the reliability of

62

these items was very low, these items most likely did not reliably measure student attitudes

towards the clicker items. Therefore, it is not surprising that there was no difference in student

attitudes among the two groups toward clicker items.

Students’ attitude towards the entire course. Students in both incentive conditions had

a moderately positive attitude towards the entire course. The results indicated that the average

attitude scores for the students in the group incentives condition was 4.05 and students in the

individual incentives condition was 3.99. There was no significant difference between the two

groups’ attitudes. This result is not surprising when one looks at the findings regarding student

attitudes towards the three aspects of the course discussed above. Given that there were no

differences between the two groups with regard to those three aspects of the course, it is not

surprising that the overall attitude towards the course among students in the group incentives

condition was not more positive than that of the students in the individual incentives condition.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Although there were no significant differences found in the results, a number of

suggestions for future research can be derived from this study. Many of these suggestions are

based upon the problems/ limitations that occurred during the conduct of this study.

One of the limitations of the study was that there were not enough opportunities for

students to respond to think-pair-share questions throughout the semester. As noted above, this

may have resulted in less than anticipated improvements in student learning. Furthermore,

having not enough opportunities to engage in think-pair-share activities most likely resulted in

students not having as positive attitudes as they might have had towards the group incentives

approach. In future studies, it would be advisable to have more think-pair-share questions

throughout the semester where students would have the opportunity to engage in this activity and

earn group incentive points. It is suggested that there should be at least one think-pair-share

question per day for each class period throughout the semester so that students are able to

practice and earn as much group incentive points as possible. At the same time, students would

be able to see the effect of the think-pair-share activities on their learning, especially when they

are able to answer the exam questions that are similar to those questions that were asked during

the think-pair-share activities.

63

Another issue with the study is that the amount of group incentive points that students

could earn by participating in the think-pair-share activities was rather limited. As indicated

earlier, it was only about 1% of the total points students could earn for the entire course. This

small potential bonus most likely had little impact on the students’ desire to earn the group

incentive points and their willingness to work with one another. In future studies, it might be a

good idea to increase the total number of group incentive points in the course that students could

earn as a result of working in groups in the think-pair-share activities.

Another limitation to this study was that there were a number of technical problems with

using the clickers and keeping track of the points that students earned. In future studies, it is

important that researchers carefully monitor the equipment and software beforehand as to avoid

these problems.

One of the other concerns with this study is the question and answer process during the

think-pair-share activities. In this study, one of the strategies that were used before students were

asked to engage in think-pair-share discussions was for the students to first answer a question

themselves, have all their individual responses to the question revealed collectively, then team up

with their partner to discuss their answers and then have them individually answer the question

again. In some ways, this approach may have led to repetition and students having doubts about

their responses to the think-pair-share questions. Indeed, some of the students during the

interviews indicated that they did not like this technique because it involved addressing a

question too many times. In future studies, rather than having students first answer the think-

pair-share questions individually, researchers might consider using a strategy at that requires

students to initially work in pairs to try to answer a question, and then post their individual

answers.

One of the other concerns with the study is the process via which students were paired. In

this study, students were able to choose their partners for the think-pair-share activities for each

class period. Oftentimes, some students had different partners for each class period. In the future,

it would be interesting to examine how students are partnered up, whether they are required to

maintain the same partner throughout the semester, and how it might affect the nature of their

discussions in the think-pair-share activities. In other words, another issue that might be good to

examine is the issue of partnering and the nature of it. In future studies, it might be interesting to

examine whether it is more beneficial to have students assigned to partners and maintain the

64

same partners throughout the semester or give them the opportunity to choose partners and vary

them from one class to another.

One suggestion for future researchers is that instructors should use think-pair-share

questions that measure students’ higher-order thinking skills. These types of questions are likely

to encourage students to work with their partners and draw upon one another’s knowledge.

Higher-order thinking is more difficult to learn or teach but it can be more valuable because such

skills are more likely to be usable in novel situations. Since the questions are harder, the think-

pair-share activity will be more valuable where students will rely more on each other and will

take the activity more seriously. Therefore, we can further examine students’ learning in think-

pair-share activities that measure higher-order thinking skills.

Another suggestion for future research would be for researchers to carefully examine the

nature of the interactions that take place among students when they were working together in the

think-pair-share activities. By examining this interaction, researchers would get a better

understanding of the nature of communication of what students were discussing, whether they

were focusing on the think-pair-share questions that were asked or on tangential issues. By doing

this, researchers could get a better understanding of whether or not the think-pair-share activities

really engage students in thinking about the questions. This was not done in this study, but it

would help to get a better picture of what actually takes place.

In conclusion, although this study failed to reveal any significant differences in the results

between the two incentives condition, the limitations, problems and concerns mentioned earlier

might have been the primary reason why no significant differences occurred. In the future, if

researchers in this area employ some of the suggestions described above, perhaps they will get

further insight into how incentives might affect students’ learning and attitudes in large lecture

classes.

65

APPENDIX A

STUDENT CONSENT FORM

The Effects of Individual versus Group Incentive System on Student’s Learning and Attitudes in a Large Lecture Course

You are invited to participate in a research study that examines the use of incentive systems in large lecture

classes. You were selected as a possible participant because you are enrolled in ECO2013 for Fall 2010 semester, which is one of the largest lecture courses offered at the Florida State University. Please read this form and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to be in the study.

This study is conducted by Sya Shariff, Ph.D. candidate in Educational Psychology and Learning Systems

at the Florida State University. Participation in this study is voluntary. You should be aware that you are free to decide not to participate or

to withdraw at any time without affecting your grade in this class or your relationship with this instructor, the department, or the University.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the use of incentive systems to reward students for answering the

PRS or clicker questions that are used in this class. With the exception of completing a brief attitude survey at the end of the semester, your participation in this class will not require you to engage in any activities other than those that are a regular part of the class, namely to think about and answer the PRS questions that are asked throughout the semester, take three unit exams and take one final exam. No special actions or exercises beyond a short questionnaire in week 2 and an attitude survey at the end of the semester will be required of you. A small amount of extra credit in the form of course “dollars” will be awarded to any students that complete the questionnaire and attitude survey. There are alternate extra credits available if you choose not to participate in this study. By participating in this study, you are agreeing to allow the researcher to contact the FSU’s registrar’s office to obtain information about your age, gender, ethnicity, current GPA, student classification, major, and ACT/SAT scores. The study will conclude at the end of the Fall 2010 semester.

Please feel free to ask questions at any point about your participation in the study. I would be happy to

share the findings with you after the semester ends. You should be aware that all data will be reported in aggregate and no personably identifiable information will be shared. The survey data will be stored securely and will only be shared with the instructor in aggregate and only after final grades are submitted and posted. All course and survey data will be held confidential to the extent allowed by law. In any sort of report I might publish, I will not include any information that will make it possible to identify a subject. All collected data from students will officially be destructed by January 01, 2020.

There are no known risks or costs to you associated with this study. The expected benefits associated with

your participation are the information about the experiences of students in classes that use multiple choice questions to provide feedback during the lecture.

Please click yes to indicate that you are signing this consent form with full knowledge of the nature and

purpose of the study. A copy of this form will be available on the course website for you to keep. The researcher conducting this study is Sya Shariff. You may ask any question you have now. If you have

a question later, you are encouraged to contact me at 850-980-0279 or sas06@fsu.edu. My advisor for this research is Dr. Robert Reiser and his contact number is 850-644-6885 and email is rreiser@fsu.edu.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study and would like to talk to someone other than the

researcher(s), you are encouraged to contact the FSU IRB at 2010 Levy Street, Research Building B, Suite 276, Tallahassee, FL 32306-2742, or 850-644-8633, or by email at humansubjects@magnet.fsu.edu.

66

APPENDIX B

APPROVAL OF HUMAN SUBJECTS

Appendix B-1: Approval of Human Subjects

Office of the Vice President For Research Human Subjects Committee Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2742 (850) 644-8673, FAX (850) 644-4392 APPROVAL MEMORANDUM Date: 8/23/2010 To: Sya Shariff [sas06@fsu.edu] Address: 924 W Pensacola St. Apt. B26, Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Dept.: EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND LEARNING SYSTEMS From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair Re: Use of Human Subjects in Research The effects of individual versus group incentive systems on student learning and attitudes in a large lecture course The application that you submitted to this office in regard to the use of human subjects in the research proposal referenced above has been reviewed by the Human Subjects Committee at its meeting on 08/11/2010. Your project was approved by the Committee. The Human Subjects Committee has not evaluated your proposal for scientific merit, except to weigh the risk to the human participants and the aspects of the proposal related to potential risk and benefit. This approval does not replace any departmental or other approvals, which may be required. If you submitted a proposed consent form with your application, the approved stamped consent form is attached to this approval notice. Only the stamped version of the consent form may be used in recruiting research subjects. If the project has not been completed by 8/10/2011 you must request a renewal of approval for continuation of the project. As a courtesy, a renewal notice will be sent to you prior to your expiration date; however, it is your responsibility as the Principal Investigator to timely request renewal of your approval from the Committee. You are advised that any change in protocol for this project must be reviewed and approved

67

by the Committee prior to implementation of the proposed change in the protocol. A protocol change/amendment form is required to be submitted for approval by the Committee. In addition, federal regulations require that the Principal Investigator promptly report, in writing any unanticipated problems or adverse events involving risks to research subjects or others. By copy of this memorandum, the Chair of your department and/or your major professor is reminded that he/she is responsible for being informed concerning research projects involving human subjects in the department, and should review protocols as often as needed to insure that the project is being conducted in compliance with our institution and with DHHS regulations. This institution has an Assurance on file with the Office for Human Research Protection. The Assurance Number is IRB00000446. Cc: Robert Reiser, Advisor [rreiser@fsu.edu] HSC No. 2010.4731

68

APPENDIX C

INSTRUMENTS

This appendix contains the participant questionnaire and surveys used in this study.

69

Appendix C-1: Participant Questionnaire

Please take a few minutes to respond to this survey. The purpose of this survey is to get some of your opinion on cooperative learning in ECO2013-Principles of Macroeconomics course. It should take about 5 minutes to complete this questionnaire. Thank you!

1. Is this your first time taking this course (ECO2013-Principles of Macroeconomics)?

_____ Yes _____ No, I previously took ECO2013 at FSU _____ No, I previously took macroeconomics in high school or another college

2. Please rate your current knowledge level of macroeconomics. _____ None or very little _____ Some basic amount _____ A moderate amount _____ A lot

3. Have you previously taken a microeconomics course?

_____ No _____ Yes, with Dr. Calhoun at FSU _____ Yes, with another instructor at FSU _____ Yes, in high school or another college

4. Have you ever used a clicker in class before? _____ Yes, previously in another college course _____ No, this is the first time _____ No, but I am using one in another class this semester at FSU

70

Appendix C-2: Final Attitude Survey

Please use the answering/ Scantron sheet to answer questions 1-18 below:

1. When prompted, how often did you work with a partner in class when answering clicker

questions? 1- Never 2- Sometimes 3- Frequently 4- Always

2. Did you have the same partner throughout the semester?

1- Yes 2- No

Please use the following scale to rank your agreement with the statements below:

1- Strongly

Disagree

2- Disagree 3- Neutral 4- Agree 5- Strongly

Agree

3. The system for awarding points for answering clicker questions is fair. 4. I liked working in teams when answering clicker questions. 5. Clicker questions helped me learn about the topics in this course. 6. I learned a lot in this course. 7. I liked bouncing off my ideas with a partner when answering clicker questions. 8. Clicker questions helped me to prepare for exams in this course. 9. I found this course to be interesting. 10. It’s a good idea to award points based on the team’s performance when clicker questions

are answered correctly. 11. I enjoyed this course. 12. Clicker questions were a waste of time. 13. When working on clicker questions, I prefer to work alone. 14. The number of points I earn for answering clicker questions should not be affected by

whether my partner answers the question correctly. 15. The points awarded for answering clicker questions correctly influenced me to work

closely with my partner. 16. I liked the points system used for answering clicker questions in this class. 17. The points awarded for answering clicker questions correctly has helped me to learn more. 18. When working with a partner on answering clicker question, I spent most of the time

discussing the various possible answers. For the following question, please answer on this sheet:

19. Did you enjoy working with a partner when answering clicker questions? 1- Yes 2- No

Please explain: ___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

71

Appendix C-3: Mid-Semester Attitude Survey

Use the following scale to rank your agreement with the statements below:

1

Strongly Disagree

2

Disagree

3

Neutral

4

Agree

5

Strongly Agree

1. I think that the points rewarded for clicker questions have influenced me to work closely with my partner.

2. I like the points system used for clicker questions in this class. 3. The points system awarded for correctly answering clicker questions in this course has helped me

to learn more.

72

Appendix C-4: Student Interview Questions

1. Have you had experience using clickers prior to this class?

2. What is your opinion about using clickers in this class?

3. Which clicker activity do you prefer a) Working individually b) Working with a partner

4. When engaged in a clicker activity, do you work with the same partner throughout

the semester?

5. What is the nature of the clicker activity discussions?

6. How do you like working with a partner when answering clicker questions?

7. Does working with a partner help you to answer the clicker questions?

73

APPENDIX D

STUDENT INTERVIEWS

The interviews were conducted with the student participants between October 8th and November

5th, 2010. Below are the dialogues that I had with each of the student participants. The dialogues

were coded with numbers to identify evidence for categorization. The words in the dialogues

were highlighted for coding purposes. In the tables below, Q represents interviewer’s question.

Interview 1: Robert (Individual Incentives condition)

Dialogue Code

Q: Is this your first time using clickers?

Robert: Actually, when I was in High School we did use clickers, but not the Turning Point system but we did use a clicker system.

1100

Q: So you did have experience using clickers in class. Is it similar to this class?

Robert: Yes. When we used it in High School, it was like let’s say when the teacher is grading your paper, like you put in your answer and then it would basically be automatically graded. It’s like grading your paper yourself. And it’s already recorded. Like how Dr. Calhoun uses it, it’s more like who knows what. It’s similar in terms of use, but we just use it for another purpose. I think by using clickers in this class, the majority will get the answer correct because they collaborate together. When I was using it in High School it was like I didn’t work with anyone. It was all of my work that was recorded. And so that was the difference.

5200

Q: Do you still collaborate with other students even though Dr. Calhoun doesn’t require you to?

Just like in general, the class size, like he can’t just tell all 500 students to be quiet. The person next to me will say, “Hey what did you put?”. Even if he (Dr. Calhoun) doesn’t ask students to collaborate, that’s still going to happen. And that doesn’t necessarily mean that we don’t know the material, it’s just reassuring; self-assuring. You just ask someone. I think that’s where it’s not effective use of it because with that many people, we can ask around “Hey, what did you put?”; “This is what I put”; or “No, that’s not it”. Everyone will get a general idea because everyone collaborates all the time.

4100 5100

Q: Did you have the same partner during clicker activities?

Robert: It always changes. I don’t think that I’ve ever had the same partner twice. 3400

Q: So what was your experience in collaborating with a partner?

74

Robert: Ummm. I guess it was..it goes back to majority rules. It will kind of be like whoever they are with they would collaborate with someone. Let’s say if it was more than 2 people, like me, I go by myself, like if someone else was in the same situation, we would collaborate and get someone else’s input. Collaborate with more than just 1 person, more than just your partner. So it goes back to the majority, because people talk to more than just 1 person or their partner. So it goes back to self-assurance.

3200

Q: Even if he asks you to pick 1 partner, you still collaborate with more people?

Robert: Yes. That’s right. 3200

Q: Who influences more in getting the answer right, you or your partner?

Robert: Most of the time it’s kind of mutual. But if two people have different answers, of course majority is going to rule. It’s like you just defend your answer. If you say this is the answer, one person will give or take. If I was wrong and they defended their answer, then I’m like okay I will change mine. Then if they have a different answer than mine, then they will go with my answer. That’s how it would always work.

5300

Q: Is there a time where you had to argue with the answers?

Robert: There was never an argument about it. You just defend your answer. If you have good points on why your answer is right, then go with it. They don’t look at it as if it’s a big deal, especially because it’s not for a grade. It’s for extra credit, basically. Alright, if neither of us knows the answer, then we’ll just guess. So I think because it’s not taken seriously. When I was using it in High School, if I were to guess on an answer, that’s like guessing on a test. That was the difference. It’s good to see feedback but then again you’re getting feedback from the majority of the class. And the people who don’t collaborate, or the people who get it wrong, they’re just going to be a small percentage because everyone’s collaborating. That’s the only difference that I saw-that it’s not individual based. Regardless if you ask students to pair up, they are still going to talk since they are sitting so close to one another. That’s my opinion. I think the partnering forces people to talk with someone else. And I think you get better results that way. But as far as not partnering, then you’re not going to get that person’s response. I once sat next to someone that just said that if you don’t know, just look at the person below and you can see their answers and just guess with them. But then it goes back to them not taking it for serious reasons, not for a grade.

4100 5400 5500 6100

Interview 2: Nathan (Individual Incentives condition)

Dialogue Code

Q: Have you had experience using clickers?

Nathan: Not really. This is the first year I’m using it. This is my first time. 1200

75

Q: What is your opinion in using clickers individually versus partnering with a student?

Nathan: Most of the time it doesn’t make a difference. Usually, when people are having trouble, they will ask the person next to them anyways. When you pair up, if they’re shy or whatever, but they don’t talk much to each other anyways. You might get the extra point for pairing up with someone.

4100

Q: SO you’re saying the pairing does not help?

Nathan: I mean it might help to introduce you to other people or so forth. I mean its cant be true for everyone. There are some people who work together when they pair up but from what I've seen, like when I have a partner, we don’t talk through the entire thing. Even though it’s a partner question, we might answer the question separately and ask them what they did. If he asks us to, we do it on our own.

5600 4200

Q: So that means if Dr. Calhoun asks you to discuss then you will discuss?

Nathan: Yeah.

Q: Do you have the same partner or you like working with different people?

Nathan: I change partners because I get to class at different times so my seat changes. I don’t have any permanent seats in the class.

3400

Interview 3: Andrea (Individual Incentives condition)

Dialogue Code

Q: Have you had experience using clickers before enrolling in this class?

Andrea: No. 1200

Q: What do you think about it?

Andrea: I like it. I know, I notice from the last exam that some of the questions are the same as the clicker ones, so it helps. At first I had no idea how to use them, but they are pretty easy to use now. I think that helps with the grades.

Q: Dr. Calhoun uses different ways of asking clicker questions. Sometimes he asks students to answer clicker questions individually and sometimes you have to work with a partner. Which one do you prefer?

Andrea: Umm, well me and my friends discuss it either way before we answer, so.. We pick the same answer for both so it really doesn’t matter to me.

4100

Q: Do you usually sit within the same group of students and do you have the same partner throughout the semester?

Andrea: Yeah. I sit with the same girl. 3300

Q: So how many of you are there in your group?

76

Andrea: There’s like 6. 3200

Q: Does all of you usually have the same answer?

Andrea: Yeah

Q: So do you always discuss the clicker questions with friends even though Dr. Calhoun doesn’t require you to?

Andrea: Yeah we always discuss it. Sometimes we put different answers but usually we all put the same one.

Q: Do you know if they all have had experience using clickers before?

Andrea: Yep, they all are like me. They don’t have any previous experience using clickers before.

Q: Do you think the clicker questions are helpful at all?

Andrea: Yeah, I think they are really helpful. None of my other classes do em besides him. But I think they help a lot.

Q: How do you prepare for the class exams?

Andrea: Well I write down all the clicker questions in class every day. Then I go over that. And then I go on, I don’t know if you have ever heard of koofers.com. It’s like you register all your classes and the other people in the classes can put their notes online so other students can see them. And I go and read theirs and read mine and go over the clicker questions.

Q: What is the website again?

Andrea: Koofers.com and its free. You just register and type in all your classes. And you put your teacher and the time.

Q: Is it only for FSU students?

Andrea: I think it’s for every school. It’s cool and it helps a lot.

Q: What is your overall experience in using clickers and answering clicker questions?

Andrea: Emm. I like it. The only thing I don’t like is emm…sometimes they are kind of like worded funny, and they are kind of hard to understand what he’s asking us. Sometimes he puts too many words in the questions that are just confuses the questions. But other than that, its fine.

6200

Q: What do you mean? Can you elaborate on that?

Andrea: L ike sometimes the question could be worded into one sentence but he’ll put it in a whole paragraph. So you don’t understand what the question is.

Q: Maybe he’s trying to confuse you.

77

Andrea: Haha, maybe.

Q: Anyway it was a pleasure talking to you and thanks for your time!

Andrea: No problem!

Interview 4: Ibis (Individual Incentives condition)

Dialogue Code

Q: Have you had experiences in using clicker s in class before?

Ibis: Oh yeah, last year. 1100

Q: Only one semester?

Ibis: No. I’ve used emm, actually I don’t remember if I’ve used it in the Fall semester, but I definitely used it in the Spring. I don’t remember.

Q: What is your experience in this semester when Dr. Calhoun uses student pairing approach to answer clicker questions?

Ibis: Well, pretty much like how he pairs it up, like everybody still has to answer, but we could just talk to our partner about it. It’s not like one person uses the clicker.

Q: So, when he asks you to pair up with a partner, do you usually work with a partner?

Ibis: Yeah, because I have a friend in there. 3100

Q: So you usually have the same partner?

Ibis: Yeah. 3300

Q: What goes on during the discussion? Are any of you more dominant in the discussion?

Ibis: Depending on the question. I might know more about it or she might know more about it. So like, depending on the question, so if nobody really knows, we’ll look into our notes and we’ll discuss the different things we wrote and stuff.

5500

Q: Do you answer similarly most of the time?

Ibis: Yeah.

Q: Do you prefer the partner or individual approach when answering clicker questions?

Ibis: Partner approach. 2200

Q: Even if he doesn’t prompt you to work with a partner, do you still work with a partner?

Ibis: Yeah, yeah. 4100

Q: Does the clicker questions help you to prepare for the exams?

78

Ibis: Yeah, because a lot of the questions on his PowerPoint are questions that most likely will appear on the exams or the quizzes that he gives us.

Q: Alright. Thanks for your time!

Interview 5: Mitchell (Group Incentives condition)

Dialogue Code

Q: Have you used clickers in other classes?

Mitch: No. 1200

Q: So this is your first time then.

Mitch: Yes, this is the first time.

Q: What is your opinion about using clickers in class?

Mitch: Emmm. I like it. I think its an easy way to give your answer instead of calling on one person and everyone gives their input. And you could actually see what the real answer is.

5400

Q: Usually when he asks you to partner with a student, do you have a regular partner that you work with?

Mitch: Emm yes, I have a few that I work with, whoever is next to me pretty much but it’s usually the same three people.

3300

Q: So how do you coordinate working together?

Mitch: I have a big group that I sit with up front in class and pretty much whoever we sit next to in class, we just pair up.

Q: Does anybody dominate the discussion when working on clicker questions?

Mitch: We both kind of know the answer. Its not like one person always doing it. We like take turns with that.

Q: Even if he does not ask students to pair up in class, do you still discuss it with your partner or friends?

Mitch: Yeah, we still discuss it. 4100

Q: DO you guys always answer the same question?

Mitch: Most of the times but sometimes we don’t. Most of the time we answer or give the same answer.

Q: Which approach do you prefer more, individual clicker questions or partner clicker questions?

79

Mitch: I think partnering approach because individual questions sometimes you are not as sure. If more than one person that know the answer, I think that will help. You can actually learn it.

2200

Q: How did you prepare for the class exams?

Mitch: Me and a couple of friends went to Strozier Library and we looked at the study guide and we just went through every question. I thought that helped because a lot of the questions on the exam are similar. So it helped a lot.

Q: Did you use any of the clicker questions to study for the exams?

Mitch: Only if they are in the study guide. I did write down some of the clicker questions in my note. That helped a little bit.

Interview 6: Alison (Individual Incentives condition)

Dialogue Code

Q: Have you had any experience before in using clickers in class?

Alison: I’ve had him before and he used different clickers than he used now. And I’ve had other classes that have used a different clicker.

1100

Q: What do you think of Dr. Calhoun’s approach to using clickers since he started asking students to pair up when answering clicker questions?

Alison: I don’t like the pairing method at all just because I don’t think that it helps anything. Emm I guess it’s good when you can talk to somebody next to you but you know, if you don’t know that person next to you, you’re not going to trust them. But I do like the clicker and the clicker questions because it relates to what he’s gonna be asking later or what we should know or just quizzing you on the information periodically keeps you awake in class and then helps you study for later. Because I write down all the questions and the answers so I can study that way.

5500 6300

Q: If Dr. Calhoun asks you to pair up, do you simply pair up with someone in class?

Alison: I usually just grab the person that’s next to you. And emm, we’ll kind of discuss it. And you know argue your point versus their point. And sometimes, you’ll change and I agree that sometimes you’ll change your answer or see their valid point. I just…I don’t know. I’m not much for group work.

Q: Does it happen a lot?

Alison: That I change my answer? No, I do the readings before class and I do the quizzes. So a lot of people that I seem to sit next to don’t. so they don’t know whats coming. You know, going into it, they don’t know.

6400

Q: Do you have regular partner when working on clicker questions in class?

80

Alison: Not really. Emm groups of friends tend to sit by each other. And they would sit in the same area but I’m just there alone so I sit in the same area. Just in the same vicinity but not work with the same people.

3100

Q: Do you change seats all the time?

Alison: No I tend to sit in the first few rows on the corner where I like.

Q: Do you answer the clicker questions seriously?

Alison: You’re thinking about it before you respond and then Calhoun, after the polling is closed, he’ll discuss each of the question, which is nice. I had a teacher that just said, “Answer 1 is correct” and don’t explain what the others are. So Calhoun is really good about it just because you know you’ll get the reason why the one is correct in addition to why the others are wrong. So it really helps to clear up any confusion that might’ve been. I really like Calhoun’s. He gives four answers typically. Sometimes, multiple answers, which gets a little harder. But emm…I took a criminology class and he did a True or False. I didn’t like it just because true or false is so… if you miss the word OR you know, you get the whole thing wrong. With Calhoun, he explains the whole answer, you know. And he’ll put details in there that you aren’t even aware of. I just like the fact that he puts 4 different choices. Because you probably are thinking, one of them was right, and just knock it out of there.

5400 5300

Q: And you specifically don’t like the pairing method?

Alison: I just don’t care for the pairing method. I understand why he does it. I just kinda like to work on my own. So that’s just a personal preference. For some people, they are still going to work together regardless the teacher tells them to.

2100

Q: Well, I appreciate your comments and opinions. It was nice talking to you and thanks for your time.

Alison: You’re welcome!

Interview 7: Stephanie (Individual Incentives condition)

Dialogue Code

Q: Have you had any experience in using clickers in class?

Stephanie: Nope. This is my first time actually suing clickers. 1200

Q: How do you like the clicker activities in class so far?

81

Stephanie: So far it’s different. I’ve never used it before. I think it’s more efficient instead of just like writing out the answers and turning it in and maybe who knows it might get lost.

Q: Which approach to clicker questions works best for you? Either working individually or working with a partner?

Stephanie: Both approaches works best. I mean, especially if I know the answer. 2300

Q: Are they easy questions?

Stephanie: Yeah. I mean, after he speaks about the chapter, then he will test you like, were you paying attention. They’re easy if you would pay attention.

Q: When he asks you to partner up in class, do you always work with a partner?

Stephanie: Uh huh. Yes. I don’t have a constant partner. It’s just whoever sit next to me. 3400

Q: Do you have regular discussions with the partner when answering clicker questions?

Stephanie: The only thing we discuss is probably the question or the lesson that he taught. But other than that, no.

5500

Q: How do you like working with a partner when answering clicker questions?

Stephanie: It’s more efficient because you get both opinions on the questions and explain why you chose that answer. So sometimes it makes me change my answer or it may feel or I may feel comfortable with my answer. Basically it depends on how confident you are.

5100

Q: Does clicker questions help you to answer the exam questions?

Stephanie: The exam questions, emmm every now and then because I don’t remember the clicker questions. Emm, some of them does come to mind. It’s like , oh yeah I remember seeing it or I’ve seen a clicker question that is similar to it. So, the clicker helps for the exams as well as doing some of the chapter revisions.

Q: Thanks for your time! It was nice talking to you.

Stephanie: You’re welcome!

Interview 8: Ashley (Group Incentives condition)

Dialogue Code

Q: Have you had any experience in using clickers before?

82

Ashley: No, this is the first time. This is the first and only class that I’ve ever used clickers.

1200

Q: What do you think of the clicker activities and how does it help you with your learning in this class?

Ashley: One thing I’ve noticed about it is it does encourage me to come to class. I’ll say that. Emm, and I like it because it’s quick, easy, and it’s a great way to get more points. And as far as studying more, I guess it does. It does encourage me to at least to know the answers because I do wanna get these points. So yeah, I’ll say that it does help me to study more. Well, it does convince me to study more.

5700

Q: Do you have a regular partner when working on clicker questions?

Ashley: Actually, it’s usually it’s somebody whoever I’m sitting next to. And if I can’t find anybody, sometimes I’ll just partner up with myself.

3100 3400

Q: How is the dynamic in the partner activity?

Ashley: We would usually….most of the time we would choose the same answer. Like that’s how we’ll be confident of the answer. But if I choose one and the other person choose one, and the answer is shown, then we’ll make our conclusion from that. Like if we see that okay yeah, the second answer is probably a better choice because such and such and whatever, whatever, we’ll discuss it. And we’ll make our choice from whatever we see might be closer to the right answer. And if we have no clue, then we’ll just go what we see, I suppose.

5500

Q: What do you think about the point system that Dr. Calhoun uses for clicker questions?

Ashley: We’ll just try to get the right answer. I don’t really wanna, you don’t usually like answer to be similar. We answer to be right. That’s just the same way if I did it individually. I would want the answer to be right. Yeah, just mostly to get the points.

Q: By answering the clicker questions, does it help you to prepare for the exams?

Ashley: Yes it does! I realize that some of the clicker questions are exactly the same as the quiz. It’s not exactly the same but it’ll be similar. And like for instance the one that we had with our partner, I didn’t have a partner today but emmm but the one we had with a partner was the one on the quiz…the pre-quiz or the post-quiz, one or the other. So, that I realize yeah, these clicker questions might be important. If they’re on the quiz, and they’re a clicker question most likely they will be on the exam as well.

Interview 9: Elizabeth (Individual Incentives condition)

Dialogue Code

Q: Have you used clickers before?

Elizabeth: No. I have one other class right before his that also uses clickers, but this is the first semester that I’m using clickers.

1200

83

Q: Does that class use the same clicker device?

Elizabeth: Yes.

Q: Which method do you prefer when answering clicker questions, individual or with a partner?

Elizabeth: I would prefer to do it myself. 2100

Q: Why is that?

Elizabeth: I feel like I know the right answer. I don’t really like partner things. I really don’t.

Q: So if he asks you to partner up with someone, do you usually participate and work with a partner?

Elizabeth: Yeah. I always get a partner; it’s just that I don’t see the point of it. 3100

Q: What goes on during the discussion?

Elizabeth: There’s not really a lot of discussion. I just go like, “The answer is A.” 4200

Q: Is that because you are already confident with the answer?

Elizabeth: Well, I mean, even if I’m not positive, I’d rather put what I think than what somebody else thinks because I trust myself more than whoever is sitting next to me, you know.

6300

Q: Do you have the same partner throughout the semester?

Elizabeth: I normally sit in the same section, but I don’t have the same partner. 3400

Q: Okay. Thanks for your comments. I appreciate your time in talking to me.

84

APPENDIX E

FINAL EXAM

Multiple Choice

Identify the choice that best completes the statement or answers the question.

1. Which version of the exam do you have?

a. A b. B c. C d. D

2. Which of the following would increase the GDP of the United States? a. A resident of Germany buys a software program from a company in Washington. b. A resident of California buys a case of wine from a winery in France. c. A Japanese investor purchases 100 shares of a computer company located in Illinois. d. A resident of Florida spends $3,000 on a vacation in Mexico.

3. An automobile manufacturing plant opens in Alabama, and its owner, all of the workers, and all raw materials are from Japan. How would the purchase of an automobile from this plant change U.S. GDP and GNP? a. It would leave both GDP and GNP unchanged. b. It would increase GNP and GDP. c. It would increase GDP and leave GNP unchanged. d. It would increase GNP and leave GDP unchanged.

4. At the peak of the business cycle, a. the actual rate of unemployment will exceed the natural rate of unemployment. b. widespread unemployment will cause inflation to increase. c. the actual rate of unemployment will equal the natural rate of unemployment. d. the output of the economy will exceed its long-run potential output.

5. When an economy is in a recession, a. strong demand for resources will push the prices of resources upward b. strong demand for investment funds will push interest rates upward. c. the unemployment rate will be greater than its natural rate. d. weak demand for investment funds will cause the real interest rate to rise.

6. When the Fed sells Treasury Bonds on the open market, it will tend to a. decrease the money supply and raise interest rates. b. decrease the money supply and lower interest rates. c. increase the money supply and lower interest rates. d. increase the money supply and raise interest rates.

7. As the number of goods and services increases, barter becomes a. harder because the chance of there being a double coincidence of wants increases. b. easier because people have more choice. c. harder because the chance of there being a double coincidence of wants decreases. d. easier because the chance of there being a double coincidence of wants decreases. e. easier because the chance of there being a double coincidence of wants increases.

8. Trade restrictions that limit the sale of low-price foreign goods in the U.S. market

85

a. increase the real income of Americans. b. help channel more of our resources into producing goods for which we are a low-cost

producer. c. reduce unemployment and increase the productivity of American workers. d. benefit domestic producers in the protected industries at the expense of consumers and

domestic producers in export industries. 9. The primary source of purchasing power used to buy imported goods is the

a. domestic currency of a nation. b. monetary sector. c. revenue received from exports. d. balance of payments deficit.

10. Tom loses his job and immediately begins looking for another. Other things the same, the unemployment rate a. increases, and the labor-force participation rate decreases. b. increases, and the labor-force participation rate is unaffected. c. is unaffected, and the labor-force participation rate increases. d. decreases, and the labor-force participation rate is unaffected.

11. Which of the following is true? a. Trade does not produce anything new; therefore, it cannot create value. b. The value of a good generally depends on who uses it and circumstances such as when and

where it is used. c. The value of a good is determined by the cost of the material resources required for its

production. d. All of the above are true.

12. Which of the following indicates the primary mechanism by which the money supply expands? a. The Fed purchases additional bonds, which increases the reserves available to the banking

system. b. The U.S. Treasury prints additional currency. c. The U.S. government purchases additional gold. d. The public decides to hold more currency rather than checking deposits.

13. The recessionary phase of the business cycle is characterized by a. increasing real output and increasing unemployment. b. decreasing real output and increasing unemployment. c. decreasing real output and declining unemployment. d. increasing real output and declining unemployment.

14. People are willing to pay more for a diamond than for a bottle of water because a. producers of diamonds have a much greater ability to manipulate diamond prices than

producers of water have to manipulate water prices. b. water prices are held artificially low by governments, since water is necessary for life. c. the marginal benefit of an extra diamond far exceeds the marginal benefit of an extra

bottle of water. d. the marginal cost of producing an extra diamond far exceeds the marginal cost of

producing an extra bottle of water.

15. When the nation of Econoland allows trade and as a result becomes an exporter of televisions, a. residents who produce televisions become better off; residents who buy televisions

become worse off; and the economic well-being of Econoland falls. b. residents who produce televisions become worse off; residents who buy televisions

become better off; and the economic well-being of Econoland falls. c. residents who produce televisions become worse off; residents who buy televisions

become better off; and the economic well-being of Econoland rises.

86

d. residents who produce televisions become better off; residents who buy televisions become worse off; and the economic well-being of Econoland rises.

16. The crowding-out model implies that expansionary fiscal policy will a. increase real interest rates. b. be highly effective against inflation. c. lead to a significant increase in the natural rate of unemployment. d. increase aggregate demand and employment.

17. Suppose, over the past year, the real interest rate was 3 percent and the inflation rate was 1 percent. a. The dollar value of savings increased at 2 percent, and the value of savings measured in

goods increased at 3 percent. b. The dollar value of savings increased at 3 percent, and the value of savings measured in

goods increased at 1 percent. c. The dollar value of savings increased at 4 percent, and the value of savings measured in

goods increased at 3 percent. d. The dollar value of savings increased at 1 percent, and the value of savings measured in

goods increased at 2 percent.

18. On average, countries that have a larger degree of economic freedom tend to have a. higher per capita income levels, but slower rates of economic growth, than countries with

less economic freedom. b. lower per capita income levels, but more rapid rates of economic growth, than countries

with less economic freedom. c. both higher per capita income levels and more rapid growth rates than countries with less

economic freedom. d. both lower income levels and slower growth rates than countries with less economic

freedom.

19. If a nation is going to achieve and sustain a high rate of economic growth, it must a. have an abundant domestic supply of low cost energy resources. b. prohibit low-wage foreign producers from supplying goods to the domestic market. c. have a mechanism capable of attracting savings and channeling them into wealth-creating

projects. d. impose regulations that will limit the intensity of competition among domestic firms.

20. The short run sequence of events following an unanticipated shift to a more expansionary monetary policy would be a. lower interest rates, decrease in aggregate demand, and a reduction in output. b. higher interest rates, increase in aggregate demand, and an expansion in output. c. higher interest rates, decrease in aggregate demand, and a reduction in output. d. lower interest rates, increase in aggregate demand, and an expansion in output.

21. A rational decision maker takes an action if and only if a. the opportunity cost of the action is zero. b. the marginal cost of the action is zero. c. the marginal cost of the action exceeds the marginal benefit of the action. d. the marginal benefit of the action exceeds the marginal cost of the action.

22. According to the Keynesian view, if policy makers thought the economy was about to fall into a recession, which of the following would be most appropriate? a. reducing government expenditures b. a planned increase in the budget deficit c. balancing the budget d. a change in government spending and taxation that will lead to a budget surplus

23. When the actual rate of unemployment is less than the natural rate of unemployment, the economy

87

a. operates at an output less than its long-run potential. b. operates at its maximum sustainable output. c. must also be experiencing stable prices (zero inflation). d. operates at an output greater than its long-run potential.

24. The economic way of thinking is a. a set of complex, highly abstract theories that provides persons skilled in statistics with the

information necessary to tell others what choices they should make.

b. a set of historical generalizations that indicates what goods should be produced. c. a set of basic concepts that helps one understand human choices. d. a body of statistical data that indicates how an economy should be organized.

25. Realization of gains from trade, entrepreneurial discovery, and investment are largely dependent on a. the use of government planning to direct investments into worthwhile projects. b. competitive elections and political democracy. c. the presence of institutions and policies consistent with economic freedom. d. the use of tariffs and quotas to protect domestic businesses from competition with

foreigners.

26. Criteria for rationing goods and resources must be established because of a. scarcity imposed by nature. b. the inability of politicians to develop efficient forms of economic organization. c. the law of comparative advantage. d. the use of capitalism as a form of economic organization.

27. During a boom economic period, the actual rate of unemployment will be a. less than the natural rate of unemployment. b. greater than the natural rate of unemployment. c. equal to the natural rate of unemployment. d. unaffected by the economic expansion.

28. In which statement(s) are "supply" and "quantity supplied" used correctly? (I) "An increase in the price of computers will increase the quantity supplied of computers." (II) "A technological advance that lowers the cost of producing computers will increase the supply of

computers." a. in statement II only b. in statement I only c. in both statements I and II d. in neither statements I nor II

29. Data on trade barriers, income levels, and the growth of per capita GDP indicate that a. countries that impose high trade restrictions have both high income levels and rapid rates

of economic growth. b. countries that have lower trade restrictions have both higher income levels and more rapid

rates of economic growth than those with high trade barriers. c. there is no link between trade restrictions and either the per capita income levels or growth

rates of economies. d. countries that impose high trade restrictions have low income levels, but they have been

growing rapidly in recent decades.

30. When the economy is operating at an output rate less than full-employment capacity, a. weak demand for investment will place downward pressure on real interest rates. b. a strong demand for resources will cause resource prices to rise. c. actual unemployment will be less than the natural rate of unemployment. d. the rate of inflation will tend to rise.

31. If net exports are negative, then there will be a

88

a. net capital outflow, so American assets bought by foreigners are greater than foreign assets bought by Americans.

b. net capital inflow, so foreign assets bought by Americans are greater than American assets bought by foreigners.

c. net capital outflow, so foreign assets bought by Americans are greater than American assets bought by foreigners.

d. net capital inflow, so American assets bought by foreigners are greater than foreign assets bought by Americans.

32. Assume, for Canada, that the domestic price of steel without international trade is higher than the world price of steel. This suggests that with trade, a. Canada has a comparative advantage in the production of steel over other countries and

Canada will import steel. b. Canada has a comparative advantage in the production of steel over other countries and

Canada will export steel. c. other countries have a comparative advantage over Canada in the production of steel and

Canada will export steel. d. other countries have a comparative advantage over Canada in the production of steel and

Canada will import steel.

33. Which statement represents most correctly the relationship between nominal GDP and real GDP? a. Nominal GDP measures base-year production using base-year prices, whereas real GDP

measures current production using current prices. b. Nominal GDP measures current production using base-year prices, whereas real GDP

measures current production using current prices. c. Nominal GDP measures current production using current prices, whereas real GDP

measures base-year production using base-year prices. d. Nominal GDP measures current production using current prices, whereas real GDP

measures current production using base-year prices.

34. It will be difficult to institute fiscal policy in a stabilizing manner because politicians will find a. it attractive to increase taxes during a recession, but they will be reluctant to reduce them

during an expansion. b. budget deficits attractive during a recession, but they will be reluctant to run budget

surpluses during an expansion. c. it more attractive to raise taxes than to increase spending. d. budget surpluses attractive during a recession, but they will be reluctant to run budget

deficits during an expansion.

35. The number of cattle slaughtered every year for meat far exceeds the number of elephants slaughtered every year for their ivory. Despite this, cows can be found everywhere while elephants are on the verge of extinction in some countries. Which of the following best explains this difference? a. Cows can be privately owned while in many countries elephants can not. b. The demand for ivory far exceeds the demand for beef. c. Animals slaughtered for their meat are generally better conserved by humans than animals

slaughtered for nonfood uses. d. People tend to protest more every year to prevent cow extinction than they do for elephant

extinction.

36. Which of the following would be expected if the tariff on foreign-produced shoes were decreased? a. The number of unemployed workers in the domestic shoe industry would decline. b. The domestic price of shoes would fall. c. The supply of foreign shoes to the domestic market would decline, causing shoe prices to

rise. d. The demand for foreign-produced shoes would decrease, causing the price of shoes to

89

increase in other nations.

37. In a world where capital moves rapidly across national boundaries, if a larger budget deficit leads to higher real interest rates, a. there will be an outflow of foreign capital, which will cause the dollar to appreciate and

net exports to decline. b. there will be an inflow of foreign capital, which will cause the dollar to depreciate and net

exports to increase. c. there will be an outflow of foreign capital, which will cause the dollar to depreciate and

net exports to increase. d. there will be an inflow of foreign capital, which will cause the dollar to appreciate and net

exports to decline.

38. If an unanticipated increase in aggregate demand results in an output beyond the economy's long-run capacity, long-run equilibrium will eventually be restored by a. higher resource prices, a decrease in SRAS, and an increase in the general level of prices. b. higher resource prices, an increase in SRAS, and a decrease in the general level of prices. c. an increase in the economy's productive capacity (LRAS shifts to the right). d. a decrease in the natural rate of unemployment.

39. If the economy is experiencing less than full-employment, the Keynesian model recommends that the government a. undertake expansionary fiscal policy to stimulate aggregate supply. b. undertake expansionary fiscal policy to stimulate aggregate demand. c. balance the budget to stimulate aggregate demand. d. do nothing to stimulate the economy.

40. When individuals and businesses are permitted to trade freely over a larger market area, a. businesses will be able to earn higher profits, but the income levels of individuals will

decline. b. wages will decline to the level of the poorest country in the region. c. they will be able to produce a larger output and consume a more diverse bundle of goods. d. the monopoly power of business firms will increase.

41. When a country allows trade and becomes an exporter of a good, a. the gains of the domestic consumers of the good exceed the losses of the domestic

producers of the good. b. the losses of the domestic consumers of the good exceed the gains of the domestic

producers of the good. c. the losses of the domestic producers of the good exceed the gains of the domestic

consumers of the good. d. the gains of the domestic producers of the good exceed the losses of the domestic

consumers of the good.

42. According to Adam Smith, individual self-interest a. is a powerful force for economic progress when individuals are wisely directed by a strong

central government. b. could be either a positive or negative force for economic progress, depending on the moral

influences of political leaders. c. is a major factor in retarding the economic progress of humankind. d. is a powerful force for economic progress when it is directed by competitive markets.

43. Which of the following correctly indicates a potential path for the transmission of expansionary monetary policy to the goods and services market? a. Higher real interest rates will lead to a decrease in both business investment and consumer

purchases of durable items, causing a decrease in aggregate demand.

90

b. Higher interest rates will tend to increase asset prices, leading to a decrease in wealth that will decrease consumer spending and aggregate demand.

c. Lower interest rates lead to a depreciation in the foreign exchange value of the dollar, an increase in net exports, and an expansion in aggregate demand.

d. A reduction in the general level of prices will increase the disposable income of households and aggregate demand.

44. What happens to the aggregate demand curve when the Fed reduces the money supply? a. It shifts rightward, raising real GDP and the price level. b. It shifts leftward, lowering real GDP but raising the price level. c. It shifts rightward, lowering real GDP but raising the price level. d. It shifts leftward, lowering real GDP and the price level. e. It shifts leftward, raising real GDP and the price level.

45. The historical record indicates that foreign aid has a. promoted economic growth, but slowed the movement toward political democracy. b. re-enforced corrupt governments and policies that stifle productive activities. c. helped poor countries escape counterproductive policies imposed by authoritarian political

leaders. d. played a major role in helping formerly poor countries grow rapidly and achieve high

income levels.

46. According to the law of comparative advantage, a. individuals and nations gain when they specialize in producing those goods they consume. b. individuals and nations gain when they specialize in producing those items for which they

are the low opportunity cost producers and exchange for other desired goods they can't produce as cheaply.

c. individuals and nations gain when they specialize in producing goods they can produce at a high opportunity cost and can exchange for other desired goods they can produce cheaply.

d. all of the above are true.

47. When economists say the quantity supplied of a product has decreased, they mean the a. price of the product has fallen, and consequently, suppliers are producing less of it. b. supply curve has shifted to the left. c. supply curve has shifted to the right. d. price of the product has risen, and consequently, suppliers are producing more of it.

48. Which of the following is true of high and variable rates of inflation? a. Inflation of this type will help promote economic growth and the efficient use of

resources. b. When such rates are present, it will be difficult for people to accurately forecast next year's

rate of inflation. c. Inflation of this type will improve the information content delivered by market prices. d. People will respond to such rates by spending more time producing and less time trying to

protect their wealth and income from the uncertainty created by the inflation.

49. When prices in the goods and services market are below the level anticipated, a. output will temporarily fall short of the economy's long-run potential. b. the actual rate of unemployment will be less than the natural rate of unemployment. c. output will be equal to the economy's long-run potential. d. output will temporarily exceed the economy's long-run potential.

50. Investment in both physical and human capital tends to enhance economic growth because it generally a. encourages firms to expand output by employing more low productivity workers. b. encourages workers to unionize and thereby fight for higher wages.

91

c. increases consumption during the current period. d. makes it possible for individuals to produce more goods and services per hour worked.

51. Suppose the Fed sells $100 million of U.S. securities to the public. If the reserve requirement is 20 percent, the currency holdings of the public are unchanged, and banks have zero excess reserves both before and after the transaction, the total impact on the money supply will be a a. $500 million decrease. b. $500 million increase. c. $100 million increase. d. $100 million decrease.

52. Which of the following would most likely cause both a decrease in the price of plasma screen TVs and a decrease in the number sold? a. an increase in the demand for plasma screen TVs b. an increase in the supply of plasma screen TVs c. a decrease in the supply of plasma screen TVs d. a decrease in the demand for plasma screen TVs

53. Suppose demand decreases and supply increases. Which of the following will happen? a. Equilibrium quantity will rise, fall, or stay the same while equilibrium price will decrease. b. Equilibrium price will rise, fall, or stay the same while equilibrium quantity will decrease. c. The change in equilibrium price and quantity cannot be determined. d. Equilibrium quantity will rise, fall, or stay the same and equilibrium price will increase. e. Equilibrium price will rise, fall, or stay the same while equilibrium quantity will increase.

54. If the demand for bicycles increases, a. the quantity demanded will decrease. b. equilibrium price will decrease and equilibrium quantity will increase. c. quantity supplied will decrease. d. quantity supplied will increase. e. equilibrium price will increase and equilibrium quantity will decrease.

55. Suppose you withdraw $1,000 from your checking account. If the reserve requirement is 20 percent, how does this transaction affect the supply of money and the excess reserves of your bank? a. The money supply increases by $1,000, and the excess reserves of your bank are reduced

by $800. b. There is no change in the supply of money; your bank's excess reserves are reduced by

$200. c. The money supply increases by $1,000, and the excess reserves of your bank are reduced

by $200. d. There is no change in the supply of money; your bank's excess reserves are reduced by

$800.

56. Which of the following best expresses the central idea of countercyclical fiscal policy? a. The balanced-budget approach is the proper criterion for determining annual budget

policy. b. Planned deficits are experienced during economic booms and planned surpluses during

economic recessions. c. Deficits are planned during economic recessions, and surpluses are utilized to restrain

inflationary booms. d. Actual deficits should equal actual surpluses during a period of deflation.

57. If the actual price level exceeds the expected price level reflected in long-term contracts, a. many firms will find production less profitable than they had expected and will increase

the quantity of output supplied. b. many firms will find production more profitable than they had expected and will decrease

92

the quantity of output supplied. c. many firms will find production less profitable than they had expected and will decrease

the quantity of output supplied. d. many firms will find production more profitable than they had expected and will increase

the quantity of output supplied.

58. If the Fed fears an economic downturn, it would be most likely to a. buy additional bonds in order to increase the federal funds rate. b. buy additional bonds in order to reduce the federal funds rate. c. sell additional bonds in order to reduce the federal funds rate. d. sell additional bonds in order to increase the federal funds rate.

59. Suppose the dollar value of GDP increased approximately 2 percent between October 2007 and August 2008, but real GDP fell 1 percent during the period. Which of the following best explains these data? a. Prices increased approximately 3 percent during period. b. In the international sector, net exports fell by approximately 3 percent during the period. c. The money supply decreased by approximately 3 percent during the period. d. The real capacity of the economy increased more rapidly than money output during the

period.

60. Which of the following best explains why high marginal tax rates retard output? a. High marginal tax rates will encourage foreign investment. b. High marginal tax rates encourage people to substitute more-desired nondeductible goods

for less-desired tax-deductible goods. c. High marginal tax rates reduce the incentive to earn, invest, and use resources efficiently. d. High marginal tax rates will reduce budget deficits and lower interest rates.

61. In a dynamic economy under ideal conditions, a. some unemployment would be present due to workers temporarily being out of work while

changing jobs. b. unemployment would tend to move upward slightly as prices increased. c. unemployment would tend to move slightly downward as unemployment compensation

benefits increased. d. the unemployment rate should be near zero.

62. An improvement in a country's legal system that enhanced the ability of citizens to protect their property rights and enforce contracts would result in which of the following changes to the country's production possibilities curve? a. a movement from a point on the curve to a point outside the curve b. an outward shift of the curve c. a movement from a point on the curve to a point inside the curve d. a movement from one point to another point along the curve

63. When economists say the demand for a product has increased, they mean the a. cost of producing the product has risen. b. amount of the product that consumers are willing to purchase at various prices has

decreased. c. demand curve has shifted to the right. d. price of the product has fallen, and consequently, consumers are buying more of it.

64. Which of the following is a major deficiency of fiscal policy as a stabilization tool? a. Congress is reluctant to make changes in either taxes or expenditures. b. A change in fiscal policy exerts major effects on the economy quickly. c. Both political and economic factors make it unlikely that changes in fiscal policy will be

timed correctly.

93

d. The Constitution requires the president to submit and Congress to pass a balanced budget.

65. If you deposit $100 of currency into a demand deposit at a bank, this action by itself a. decreases the money supply. b. has an indeterminate effect on the money supply. c. increases the money supply. d. does not change the money supply.

66. In the long run, the primary effect of rapid monetary growth is a. reduced unemployment. b. inflation. c. an increase in real output. d. lower nominal interest rates.

67. According to non-Keynesians, how will an increase in government spending financed by borrowing during a recession affect recovery? a. Higher future taxes and interest rates will be required to finance the larger debt and this

will weaken the recovery. b. Repayment of the debt can always be shifted to the future, making it possible to keep tax

rates low and thereby strengthen the recovery. c. Higher interest payments will increase future government spending, and thereby promote a

stronger the recovery. d. The increase in government spending will exert a multiplier effect on the economy,

leading to a stronger recovery.

68. If the price of a good is below the equilibrium price, a. the supply curve will shift to the right until an equilibrium is established at the existing

price. b. suppliers will find inventories being depleted. They will increase production and raise

prices. c. suppliers will find inventories building; they will cut output and raise prices. d. the demand curve will shift to the left until an equilibrium is established at the existing

price.

69. Suppose that in a country people gain more confidence in the banking system and so hold relatively less currency and more deposits, then bank reserves will a. decrease and the money supply will eventually decrease. b. decrease and the money supply will eventually increase. c. increase and the money supply will eventually decrease. d. increase and the money supply will eventually increase.

70. If an economy is growing, but experiences no inflation, this means a. aggregate demand and aggregate supply decreased by the same amount. b. aggregate demand increased, but aggregate supply did not. c. aggregate demand and aggregate supply increased by the same amount. d. aggregate supply increased, but aggregate demand did not.

71. The potential output of an economy is the level of output produced when the a. expected real wage equals the inflation rate. b. expected price level equals the unemployment rate. c. expected price level equals the actual price level. d. real wage equals the nominal wage. e. price level is constant.

72. In which statement(s) are "demand" and "quantity demanded" used correctly? (I) "An increase in the price of coffee will reduce the quantity demanded of coffee." (II) "An increase in the price of coffee will reduce the demand for creamer used in coffee."

94

a. in statement II only b. in both statements I and II c. in neither statements I nor II d. in statement I only

73. Land used to grow alfalfa could also be used to grow hay. Which of the following is true when the farmer plants hay and the market price of alfalfa rises? a. The opportunity cost of producing alfalfa increases. b. The opportunity cost of producing hay decreases. c. There will be no change in the opportunity cost of producing hay. d. The opportunity cost of producing hay increases.

74. According to the invisible hand principle, competitive markets generally a. promote the economic welfare of self-interested producers at the expense of unorganized

groups such as consumers and taxpayers. b. bring the self-interest of individuals into harmony with the efficient allocation of resources

when the behavior of individuals is directed by democratic centralized planning. c. bring the self-interest of individuals into harmony with the efficient allocation of

resources, even though centralized planning of economic activities is absent. d. require central direction; otherwise, the actions of self-interested individuals will conflict

with the general interests of society.

75. If you want to make better decisions in almost any area of your life, what general rule should you apply? a. Continue to engage in an activity as long as your friends are doing it. b. Continue to engage in an activity as long as marginal cost is falling. c. Continue to engage in an activity as long as the marginal cost is lower than price. d. Continue to engage in an activity as long as the marginal benefit is greater than the

marginal cost.

76. If you want to make the best possible decisions in life, what should you do? a. Ignore any secondary effects. b. Think only of yourself and disregard all others. c. Apply the basic guidelines of economics: 1) every decision has a tradeoff; 2) individuals

choose purposefully; 3) incentives matter; 4) make decisions at the margin; 5) more information is costly to acquire; 6) consider secondary effects; 7) the value of a good is subjective.

d. Call your parents every time for advice.

77. Please take your exam and scantron answer sheet out in the hallway to the entrance of the classroom. Make sure to turn them in to the correct pile so your answers are graded correctly. If you want, you may copy your scantron answers to the answer sheet provided on the last page of the exam booklet. You can tear that sheet off and use it to determine your score after the answer key is posted on Blackboard, which will be shortly after the last person submits their exam.

You will know your final exam score and can calculate your final grade for the class before I can. Please do not email me begging for more points or asking for any special grade considerations. Do you understand that I will delete those emails without answering or considering the request? a. No, I ignored this last question since it was so long and will ask Dr. Calhoun about all

these items in person. b. No, I’m going to beg for more points anyway. c. Yes, I understand so I’m going to begin my email message with “I know you said not to

do this but I thought it couldn’t hurt anyway...” d. Yes, I understand and will not email asking for more points.

95

ECO2013 Principles of Macroeconomics Final Exam Fall 2010

Answer Section

MULTIPLE CHOICE

1. A

2. A

3. C

4. D

5. C

6. A

7. C

8. D

9. C

10. B

11. B

12. A

13. B

14. C

15. D

16. A

17. C

18. C

19. C

20. D

21. D

22. B

23. D

24. C

25. C

26. A

27. A

28. C

29. B

30. A

31. D

32. D

33. D

34. B

35. A

36. B

37. D

38. A

96

39. B

40. C

41. D

42. D

43. C

44. D

45. B

46. B

47. A

48. B

49. A

50. D

51. A

52. D

53. A

54. D

55. D

56. C

57. D

58. B

59. A

60. C

61. A

62. B

63. C

64. C

65. D

66. B

67. A

68. B

69. D

70. C

71. C

72. B

73. D

74. C

75. D

76. C

77. D

97

REFERENCES

Addison, S., Wright, A., & Milner, R. (2009). Using clickers to improve student engagement and performance in an introductory Biochemistry class. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 37(2), 84-91.

Ames, C. (1981). Competitive versus cooperative reward structures: The influence of individual

and group performance factors on achievement attributions and affect. American Educational Research Journal, 18(3), 273-287.

Arias, J. J., & Walker, D. M. (2004). Additional Evidence on the Relationship between Class

Size and Student Performance. [Feature]. The Journal of Economic Education, 35(4), 311-329. doi: 10.3200/jece.35.4.311-329

Armstrong, N., Chang, S.-M., & Brickman, M. (2007). Cooperative learning in industrial-sized

biology classes. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6(2), 163-171. Aronson, J. R. (1987). Six Keys to effective instruction in large classes: Advice from a

practitioner. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1987(32), 31-37. doi: 10.1002/tl.37219873205

Banks, D. A. (2006). Reflections on the use of ARS with small groups. In D. A. Banks (Ed.),

Audience response systems in higher education (pp. 373–386). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.

Beekes, W. (2006). The ‘Millionaire’ method for encouraging participation. Active Learning in

Higher Education, 7(1), 25-36. doi: 10.1177/1469787406061143 Birk, J. P., & Foster, J. (1993). The importance of lecture in general chemistry course

performance. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(3), 180-null. doi: 10.1021/ed070p180 Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives-Handbook I: The cognitive domain.

New York: David McKay Company, Inc. Bloom, B. (1984). The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one

tutoring. Educational Leadership, 41(8), 4–17. Bogan, E. (1996). Challenges in teaching large economics classes. International Advances in

Economic Research, 2(1), 58-63. doi: 10.1007/bf02295157 Boniecki, K. A., & Moore, S. (2003). Breaking the silence: Using a token economy to reinforce

classroom participation. Teaching of Psychology, 30(3), 224 - 227. Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom.

Washington, D.C.: George Washington University.

98

Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (2001). Peer learning in higher education : Learning from & with each other. London: Kogan Page.

Bransford, J., Brown, A., and Cocking, R. (1999). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience,

and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Brewer, C. A. (2004). Near real-time assessment of student learning and understanding in

biology courses. BioScience, 54(11), 1034–1039. Brewer, S., & Klein, J. D. (2006). Type of positive interdependence and affiliation motive in an

asynchronous, collaborative learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(4), 331-354.

Bruffee, K. A. (1994). Making the most of knowledgeable peers. (includes related articles) (first

printed in March/April, 1987) Change (Vol. 26, pp. p39(37)). Brush, T. (1997). The effects on student achievement and attitudes when using integrated

learning systems with cooperative pairs. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 51-64. doi: 10.1007/bf02299612

Bullock, D. W., LaBella, V. P., Clinghan, T., Ding, Z., Stewart, G., & Thibado, P. M. (2002).

Enhancing the student–instructor interaction frequency. The Physics Teacher, 40, 30–36. Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips.

Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9–20. Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-

analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64, 363-423. Cain, J., & Robinson, E. (2008). A primer on audience response systems: Current applications

and future considerations. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 72, 1-6. Carbone, E. (1998). Teaching in large classes. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Carbone, E., & Greenberg, J. (1998). Teaching large classes: Unpacking the problem and

responding creatively. In M. Kaplan (Ed.), To improve the academy (Vol. 17, pp. 311-326). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press and The Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education.

Carmichael, J. (2009). Team-based learning enhances performance in introductory biology.

Journal of College Science Teaching, 38(4), 54-61. 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(3), 391–409.

99

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin 39(7), 3–6.

Cooper, J. L., & Robinson, P. (2000). Getting Started: Informal Small-Group Strategies in Large

Classes. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2000(81), 17-24. doi: 10.1002/tl.8102

Cross, P. K. (1987). Teaching for learning. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin,

39(8), 3-7. Crossgrove, K., & Curran, K. L. (2008). Using clickers in non-majors and majors level biology

courses: Student opinion, learning, and long-term retention of course material. CBE - Life Sciences Education, 7(1), 146-154.

Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results.

American Journal of Physics, 69, 970-977. Cue, N. (1998). A universal learning tool for classsrooms. Paper presented at the First quality in

teaching and learning conference, Hong Kong, China. Damon, W. (1984). Peer education: The untapped potential. Journal of Applied Developmental

Psychology, 5, 331–343. Durbin, S. M., & Durbin, K. A. (2006). Anonymous polling in a engineering tutorial

environment: A case study. In D. A. Banks (Ed.), Audience response systems in higher education (pp. 116–126). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.

Draper, S. W., & Brown, M. I. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic

voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(2), 81-94. Ebert-May, D., Brewer, C., & Allred, S. (1997). Innovation in Large Lectures: Teaching for

Active Learning. BioScience 47(9), 601-607. Fagan, A. P., Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2002). Peer instruction: Results from a range of

classrooms. The Physics Teacher, 40(4), 206–209. Feldman, K. A. (1984). Class size and college students’ evaluations of teachers and courses, a

closer look. Research in Higher Education, 21(1), 45–91. Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to

designing college courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Foster, L., Krohn, K., McCleary, D., Aspiranti, K., Nalls, M., Quillivan, C., Taylor, C., Williams,

R. (2009). Increasing low-responding students’ participation in class discussion. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18(2), 173-188.

100

Freeman, S., O'Connor, E., Parks, J. W., Cunningham, M., Hurley, D., Haak, Dirks, C., Wenderoth, M. P. (2007). Prescribed active learning increases performance in introductory biology. CBE - Life Sciences Education, 6(2), 132-139.

Gauci, S. A., Dantas, A. M., Williams, D. A., & Kemm, R. E. (2009). Promoting student-

centered active learning in lectures with a personal response system. Advances in Physiology Education, 33(1), 60-71.

Giers, V. S., & Kreiner, D. S. (2009). Incorporating Active Learning With PowerPoint-Based

Lectures Using Content-Based Questions. Teaching of Psychology, 36(2), 134-139. doi: 10.1080/00986280902739792

Goldsmid, C. A., & Wilson, E. K. (1980). Passing on Sociology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Greer, L., & Heaney, P. J. (2004). Real-time analysis of student comprehension: An assessment

of electronic student response technology in an introductory earth science course. Journal of Geoscience Education, 52(4), 345–351.

Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student

survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64-74.

Hancock, T. M. (1996). Effects of class size on college student achievement. College Student

Journal, 30(4), 479–481. Harton, H. C., Richardson, D. S., Barreras, R. E., Rockloff, M. J., & Latane, B. (2002). Focused

interactive learning: A tool for active class discussion. Teaching of Psychology, 29(1), 10 - 15.

Hays, L. (1976). The use of group contingencies for behavioral control: A review. Psychological

Bulletin, 83. 628-648. Herr, K.U. (1989). Improving teaching and learning in large classes: A practical manual

(revised). Fort Collins: Colorado State University, Office of the Instructional Services. Hoekstra, A. (2008). Vibrant student voices: Exploring effects of the use of clickers in large

college courses. Learning, Media and Technology, 33(4), 329-341. Horowitz, H. M. (2006). ARS evolution: Reflections and recommendations. In D. A. Banks

(Ed.), Audience response systems in higher education (pp. 53–63). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.

Humphreys, B., Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1982). Effects of cooperative, competitive,

and individualistic learning on students' achievement in science class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(5), 351-356. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660190503

101

Immerwahr, J. (2009). Engaging the “Thumb Generation” with clickers. Teaching Philosophy, 32(3), 233-245.

Johnson, D., Johnson, R.& Holubec, E. (1998). Cooperation in the classroom. Boston: Allyn and

Bacon. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., Maruyama, G., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of

cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 207-216.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increasing

college faculty instructional productivity. Washington, D.C.: ERIC. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Active learning: Cooperation in the

college classroom (2nd ed.). Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co. Jones, C., Connolly, M., Gear, A., & Read, M. (2001). Group integrative learning with group

process support technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5), 571–581. Kennedy, P. E., & Siegfried, J. J. (1997). Class size and achievement in introductory economics,

evidence from the TUCE III data. Economics of Education Review, 16, 385–394. Klein, J. D., Erchul, J. A., & Pridemore, D. R. (1994). Effects of individual versus cooperative

learning and type of reward on performance and continuing motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(1), 24-32.

Kohn, A. (1986). No contest: The case against competition. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Kokkelenberg, E. C., Dillon, M., & Christy, S. M. (2008). The effects of class size on student

grades at a public university. Economics of Education Review, 27(2), 221-233. doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2006.09.011

Len, P. M. (2007). Different reward structures to motivate student interaction with electronic

response systems in astronomy. Astronomy Education Review, 5(2), 5-15. Leufer, T. (2007). Students' perceptions of the learning experience in a large class environment.

Nursing Education Perspectives, 28(6), 322(325). Locke, E. A., Feren, D. B., McCaleb, V. M., Shaw, K. N., & Denny, A. T. (1980). The relative

effectiveness of four methods of motivating employee performance. In K. D. Duncan, M. M. Gruneber, & D. Walfis (Eds.), Changes in working life (pp. 363-388). New York: Wiley.

Lyman, F. (1981). The Responsive Class Discussion. In A. S. Anderson (ed.), Mainstreaming Digest. College Park: College of Education, University of Maryland.

102

MacArthur, J. R., & Jones, L. L. (2008). A review of literature reports of clickers applicable to college chemistry classrooms. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9(3), 187-195.

MacGeorge, E. L., Homan, S. R., Dunning Jr., J. B., Elmore, D., Bodie, G. D., Evans, E.,

Khichadia, S., & Lichti, S. M. (2008). The influence of learning characteristics on evaluation of audience response technology. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 19, 25-46.

Maloney, D. P., O'Kuma, T. L., Hieggelke, C. J., & Heuvelen, A. (2001). Surveying students'

conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism. American Journal of Physics, 69, 1-23.

Mason, D., & Verdel, E. (2001). Gateway to Success for At-Risk Students in a Large-Group

Introductory Chemistry Class. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(2), 252-null. doi: 10.1021/ed078p252

Mateo, M. A., & Fernandez, J. (1996). Incidence of Class Size on the Evaluation of University

Teaching Quality. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(5), 771-778. Mayer, R. E., Stull, A., DeLeeuw, K., Almeroth, K., Bimber, B., Chun, D., Bulger, M.,

Campbell, J., Knight, A., & Zhang, H. (2009). Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 51-57.

Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user's manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. McConnell, C. R., & Sosin, K. (1984). Some determinants of student attitudes toward large

classes. Journal of Economic Education, 181–190. McKeachie, W. J. (1980). Class size, large classes, and multiple sections. Academe, (2), 24–28. McKeachie, W. J., & Hofer, B. K. (2001). McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. McKeachie, W. J., Hofer, B. K., & Svinicki, M. D. (2006). McKeachie's teaching tips :

Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Menon, A. S., Moffett, S., Enriquez, M., Martinez, M. M., Dev, P., & Grappone, T. (2004).

Audience response made easy: Using personal digital assistants as a classroom polling tool. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 11, 217-220.

Michaelsen, L.K., Fink, L.D., & Knight, A. (1997). Designing Effective Group Activities:

Lessons for Classroom Teaching and Faculty Development. In D.DeZure (Ed.), To

103

Improve the Academy: Resources for Faculty, Instructional and Organizational Development (pp. 373-397). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.

Millis, B.J. & Cottell, Jr., P.G. (1998). Cooperative learning for higher education faculty.

Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Morling, B., McAuliffe, M., Cohen, L., & DiLorenzo, T. M. (2008). Efficacy of personal

response systems ("clickers") in large introductory psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 35(1), 45-50.

Mulryan-Kyne, C. (2010). Teaching large classes at college and university level: challenges and

opportunities. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(2), 175 - 185. Nicol, D. J. & Boyle J. T. (2003) Peer Instruction versus Class-wide Discussion in the large

classes: a comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom. Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 458-73.

Penhale, S. J. (1998). Cooperative Learning Using Chemical Literature. Science & Technology

Libraries, 16(3), 69 - 87. Phelps, A. J. (1996). Teaching to Enhance Problem Solving: It's More than the Numbers. Journal

of Chemical Education, 73(4), 301-null. doi: 10.1021/ed073p301 Poirier, C. R., & Feldman, R. S. (2007). Technology and teaching: Promoting active learning

using individual response technology in large introductory psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 34(3), 194-196.

Powell, K. (2003). Spare me the lecture. Nature 425(6955), 234–236. Premkumar, K., & Coupal, C. (2008). Rules of engagement -12 tips for successful use of

“clickers” in the classroom. Medical Teacher, 30, 146-149. Preszler, R. W., Dawe, A., Shuster, C. B., & Shuster, M. (2007). Assessment of the effects of

student response systems on student learning and attitudes over a broad range of biology courses. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 29–41.

Pychyl, T. A., Clark, D., & Abarbanel, T. (1999). Computer-mediated group projects:

Facilitating collaborative learning with the World Wide Web. Teaching of Psychology, 26, 138–141.

Raimondo, H. J., Esposito, L., & Gershenberg, I. (1990). Introductory Class Size and Student

Performance in Intermediate Theory Courses. The Journal of Economic Education, 21(4), 369-381.

Rao, S. P., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2000). Peer instruction improves performance on quizzes. Advances

in Physiology Education, 24(1), 51-55.

104

Robinson, W. R., & Niaz, M. (1991). Performance based on instruction by lecture or by

interaction and its relationship to cognitive variable. International Journal of Science Education, 13(2), 203 - 215.

Salemi, M. (2009). Clickenomics: Using a classroom response system to increase student

engagement in a large-enrollment principles of economics course. Journal of Economic Education, 40(4), 385-404.

Sharma, M. D., Khachan, J., Chan, B., & O’Byrne, J. (2005). An investigation of the

effectiveness of electronic classroom communication systems in large lectures. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(2), 137–154.

Siau, K., Sheng, H., & Nah, F. (2006). Use of classroom response system to enhance classroom

interactivity. IEEE Transactions on Education, 49(3), 398–403. Slain, D., Abate, M., Hidges, B. M., Stamatakis, M. K., & Wolak, S. (2004). An interactive

response system to promote active learning in the doctor of pharmacy curriculum. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 68(5), 1–9.

Slavin, R.E. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement?

Psychological Bulletin, 94, 429-445. Slavin, R.E. (1987). Cooperative learning: Where behavioral and humanistic approaches to

classroom motivation meet. Elementary School Journal, 88, 9-37. Slavin, R.E. (1989). Cooperative learning and achievement: Six theoretical perspectives. In C.

Ames and M.L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Slavin, R.E. (1991). Are cooperative learning and untracking harmful to the gifted? Educational

Leadership, 48(6), 68-71. Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Smith, D. (1992). Encouraging students' participation in large classes: A modest proposal.

Teaching Sociology, 20(4), 337-339. Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R.T. (2005). Pedagogies of

Engagement: Classroom-Based Practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 87-101.

Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N., & Su, T. T.

(2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323(5910), 122-124.

105

Springer, L., Stanne, M.E., and Donovan, S. (1999). Measuring the success of small-group learning in college level SMET teaching: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69, 21–51.

Stanley, C., & Porter, M. (2002). Engaging large classes: Strategies and techniques for college

faculty. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc. 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(2), 95–102.

Thornton, R. K. & Sokoloff, D. R. (1998). Assessing student learning of Newton's Laws: The

force and motion conceptual evaluation and the evaluation of active learning laboratory and curricula. American Journal of Physics, 66, 338-52.

Toby, S. (1988). The relationship between class size and students, ratings of faculty: Or why

some good teachers should not teach general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 65(9), 788-null. doi: 10.1021/ed065p788

Torff, B. (2003). Developmental changes in teachers' use of higher-order thinking and content

knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 563-569. Trees, A. R., & Jackson, M. H. (2007). The learning environment in clicker classrooms: Student

processes of learning and involvement in large university-level courses using student response systems. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(1), 21-40.

Tseng, H. (2010). Has the student performance in managerial economics been affected by the

class size of principles of microeconomics? Journal of Economics and Economic Education Research, 11(3), 15-27.

Ward, A., & Jenkins, A. (1992). The problems of learning and teaching in large classes. In G.

Gibbs & A. Jenkins (Eds.), Teaching large classes in higher education: How to maintain quality with reduced resources (pp. 23-36). London: Kogan Page.

Weaver, R. R., & Qi, J. (2005). Classroom Organization and Participation: College Students'

Perceptions. [Feature]. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(5), 570-601. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2005.0038

Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and Mathematics learning in small groups.

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(5), 366-389. White, P., Syncox, D., & Alters, B. (2010). Clicking for grades? Really? Investigating the use of

clickers for awarding grade-points in post-secondary education. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-11.

106

Wulff, D. H., Nyquist, J. D., & Abbott, R. D. (1987). Students' perceptions of large classes. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1987(32), 17-30. doi: 10.1002/tl.37219873204

Yoder, J. D., & Hochevar, C. M. (2005). Encouraging Active Learning Can Improve Students'

Performance on Examinations. Teaching of Psychology, 32(2), 91-95. doi: 10.1207/s15328023top3202_2

107

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Sya Azmeela binti Shariff was born on July 19, 1978 in Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia. She

spent her childhood moving from one place to another due to her father’s occupation as a

university lecturer. She also had some memorable experiences living in the United States,

particularly when her dad pursued a Masters‟ degree at Kansas University (1979-80) and a

doctoral degree at Florida State University (1984-89).

After completing her studies in secondary school at Sekolah Menengah Skudai in 1996,

she went to Universiti Teknologi Malaysia for her tertiary education where she obtained a

Bachelors degree in Educational Technology in August 2000 and Masters of Science in

Information Technology-Education in August 2002.

After graduating from college, she went on to teach at her first job as a lecturer at

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur campus) from October 2002 until November

2005. During her time as a lecturer, she received a full scholarship to study abroad at Florida

State University for a doctoral degree in Instructional Systems.

On December 31, 2005, she moved to Tallahassee, Florida to enroll as a doctoral student

at Florida State University (FSU) for the Spring 2006 term. As a graduate student, she actively

participated in several activities organized within the department and also within the

international student environment at FSU. Some of the activities included organizing the annual

Alumni Advisory Council meetings and co-editing the annual Instructional Systems newsletter.

Her doctoral dissertation, which focused on the effects of individual and group incentives system

on students learning and attitudes in a large lecture course, was guided under the direction of Dr.

Robert A. Reiser, After graduation, she will pursue her career as an instructional designer and a

lecturer at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.