1. A critique of : McDaniel Mohr, T. (2013). Iclickers and student performance. International Review Of Economics Education, 1416-23. doi:10.1016/j.iree.2013.10.006 Samie Garcia May 20, 2015 EDET 780

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

3.  To determine if iclickers improves student exam performances

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

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

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

7.  Encouraged attendance  Higher retention of information

8.  Attendance record biased  Frequently absent students

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

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

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

12.  McDaniel Mohr, T. (2013). Iclickers and student performance. International Review Of Economics Education, 1416-23. doi:10.1016/j.iree.2013.10.006