Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Technology, Knowledge and Learning
Erschienen in: Technology, Knowledge and Learning 3/2022

05.05.2021 | Original research

Examining the Primacy and Recency Effect on Learning Effectiveness with the Application of Interactive Response Systems (Irs)

verfasst von: Ying-Jung Yvonne Yeh, Min-Hung Chen

Erschienen in: Technology, Knowledge and Learning | Ausgabe 3/2022

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This study first examined the factors that enhance learning effectiveness and student satisfaction when an interactive response system (IRS) is introduced to a financial planning course. Second, we examined the influence of the initial experience of using an IRS on subsequent learning results. A total of 217 financial practitioners participated in a three-session financial course. During the course, the instructor interacted with the participants using the IRS. Participants were asked to use the smartphone-based IRS to interact with their instructor, and they were requested to complete two tests (a pretest and a posttest) and a satisfaction survey after each session. Participation data were directly imported into the UMU system for statistical analysis. The results indicated that task–technology fit (TTF) and instructor ability were predictors of learning effectiveness and student satisfaction. The perception of TTF in the first session had a positive effect on the cognitive results in the subsequent stages, which was the primacy effect. Moreover, a recency effect was observed in the affective results, meaning that the influence of the perception of TTF and instructor ability in the concurrent session on student satisfaction was stronger than the influence of previous experiences. Research and practical implications are presented to conclude the paper.
Vorheriger Artikel Malleability of Spatial Reasoning With Short-Term and Long-Term Robotics Interventions
Nächster Artikel Do Teachers Find Dashboards Trustworthy, Actionable and Useful? A Vignette Study Using a Logs and Audio Dashboard

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
Student satisfaction was evaluated three times. SS1, SS2, and SS3 refer to the student satisfaction during the first, second, and third session, respectively. The posttest was administered three times, with the results referred to as Posttest1, Posttest2, and Posttest3 in the following discussion.
 
Literatur
Ahmad, K. Z., & Bakar, R. A. (2003). The association between training and organizational commitment among white-collar workers in Malaysia. International Journal of Training and Development, 7(3), 166–185CrossRef
Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. Academic Press.
Asare, S. K. (1992). The auditor’s going-concern decision: Interaction of task variables and the sequential processing of evidence. The Accounting Review, 67(2), 379–393
Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41(3), 258–290CrossRef
Ataş, A. H., & Delialioğlu, O. (2018). A question–answer system for mobile devices in lecture-based instruction: A qualitative analysis of student engagement and learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(1), 75–90CrossRef
Basso, A., Goldberg, D., Greenspan, S., & Weimer, D. (2001). First impressions: emotional and cognitive factors underlying judgments of trust E-commerce. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, 137–143.
Buchert, S., Laws, E. L., Apperson, J. M., & Bregman, N. J. (2008). First impressions and professor reputation: Influence on student evaluations of instruction. Social Psychology of Education, 11(4), 397–408CrossRef
Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 29–41CrossRef
Crano, W. D. (1977). Primacy versus recency in retention of information and opinion change. Journal of Social Psychology, 101(1), 87–96CrossRef
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340CrossRef
DeBacker, T. K., & Crowson, H. M. (2008). Measuring need for closure in classroom learners. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 711–732CrossRef
Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts? The journal of the learning sciences, 14(2), 243–279CrossRef
Elliott, K. M., & Healy, M. A. (2001). Key factors influencing student satisfaction related to recruitment and retention. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 10(4), 1–12CrossRef
Files, C., & Marshall, J. (2006). Classroom response systems: A review of the literature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 101–109CrossRef
Forgas, J. P. (2011). Can negative affect eliminate the power of first impressions? Affective influences on primacy and recency effects in impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(2), 425–429CrossRef
Frymier, A. B. (2005). Students’ classroom communication effectiveness. Communication Quarterly, 53(2), 197–212CrossRef
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 213–236CrossRef
Haugtvedt, C. P., & Wegener, D. T. (1994). Message order effects in persuasion: An attitude strength perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 205–218CrossRef
Hou, S. T., & Fan, H. L. (2011). The antecedents and consequences of negative technology sense-making: A longitudinal field study of the Taiwan taxi fleet. Management Review, 30(3), 149–153
Hsiao, R. L., Hou, S. T., & Ou, S. H. (2011). Evolving technology sensemaking: Analyzing the innovation process of GPS-dispatch systems. Journal of Information Management, 18(4), 91–118
Ingalls, V. (2018). Students vote: A comparative study of student perceptions of three popular web-based student response systems. (pp. 1–11). Technology.
Johar, G. V., Jedidi, K., & Jacoby, J. (1997). A varying-parameter averaging model of on-line brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(2), 232–247CrossRef
Johnson, E. N. (1995). Effects of information order, group assistance, and experience on auditors’ sequential belief revision. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16(1), 137–160CrossRef
Kim, H., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2008). Persuasive design of destination web sites: An analysis of first impression. Journal of Travel Research, 47(1), 3–13CrossRef
Larsen, T. J., Sorebo, A. M., & Sorebo, O. (2009). The role of task-technology fit as users’ motivation to continue information system use. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(5), 778–784CrossRef
Li, N., Marsh, V., Rienties, B., & Whitelock, D. (2017). Online learning experiences of new versus continuing learners: A large scale replication study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(4), 657–672CrossRef
Lin, W. S. (2012). Perceived fit and satisfaction on web learning performance: IS continuance intention and task-technology fit perspectives. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 70(7), 498–507CrossRef
Love, E. G., Love, D. W., & Northcraft, G. B. (2010). Is the end in sight? Student regulation of in-class and extra-credit effort in response to performance feedback. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(1), 81–97
Lukaitis, A., & Davey, B. (2009). Capturing the mature traveler: Assessing web first impressions. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 6, 845–853CrossRef
Lund, F. (1925). The psychology of belief IV: The law of primacy in persuasion. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 20, 183–191
McGill, T. J., & Hobbs, V. J. (2008). How students and instructors using a virtual learning environment perceive the fit between technology and task. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(3), 191–202CrossRef
McGill, T. J., & Klobas, J. E. (2009). A task-technology fit view of learning management system impact. Computers & Education, 52(2), 496–508CrossRef
McLinden, D. J., Davis, M. J., & Sheriff, D. E. (1993). Impact on financial productivity: A study of training effects on consulting services. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 4(4), 367–375CrossRef
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017–1054CrossRef
Myers, S., & Huebner, A. (2011). The relationship between students’ motives to communicate with their instructors and perceived instructor credibility, attractiveness, and homophily. College Student Journal, 45, 84–91
Nguyen, Q., Rienties, B., Toetenel, L., Ferguson, R., & Whitelock, D. (2017). Examining the designs of computer-based assessment and its impact on student engagement, satisfaction, and pass rates. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 703–724CrossRef
Obermiller, C., Ruppert, B., & Atwood, A. (2012). Instructor credibility across disciplines: Identifying students’ differentiated expectations of instructor behaviors. Business Communication Quarterly, 75(2), 153–165CrossRef
Olsson, J., & Granberg, C. (2019). Dynamic software, task solving with or without guidelines, and learning outcomes. Technology, knowledge and learning, 24(3), 419–436CrossRef
Posselt, T., & Gerstner, E. (2005). Pre-sale vs post-sale e-satisfaction: impact on repurchase intention and overall satisfaction. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19(4), 3547CrossRef
Proserpio, L., & Gioia, D. A. (2007). Teaching the virtual generation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(1), 69–80CrossRef
Puhala, J. J. (2020). Changing classroom practice: Elementary teacher experiences of a PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25(1), 129–147CrossRef
Ruppert, B., & Green, D. A. (2012). Practicing what we teach: credibility and alignment in the business communication classroom. Business Communication Quarterly, 75(1), 2944CrossRef
Sanchez-Franco, M. J., & Roldan, J. L. (2010). Expressive aesthetics to ease perceived community support: Exploring personal innovativeness and routinised behaviour as moderators in Tuenti. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1445–1457CrossRef
Schmitt, L., Currie, G., & Delbosc, A. (2015). Lost in transit? Unfamiliar public transport travel explored using a journey planner web survey. Transportation, 42(1), 101–122CrossRef
Shieh, R. S., & Chang, W. (2013). Implementing the interactive response system in a high school physics context: Intervention and reflections. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(5), 748–761CrossRef
Shonfeld, M., & Magen-Nagar, N. (2017). The impact of an online collaborative program on intrinsic motivation, satisfaction and attitudes towards technology. (pp. 1–17). Technology.
Stec, M., Smith, C., & Jacox, E. (2019). Technology enhanced teaching and learning: Exploration of faculty adaptation to iPad delivered curriculum. (pp. 1–15). Technology.
Sun, J. (2016). Multi-dimensional alignment between online instruction and course technology: A learner-centered perspective. Computers & Education, 101, 102–114CrossRef
Sun, J. C. Y., & Chen, A. Y. Z. (2016). Effects of integrating dynamic concept maps with Interactive response system on elementary school students’ motivation and learning outcome: The case of anti-phishing education. Computers & Education, 102, 117–127CrossRef
Teven, J., & McCroskey, J. (1997). The relationship of perceived teacher caring with student learning and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 46, 1–9CrossRef
Wang, Y. H. (2017). The effectiveness of using cloud-based cross-device IRS to support classical Chinese learning. Educational Technology & Society, 20(2), 127–141
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks. Sage Publications.
Wu, B., & Chen, X. (2017). Continuance intention to use MOOCs: Integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM) and task technology fit (TTF) model. Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 221–232CrossRef
Wu, Y. C., Wu, T., & Li, Y. (2017). Impact of using classroom response systems on students’ entrepreneurship learning experience. Computers in Human Behavior, in press, pp. 1–12.
Metadaten
Titel
Examining the Primacy and Recency Effect on Learning Effectiveness with the Application of Interactive Response Systems (Irs)
verfasst von
Ying-Jung Yvonne Yeh
Min-Hung Chen
Publikationsdatum
05.05.2021
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Technology, Knowledge and Learning / Ausgabe 3/2022
Print ISSN: 2211-1662
Elektronische ISSN: 2211-1670
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09521-6

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2022

Technology, Knowledge and Learning 3/2022 Zur Ausgabe

Original research

Not Only the Intention to Complete: The Role of Action-Oriented Intentions in MOOC Completion

OriginalPaper

Information Communication Technology in schools: Students Exercise ‘Digital Agency’ to Engage with Learning

Original research

The Promises and Pitfalls of Self-regulated Learning Interventions in MOOCs

Original research

Towards an Institutional Blended Learning Adoption Model for Higher Education Institutions

Original research

Malleability of Spatial Reasoning With Short-Term and Long-Term Robotics Interventions

Original research

MOOCs in STEM Education: Teacher Preparation and Views

Premium Partner

    Marktübersichten

    Die im Laufe eines Jahres in der „adhäsion“ veröffentlichten Marktübersichten helfen Anwendern verschiedenster Branchen, sich einen gezielten Überblick über Lieferantenangebote zu verschaffen. 

    Zur Marktübersicht
    Bildnachweise