Below are the citations and abstracts for the presentations I have given at conferences as an associate professor.<\/p>\n
Sutherlin, A.L.<\/strong>\u00a0Effect of student response systems on student achievement and study time in Science Classrooms.\u00a0Biennial Conference on Chemical Education<\/i>, State College, PA, (2012).<\/p>\n Abstract:<\/em>\u00a0In four studies on the use of student response systems (clickers), we sought to understand if the use of clickers would impact students\u2019 attitudes toward the use of technology for instruction and achievement on exams in university chemistry and biology classes.\u00a0 The study designs were quasi-experimental using switching treatments.\u00a0 \u00a0Pre- and post- attitudinal surveys were administered to all students. \u00a0Self-reported study time and exam scores were analyzed. \u00a0While in three of the four studies students reported that they enjoyed using clickers, the results revealed no significant changes in attitude toward the use of instructional technology. Furthermore, neither the use of clickers nor the amount of student reported study time served as useful predictor of achievement in science classes.<\/p>\n Sutherlin, A.L.<\/strong>\u00a0I gave my students more work and they thanked me: Using Technology to Implement Constructivist Techniques.\u00a0Biennial Conference on Chemical Education<\/i>, State College, PA, (2012).<\/p>\n Abstract:\u00a0<\/em>In a first semester biochemistry course, students did assigned reading followed by just-in-time teaching warm-up questions, which they responded to online before class.\u00a0 Class consisted of mini-lectures based on answers to the warm-up questions interspersed with clicker questions, followed by peer instruction. In peer instruction, if 30-70% of the students got the correct answer on the clicker question, students worked in small groups to come to a consensus.\u00a0 This protocol allowed me to find areas of content where students were struggling and to focus on areas that require higher order thinking skills. The performance on exams of this year\u2019s class was compared to the previous year\u2019s class.\u00a0 On two of the four exams the treatment group performed statistically significantly better on exams. Pre- and post-attitudinal studies along with course evaluations showed that the students appreciated the use of the warm-up and peer instruction questions.<\/p>\n Sutherlin, A.L.<\/strong>\u00a0Blended Biochemistry: Using technology outside of class to better reach students in class.\u00a0American Chemical Society National Conference<\/i>. Philadelphia, PA (2012).<\/p>\n Abstract:<\/em>\u00a0Biochemistry is difficult because it requires not only the memorization, but also the interpretation and evaluation of large amounts of material. Technology allowed me to modify a Biochemistry I course to use constructivist techniques. Students did assigned reading followed by Just-in-Time Teaching Warm-up questions which they responded to online before class.\u00a0 The Warm-up questions along with responses to clicker questions followed by Peer Instruction were used to guide class discussion.\u00a0 This allowed me to find the areas of content where the students were struggling and to focus in on areas that require higher order thinking skills. The performance on exams of this year\u2019s class was compared to the previous year\u2019s class.\u00a0 On two of the four exams the treatment group performed statistically significantly better on exams. Pre- and post-attitudinal studies along with course evaluations showed that the students appreciated the use of the Warm-up and Peer Instruction questions.<\/p>\n Sutherlin, A.L.<\/strong> Give Students More Work and They’ll Thank You: Using technology to implement constructivist techniques.\u00a0Educause Learning Initiative Annual<\/em> Meeting<\/em>. Austin, TX (2012).<\/p>\n Abstract:<\/em>\u00a0Biochemistry is difficult because it requires the memorization and evaluation of large amounts of material. Technology allowed me to modify my course to use constructivist techniques. Students did assigned reading followed by Just-in-Time Teaching Warm-up questions which they responded to online before class.\u00a0 The Warm-up questions along with responses to clicker questions followed by Peer Instruction were used to guide class discussion.\u00a0 This allowed me to find the points at which the students were struggling and focus in on areas that require higher order thinking skills. The performance of this year\u2019s class to previous years\u2019 groups was compared on exams.<\/p>\n Sutherlin, A.L.<\/strong>\u00a0 G.R. Sutherlin, U. Akpanudo.\u00a0 The Effect of Clickers in University Science Courses.\u00a0Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Meeting.\u00a0\u00a0<\/i>Oxford, MS (2011).<\/p>\n Abstract:<\/em>\u00a0This paper reports on four studies that were a continuation of two previous studies.\u00a0 The first study studied the effect of adding clickers to instruction.\u00a0 The second study considered changing the teaching methodology.\u00a0 No significant difference was found in achievement in either study but in an attitude survey the students reported feeling the clickers help them learn the material.\u00a0 The studies in this report collected data on the amount of time the students studied for each exam and the students\u2019 attitude toward the use of clickers for instruction as well as their exam scores.\u00a0 Each of the current studies was a little different.\u00a0 The first one followed the design of the previous two studies being conducted in a university biochemistry class. The second one had only one section introductory chemistry class, so only the survey data was collected. The third was conducted in a university biology class with a different professor and the fourth is an organic chemistry class at a different university with a different professor.\u00a0 All\u00a0 studies found that the students thought the clickers were helpful in learning the material.\u00a0 No significant difference was found in either the amount of self-reported study time or the exam scores between the group that used clickers and the group that did not.<\/p>\n Sutherlin, A.L.<\/strong>\u00a0 Trying to Find the Effect of Clickers.\u00a0 Educause Learning Initiative 2011 Online Spring Focus Session \u201cSeeking the Evidence of Impact.\u201d<\/i>\u00a0(2011).<\/p>\n Abstract:\u00a0<\/em>In five studies, use of student handheld response systems in science classrooms has been studied to elucidate their effect on student learning.\u00a0 All studies were conducted in two sections of university level courses where one section served as a control and the other was treated.\u00a0 The study design was quasi-experimental using switching treatments with replication.\u00a0 \u00a0Student pre- and post- attitudinal surveys were administered to all students. \u00a0The students’ university GPA and ACT scores were examined to determine the equivalency of the groups. The quiz and exam scores were analyzed to determine if there was a significant difference in achievement.<\/p>\n Sutherlin, A.L.<\/strong>\u00a0Effect of student response systems on student achievement and study time.\u00a0\u00a0ConnectEd Summit<\/i>. Abilene, TX (2011).<\/p>\n Abstract<\/em>:\u00a0In five studies, use of student handheld response systems (clickers) in chemistry and biology classrooms has been studied to elucidate their effect on student learning.\u00a0 Three studies used Qwizdom Q4 clickers, while two employed Turning Point ResponseWare for the iPhone\/ iPod Touch.\u00a0 All studies were conducted in two sections of university level science courses where one section served as a control and the other was treated.\u00a0 The first three studies were in introductory level chemistry, the fourth in organic chemistry, and the fifth in general biology.\u00a0 In all five, the study design was quasi-experimental using switching treatments with replication.\u00a0 \u00a0Student pre- and post- attitudinal surveys were administered to all students in both sections. \u00a0The students’ university grade point average and ACT scores were examined to determine the equivalency of the groups. The quiz and exam scores were analyzed to determine if there was a significant difference in achievement.<\/p>\n The first study examined the effect of students using clickers during instruction when the teaching method was consistent between the sections.\u00a0 The second study looked at the effect of changing teaching methodology when the clickers were used.\u00a0 The third study focused on the effect of clickers on students self-reported study time and the significance of assigning value to in-class clicker questions.\u00a0 In the first three studies, there was no statistically significant difference in the achievement between the control and experimental groups on exams.\u00a0 Over the course of all three studies there was a slight but statistically significant difference in quizzes with the control group averaging slightly higher.\u00a0 In all studies, students self-reported that the clickers helped them learn the class material.\u00a0 The current studies are repeating the third study in a general biology course and organic chemistry course to attempt to assess the difference in courses and instructors.<\/p>\n Sutherlin, A. L.<\/strong>\u00a0and G.R. Sutherlin. Effect of student response systems on student achievement and study time.\u00a0Biennial Conference on Chemical Education.\u00a0<\/i>Denton, Texas (2010).<\/p>\n Abstract<\/em>:\u00a0In three studies, use of student handheld response systems (clickers) in chemistry classrooms has been studied to elucidate their effect on student learning.\u00a0 The first two studies used Qwizdom Q4 clickers, while the third employed Turning Point ResponseWare for the iPhone\/ iPod Touch.\u00a0 All three studies were conducted in two sections of university level introductory chemistry courses where one section served as a control and the other was treated.\u00a0 In all three, the study design was quasi-experimental using switching treatments with replication.\u00a0 \u00a0Student pre- and post- attitudinal surveys were administered to all students in both sections. \u00a0The students’ university grade point average and ACT scores were examined to determine the equivalency of the groups. The quiz and exam scores were analyzed to determine if there was a significant difference in achievement.<\/p>\n The first study examined the effect of students using clickers during instruction when the teaching method was consistent between the sections.\u00a0 The second study looked at the effect of changing teaching methodology when the clickers were used.\u00a0 In the first two studies, there was no statistically significant difference in the achievement between the control and experimental groups on quizzes and exams.\u00a0 In both studies, students self-reported that the clickers helped them learn the class material.\u00a0 Currently, the third study focuses on the effect of clickers on students self-reported study time and the significance of assigning value to in-class clicker questions.<\/p>\n Sutherlin, A. L.<\/strong>\u00a0Mobile Devices as Clickers.\u00a0Turning Technologies Users Conference<\/i>. Cambridge, MA (2010).<\/p>\n Abstract:<\/em>\u00a0One issue in employing student response systems is that students often forget to bring their clickers to class.\u00a0 Students, however, nearly always have their cell phones.\u00a0 Abilene Christian University has embraced this issue with their Mobile Learning Initiative by providing all students with an iPhone or iPod Touch.\u00a0 TurningPoint has developed the ResponseWare app for the iPhone\/ iPod Touch and Blackberry which I have employed in university-level Introduction to Organic and Biological Chemistry courses and will use this app in two additional classes this fall.\u00a0 I will share my experiences with using this app, its advantages and disadvantages.<\/p>\n The following students have presented at the ACU Research Festival. I have not taken them to external conferences because I did not believe that the biochemistry research was developed enough to present at external conferences.<\/p>\n Adeniyi Adebesin: 2009<\/p>\n Funmi Adbesin: 2009, 2010<\/p>\n Holly Perkins: 2010 (Outstanding Poster Presentation), 2011 (Outstanding Oral Presentation)<\/p>\n Jonathan Jacobs: 2011<\/p>\n Travis King and Bukola Adebesin: 2013<\/p>\n Alex Clendening: 2013<\/p>\n Luke Sorrell: 2013<\/p>\n Aubrey White: 2014<\/p>\n Maxwell Moore: 2014 (Outstanding Oral Presentation)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Below are the citations and abstracts for the presentations I have given at conferences as an associate professor. Sutherlin, A.L.\u00a0Effect of student response systems on student achievement and study time in Science Classrooms.\u00a0Biennial Conference on Chemical Education, State College, PA, … Continue reading Student Presentations<\/h2>\n