Electronic voting in dental materials education: The impact on students' attitudes and exam performance

Journal of Dental Education

Volumn 72, Issue 9, 2008, Pages 1042-1047

  Barbour, Michele E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Biomaterials; Dental materials; Educational techniques; Lectures

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL AND DENTAL MATERIALS;

ADULT; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONSUMER; DENTAL EDUCATION; DENTAL STUDENT; EDUCATION; ELECTRONICS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MALE; METHODOLOGY; STATISTICS; TEACHING; UNITED KINGDOM;

ADULT; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; COHORT STUDIES; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; DATA COLLECTION; DENTAL MATERIALS; EDUCATION, DENTAL; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; ELECTRONICS; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; MALE; PROGRAM EVALUATION; STUDENTS, DENTAL; TEACHING;

EID: 54049113078     PISSN: 00220337     EISSN: 19307837     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Hake RR. Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am J Physics 1998;66(1):64-74.
2. Ramsden P. Teaching strategies for effective learning. In: Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge Falmer, 2003:145-75.
3. Light G, Cox R. Lecturing: large group teaching. In: Learning and teaching in higher education: the reflective professional. London: Paul Chapman Publishing, 2001:97-114.
4. Divaris K, Barlow PJ, Chendea SA, Cheong WS, Dounis A, Dragan IF, et al. The academic environment: the students' perspective. Eur J Dent Educ 2008;12(Suppl 1):120-30.
5. Caldwell JE. Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips. CBE Life Sci Educ 2007;6:9-20.
6. Turpin DL. Enhance learning with an audience response system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:607.
7. Palmer EJ, Devitt PG, De Young NJ, Morris D. Assessment of an electronic voting system within the tutorial setting: a randomised controlled trial. Biomed Central Med Educ 2005;5(1):24.
8. Duggan PM, Palmer E, Devitt P. Electronic voting to encourage interactive lectures: a randomised trial. Biomed Central Med Educ 2007;7:25.
9. Stein PS, Challman SD, Brueckner JK. Using audience response technology for pretest reviews in an undergraduate nursing course. J Nurs Educ 2006;45(11):469-73.
10. Moredich C, Moore E. Engaging students through the use of classroom response systems. Nurse Educator 2007;32(3):113-6.
11. Johnson JT. Creating learner-centered classrooms: use of an audience response system in pediatric dentistry education. J Dent Educ 2005;69(3):378-81.
12. Holmes RG, Blalock JS, Parker MH, Haywood VB. Student accuracy and evaluation of a computer-based audience response system. J Dent Educ 2006;70(12):1355-61.
13. Draper SW, Brown MI. Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. J Comput Assist Learn 2004;20:81-94.
14. Knight JK, Wood WB. Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biol Educ 2005;4:298-310.
15. Gulpinar MA, Yegen BC. Interactive lecturing for meaningful learning in large groups. Med Teacher 2005;27(7):590-4.
16. Costa ML, van Rensburg L, Rushton N. Does teaching style matter? A randomised trial of group discussion versus lectures in orthopaedic undergraduate teaching. Med Educ 2007;41(2):214-7.
17. Barber M, Njus D. Clicker evolution: seeking intelligent design. CBE Life Sci Educ 2007;6:1-20.