Evaluating electronic voting systems in lectures: Two innovative methods

Audience Response Systems in Higher Education: Applications and Cases

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 155-174

  Kennedy, Gregor E ^a   Cutts, Quintin ^b   Draper, Stephen W ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67650216130     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-59140-947-2.ch011     Document Type: Chapter

References (33)

1. Bligh, D. A. (2000). What's the use of lectures? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2. Cue, N. (1998, December 10-12). A universal tool for classrooms? In Proceedings of the First Quality in Teaching and Learning Conference, Hong Kong International Trade and Exhibition Centre, Hong Kong, SAR, China.
3. Draper, S., & Brown, M. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(2), 81-94.
4. Draper, S., Cargill, J., & Cutts, Q. (2001). Electronically enhanced classroom interaction. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 18(1), 13-23.
5. Draper, S. W., Brown, M. I., Henderson, F. P., & McAteer, E. (1996). Integrative evaluation: An emerging role for classroom studies of CAL. Computers in Education, 26(1-3), 17-32.
6. Dufresne, R., Gerace, W., Leonard, W., Mestre, J., & Wenk, L. (1996). Classtalk: A classroom communication system for active learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 7, 3-47.
7. Elliott, C. (2003). Using a personal response system in economics teaching. International Review of Economics Education. Retrieved from http://www.economics.ltsn.ac.uk/iree/i1/elliott.htm
8. Evans, G., Dodds, A., Weaver, D., & Kemm, R. (1999). Individual differences in strategies, activities and outcomes in computer-aided learning: A case study. Global Issues and Local Effects: The challenge for educational research. In R. Jeffery & S. Rich (Eds.), Proceedings of the Joint Conference of AARE (Australian Association for Research in Education) and NZARE (New Zealand Association for Research in Education) 1999. Melbourne: Australian Association for Research in Education Inc.
9. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1988). Do inquiry paradigms imply inquiry methodologies? In D. M. Fetterman (Ed.), Qualitative approaches to evaluation in education (pp. 89-115). New York: Praeger.
10. Guzdial, M. (1993). Deriving software usage patterns from log files. (Tech Report GIT-GVU-93-41).
11. Heppener, P. (1988). The problem solving inventory: Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
12. Hilbert, D. M., & Redmiles, D. F. (2000). Extracting usability information from user interface events. ACM Computing Surveys, 32(4), 384-421.
13. Judd, T., & Kennedy, G. (2001a). Extending the role of audit trails: A modular approach. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10(4), 377-395.
14. Judd, T., & Kennedy, G. (2001b). Flexible audit trailing in interactive courseware. In C. Montgomerie & J. Viteli (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2001, World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 943-948). Charlottesville, VA: AACE.
15. Kay, J., & Thomas, R. C. (1995). Studying long-term system use. Communications of the ACM, 38(7), 61-9.
16. Kennedy, G. E. (2004). Promoting cognition in multimedia interactivity research. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 15(1), 43-61.
17. Kennedy, G. E., & Cutts, Q. I. (2005). The association between students' use of an electronic voting system and their learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 260-268.
18. Logan, K., & Thomas, P. (2001). Observations of students working practices in an online distance educational learning environment in relation to time. In G. Kadoda (Ed.), Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group (pp. 29-38).
19. Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user's manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
20. Misanchuk, E. R., & Schwier, R. (1992). Representing interactive multimedia and hypermedia audit trails. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 1(3), 355-372.
21. Nicol, D., & Boyle, N. (2003). Peer instruction vs. class-wide discussion in large classes: A comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom. Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 458-473.
22. Patton, M. Q. (1978). Utilization-focused evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
23. Patton, M. Q. (1988). Paradigms and pragmatism. In D. M. Fetterman (Ed), Qualitative approaches to evaluation in education (pp. 116-137). New York: Praeger.
24. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
25. Pearce, J., Ainley, M., & Howard, S. (2005). The ebb and flow of online learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(5), 745-771.
26. Phillips, R., Baudains, C., & van Keulen, M. (2002). An evaluation of users' learning in a web-supported unit of plant diversity. Paper presented at the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE), Auckland, New Zealand.
27. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D., Garcia T., & McKeachie, W. (1991). The motivated strategies for learning questionnaires (MSLQ). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.
28. Reeves, T. C., & Hedberg, J. G. (2003). Interactive learning systems evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
29. Salter, G. (1995). Quantitative analysis of multimedia audit trails. In, J. M. Pearce, A. Ellis, G. Hart & C. McNaught (Eds.), Learning with technology. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of Australasian Society for Computers in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE) (pp. 456-461). Melbourne: Science Multimedia Teaching Unit, The University of Melbourne.
30. Shulman, L. S. (1988). Disciplines of inquiry in education: An overview. In R. M. Jaeger (Ed.), Complementary methods for research in education (pp. 3-17). Washington DC: American Educational Research Association.
31. Weaver, D., Kemm, R., Petrovic, T., Harris, P., & Delbridge, L. (1999). Learning about control systems by model building: A biological case study. In J. Winn (Ed.), Responding to diversity. Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE) (pp. 381-390). Brisbane, Australia: Queensland University of Technology.
32. Weinstein, C., & Mayer, R. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315-327). New York: Macmillan.
33. Wit, E. (2003). Who wants to be... The use of a personal response system in statistics teaching. MSOR Connections, 3(2), 5-11.