A controlled study of improvements in student exam performance with the use of an audience response system during medical school lectures

Academic Medicine

Volumn 85, Issue 10 SUPPL., 2010, Pages

  Stoddard, Hugh A ^a   Piquette, Craig A ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77958450889     PISSN: 10402446     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181ed3b40     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Beekes W. The "millionaire" method for encouraging participation. Active Learning Higher Educ. 2006;7:25-36.
2. Carnevale D. Run a class like a game show: "Clickers" keep students involved. Chronicle High Educ. 2005;51:B3.
3. MacGeorge EL, Homan SR, Dunning JB Jr, et al. Student evaluation of audience response technology in large lecture classes. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2008;56:125-145.
4. Pradhan A, Sparano D, Ananth CV. The influence of an audience response system on knowledge retention: An application to resident education. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:1827.
5. Rubio EI, Bassignani MJ, White MA, Brant WE. Effect of an audience response system on resident learning and retention of lecture material. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190: W319-W322.
6. Miller RG, Ashar BH, Getz KJ. Evaluation of an audience response system for the continuing education of health professionals. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2003;23:109-115.
7. Kenwright K. Clickers in the classroom. TechTrends. 2009;53:74-77.
8. Robertson LJ. Twelve tips for using a computerized interactive audience response system. Med Teach. 2000;22:237-239.
9. Simpson V, Oliver M. Electronic voting systems for lectures then and now: A comparison of research and practice. Australas J Educ Technol. 2007;23:187-208.
10. Stoddard HA, Piquette CA. The impact of using an audience response system in medical school lectures: A preliminary study on student evaluations of faculty. Paper presented at: AAMC Central Group on Education Affairs Annual Meeting; Columbus, OH: April 8, 2008.
11. Caldwell JE. Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2007;6:9-20.
12. Kaleta R, Joosten T. Student Response Systems: A University of Wisconsin System Study of Clickers. Available at: http://net. educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ ERB0710.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2010.
13. Kay RH, LeSage A. Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Comput Educ. 2009;53:819-827.
14. Stowell JR, Nelson JM. Benefits of electronic audience response systems on student participation, learning, and emotion. Teach Psychol. 2007;34:253-258.
15. Alexander CJ, Crescini WM, Juskewitch JE, Lachman N, Pawlina W. Assessing the integration of audience response system technology in teaching of anatomical sciences. Anat Sci Educ. 2009;2: 160-166.
16. Gauci SA, Dantas AM, Williams DA, Kemm RE. Promoting student-centered active learning in lectures with a personal response system. Adv Physiol Educ. 2009;33:60-71.
17. Plant JD. Incorporating an audience response system into veterinary dermatology lectures: Effect on student knowledge retention and satisfaction. J Vet Med Educ. 2007;34:674-677.
18. Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, Mass: Houghton Mifflin; 2002.
19. Beatty ID, Gerace WJ, Leonard WJ, Dufresne RJ. Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching. Am J Phys. 2006;74:31-39.
20. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Rev. 1992; 112:155-159.