Exploring benefits of audience-response systems on learning: A review of the literature

Academic Psychiatry

Volumn 36, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 401-407

  Boscardin, Christy ^a   Penuel, William ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION; EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY; HUMAN; MEDICAL EDUCATION; METHODOLOGY; REVIEW;

EDUCATION; EDUCATION, MEDICAL; EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY; HUMANS;

EID: 84866638532     PISSN: 10429670     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1176/appi.ap.10080110     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Abrahamson LA: A brief history of networked classrooms: effects, cases, pedagogy, and implications, in Audience Response Systems in Higher Education: Applications and Cases. Edited by Banks DA. Hershey, PA, Information Science Publishing, 2006
2. Picciano A, Winter R, Ballan D, et al: Resident acquisition of knowledge during a noontime conference series. Fam Med 2003;35:418-422
3. Davis D, O'Brien MA, Freemantle N, et al: Impact of formal continuing medical education: do conferences, workshops, rounds, and other traditional continuing education activities change physician behavior or healthcare outcomes? JAMA 1999;282:867-874
4. Kay RH, Le Sage A: Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: a review of the literature. Comput Educ 2009;53:819-827
5. Fies C, Marshall J: Classroom response systems: A review of the literature. J Sci Educ Technol 2006;1:101-109
6. Caldwell JE: Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips. CBE Life Sci Educ 2007;6:9-20
7. 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;193:1827-1830
8. Schackow TE, Chavez M, Loya L, et al: Audience response system: effect on learning in family medicine residents. Fam Med 2004;36:496-504
9. 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
10. Crouch CH, Mazur E: Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results. Am J Phys 2001;69:970-977
11. Gardner R III, et al: Effects of response cards on student participation and academic achievement: a systematic replication with inner-city students during whole-class science instruction. J Appl Behav Anal Spring 1994;27:63-71
12. Pratton JH: LW. The effects of active student participation on student learning. JER 1986;4:201-215
13. Foley RP, Smilansky J: Teaching techniques: a handbook for health professionals. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1980
14. Bligh D: What's the Use of Lectures? San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass, 2000
15. Butler JA: Use of teaching methods within the lecture format. Med Teach 1992;14:11-25
16. Uhari M, Renko M, Soini H: Experiences of using an interactive audience response system in lectures. BMC Med Educ 2003;3:12
17. Gail M, Rhody T: Review of research on questioning techniques, in Questions, Questioning Techniques, and Effective Teaching. Edited by Wilen W. Washington, DC, National Education Association, 1987, pp 22-44
18. Crooks TJ: The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Rev Educ Res 1988;58:438-481
19. Mazur E, Somers AMD: Reviewer, Peer Instruction: A User's Manual. Am J Phys 1999;67:359-360
20. Pileggi R, O'Neill PN: Team-based learning using an audience response system: an innovative method of teaching diagnosis to undergraduate dental students. J Dent Educ 2008;72:1182-1188
21. Jacobs DG, Sarafin JL, Huynh T, Miles WS, Sing RF, Thomason MH. Audience response system technology improves accuracy and reliability of trauma outcome judgments. J Trauma 2006;61:135; 41, Discussion 141-143
22. Hake RR: Interactive engagement versus traditional methods: a 6, 000-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am J Phys 1998;66:64-74
23. Black P, Wiliam D: Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles Policy Pract 1998;5:7-74
24. Feldman A, Capobianco BM: Teacher learning of technologyenhanced formative assessment. J Sci Educ Technol 2008;17:82-99
25. Burnstein RA, Lederman LM: Using wireless keypads in lecture classes. Phys Teach 2001;39:8-11
26. Rubio EI, Bassignani MJ, White MA, et al: Effect of an audience response system on resident learning and retention of lecture material. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;190:W319-22
27. Stein PS, Challman SD, Brueckner JK: Using audience response technology for pretest reviews in an undergraduate nursing course. J Nurs Educ 2006;45:469-473
28. Gauci SA, Dantas AM, Williams DA, et al: Promoting studentcentered active learning in lectures with a personal response system. Adv Physiol Educ 2009;33:60-71
29. Palmer EJ, Devitt PG, De Young NJ, et al: Assessment of an electronic voting system within the tutorial setting: a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN54535861]. (ISRCTN54535861) BMC Med Educ 2005;5:24
30. Duggan PM, Palmer E, Devitt P: Electronic voting to encourage interactive lectures: a randomised trial. BMC Med Educ 2007;7:25
31. Barbour ME: Electronic voting in dental materials education: the impact on students' attitudes and exam performance. J Dent Educ 2008;72:1042-1047
32. Beatty ID, Gerace WJ, Leonard WJ, et al: Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching. Am J Phys 2006;74:31-39
33. Elashvili A, Denehy GE, Dawson DV, et al: Evaluation of an audience response system in a preclinical operative dentistry course. J Dent Educ 2008;72:1296-1303
34. Barnes LJ: Lecture-free high school biology using an audience response system. Am Biol Teach 2008;70:531-536
35. Holmes RG, Blalock JS, Parker MH, et al: Student accuracy and evaluation of a computer-based audience response system. J Dent Educ 2006;70:1355-1361
36. Johnson JT: Creating learner-centered classrooms: use of an audience response system in pediatric dentistry education. J Dent Educ 2005;69:378-381
37. Roberts G: Instructional technology that's hip high-tech.computers in small libraries. Comput Libr 2005;25:26-28
38. Latessa R, Mouw D: Use of an audience response system to augment interactive learning. Fam Med 2005;37:12-14
39. Homme J, Asay G, Morgenstern B: Utilisation of an audience response system. Med Educ 2004;38:575
40. Vincent DS, Berg BW, Chitpatima S, Hudson D. International distance education and the transition from ISDN to highbandwidth internet connectivity. J Telemed Telecare. 2002;8(Suppl 3):71-73
41. Streeter JL, Rybicki FJ: A novel standard-compliant audience response system for medical education. Radiographics 2006;26:1243-1249
42. Premkumar K, Coupal C: Rules of engagement: 12 tips for successful use of "clickers" in the classroom. Med Teach 2008;30:146-149
43. Robertson LJ: Twelve tips for using a computerized interactive audience response system. Med Teach 2000;22:237-239
44. Moredich C, Moore E: Engaging students through the use of classroom response systems. Nurse Educ 2007;32:113-116
45. McFarlin BK: Hybrid lecture-online format increases student grades in an undergraduate exercise physiology course at a large urban university. Adv Physiol Educ 2008;32:86-91
46. Stowell JR, Nelson JM: Benefits of electronic audience response systems on student participation, learning, and emotion. Teach Psychol 2007;34:253-258
47. Eggert CH, West CP, Thomas KG: Impact of an audience response system. Med Educ 2004;38:576
48. Graham CR, Tripp TR, Seawright L, et al: Empowering or compelling reluctant participators using audience response systems. Active Learn High Educ 2007;8:233-258
49. Addison S, Wright A, Milner R: Using clickers to improve student engagement and performance in an introductory biochemistry class. Biochem Mol Biol Educ 2009;37:84-91
50. Cain J, Black EP, Rohr J: An audience response system strategy to improve student motivation, attention, and feedback. Am J Pharm Educ 2009;73:21
51. 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
52. Preszler RW, Dawe A, Shuster CB, et al: Assessment of the effects of student response systems on student learning and attitudes over a broad range of biology courses. CBE Life Sci Educ 2007;6:29-41
53. Crossgrove K, Curran KL: Using clickers in nonmajors-and majors-level biology courses: student opinion, learning, and long-term retention of course material. CBE Life Sci Educ 2008;7:146-154
54. Alexander CJ, Crescini WM, Juskewitch JE, et al: Assessing the integration of audience response system technology in teaching of anatomical sciences. Anat Sci Educ 2009;2:160-166
55. Berry J: Technology support in nursing education: clickers in the classroom. Nurs Educ Perspect 2009;30:295-298
56. Doucet M, Vrins A, Harvey D: Effect of using an audience response system on learning environment, motivation, and long-term retention during case-discussions in a large group of undergraduate veterinary clinical pharmacology students. Med Teach 2009;31:e570-e579
57. Nayak L, Erinjeri JP: Audience response systems in medical student education benefit learners and presenters. Acad Radiol 2008;15:383-389
58. Paschal CB: Formative assessment in physiology teaching using a wireless classroom communication system. Adv Physiol Educ 2002;26:299-308
59. Kaneshiro KN, Emmett TW, London SK, et al: Use of an audience response system in an evidence-based mini-curriculum. Med Ref Serv Q 2008;27:284-301