A novel web-based audience response system for higher education. a pilot study to evaluate user acceptance;OnlineTED.de - ein webbasiertes Abstimmungssystem für die Lehre. Eine Pilotstudie zur Nutzerakzeptanzmessung

GMS Zeitschrift fur Medizinische Ausbildung

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Kühbeck, Felizian ^a   Engelhardt, Stefan ^a   Sarikas, Antonio ^a  

^a TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

Audience response system; Interactive teaching

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER LANGUAGE; EVALUATION STUDY; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; HYPERMEDIA; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL STUDENT; MICROCOMPUTER; MOBILE PHONE; ONLINE SYSTEM; PILOT STUDY; PSYCHOLOGY; TEACHING;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CELL PHONES; COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION; COMPUTERS, HANDHELD; EDUCATION, MEDICAL, UNDERGRADUATE; FEEDBACK; HUMANS; HYPERMEDIA; ONLINE SYSTEMS; PILOT PROJECTS; PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES; STUDENTS, MEDICAL;

EID: 84894371084     PISSN: None     EISSN: 18603572     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3205/zma000897     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Biggs J, Tang C. Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead (Berkshire): Open University Press; 2011.
2. Kay RH, LeSage A. A strategic assessment of audience response systems used in higher education. Aus J Educ Technol. 2009;25(2):235-249.
3. Barber M, Njus D. Clicker evolution: seeking intelligent design. Cell Biol Educ. 2007;6(1):1-8. DOI: 10.1187/cbe.06-12-0206
4. Cate Ten O, Durning S. Peer teaching in medical education: twelve reasons to move from theory to practice. Med Teach. 2007;29(6):591-599. DOI: 10.1080/01421590701606799
5. Caldwell JE. Clickers in the Large Classroom: Current Research and Best-Practice Tips. Cell Biol Educ. 2007;6(1):9-20. DOI:10.1187/cbe.06-12-0205
6. Schüring M. Mobile cloud computing-open issues and solutions. Enschede: University of Twente; 2011. Zugänglich unter/available from: http://referaat.cs.utwente.nl/conference/15/paper/7247/mobile-cloud-computing-open-issues-and-solutions.pdf
7. Callegati F, Cerroni W, Ramilli M. Man-in-the-Middle Attack to the HTTPS Protocol. IEEE Security & Privacy. 2009.
8. Boscardin C, Penuel W. Exploring benefits of audience-response systems on learning: a review of the literature. Acad Psych. 2012;36(5):401-407. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ap.10080110
9. Nelson C, Hartling L, Campbell S, Oswald AE. The effects of audience response systems on learning outcomes in health professions education. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 21. Med Teach. 2012;34(6):e386-405. DOI:10.3109/0142159X.2012.680938
10. Smith MK, Wood WB, Adams WK, Wieman C, Knight JK, Guild N, et al. Why peer discussion improves student performance on inclass concept questions. Science. 2009;323(5910):122-124. DOI: 10.1126/science.1165919
11. 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(4):160-166. DOI: 10.1002/ase.99
12. Robinson T, Cronin T, Ibrahim H, Jinks M, Molitor T, Newman J, Shapiro J. Smartphone use and acceptability among clinical medical students: a questionnaire-based study. J Med Syst. 2013;37(3):9936. DOI: 10.1007/s10916-013-9936-5
13. Payne KFB, Wharrad H, Watts K. Smartphone and medical related App use among medical students and junior doctors in the United Kingdom (UK): a regional survey. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012;12:121. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6947-12-121