Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring Benefits of Audience-Response Systems on Learning: A Review of the Literature

  • Educational Resource Column
  • Published:
Academic Psychiatry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fies C, Marshall J: Classroom response systems: A review of the literature. J Sci Educ Technol 2006; 1:101–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Caldwell JE: Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips. CBE Life Sci Educ 2007; 6:9–20

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Crouch CH, Mazur E: Peer instruction: ten years of experience and results. Am J Phys 2001; 69:970–977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Pratton JH: LW. The effects of active student participation on student learning. JER 1986; 4:201–215

    Google Scholar 

  13. Foley RP, Smilansky J: Teaching techniques: a handbook for health professionals. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1980

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bligh D: What’s the Use of Lectures? San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  15. Butler JA: Use of teaching methods within the lecture format. Med Teach 1992; 14:11–25

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Uhari M, Renko M, Soini H: Experiences of using an interactive audience response system in lectures. BMC Med Educ 2003; 3:12

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mazur E, Somers AMD: Reviewer, Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual. Am J Phys 1999; 67:359–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Black P, Wiliam D: Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles Policy Pract 1998; 5: 7–74

    Google Scholar 

  24. Feldman A, Capobianco BM: Teacher learning of technology-enhanced formative assessment. J Sci Educ Technol 2008; 17: 82–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Burnstein RA, Lederman LM: Using wireless keypads in lecture classes. Phys Teach 2001; 39:8–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gauci SA, Dantas AM, Williams DA,etal: Promoting student-centered active learning in lectures with a personal response system. Adv Physiol Educ 2009; 33:60–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Duggan PM, Palmer E, Devitt P: Electronic voting to encourage interactive lectures: a randomised trial. BMC Med Educ 2007; 7:25

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Barbour ME: Electronic voting in dental materials education: the impact on students’ attitudes and exam performance. J Dent Educ 2008; 72:1042–1047

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Beatty ID, Gerace WJ, Leonard WJ, et al: Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching. Am J Phys 2006; 74:31–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Barnes LJ: Lecture-free high school biology using an audience response system. Am Biol Teach 2008; 70:531–536

    Google Scholar 

  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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Johnson JT: Creating learner-centered classrooms: use of an audience response system in pediatric dentistry education. J Dent Educ 2005; 69:378–381

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Roberts G: Instructional technology that’s hip high-tech. computers in small libraries. Comput Libr 2005; 25:26–28

    Google Scholar 

  38. Latessa R, Mouw D: Use of an audience response system to augment interactive learning. Fam Med 2005; 37:12–14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Homme J, Asay G, Morgenstern B: Utilisation of an audience response system. Med Educ 2004; 38:575

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Vincent DS, Berg BW, Chitpatima S, Hudson D. International distance education and the transition from ISDN to high-bandwidth internet connectivity. J Telemed Telecare. 2002; 8(Suppl 3):71–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Streeter JL, Rybicki FJ: A novel standard-compliant audience response system for medical education. Radiographics 2006; 26:1243–1249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Premkumar K, Coupal C: Rules of engagement: 12 tips for successful use of “clickers” in the classroom. Med Teach 2008; 30:146–149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Robertson LJ: Twelve tips forusing a computerized interactive audience response system. Med Teach 2000; 22:237–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Moredich C, Moore E: Engaging students through the use of classroom response systems. Nurse Educ 2007; 32:113–116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Stowell JR, Nelson JM: Benefits of electronic audience response systems on student participation, learning, and emotion. Teach Psychol 2007; 34:253–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Eggert CH, West CP, Thomas KG: Impact of an audience response system. Med Educ 2004; 38:576

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Berry J: Technology support in nursing education: clickers in the classroom. Nurs Educ Perspect 2009; 30:295–298

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Nayak L, Erinjeri JP: Audience response systems in medical student education benefit learners and presenters. Acad Radiol 2008; 15:383–389

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Paschal CB: Formative assessment in physiology teaching using a wireless classroom communication system. Adv Physiol Educ 2002; 26:299–308

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Medicine, Univ. of California, San Francisco

    Christy Boscardin Ph.D. & William Penuel Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Christy Boscardin Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. William Penuel Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christy Boscardin Ph.D..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boscardin, C., Penuel, W. Exploring Benefits of Audience-Response Systems on Learning: A Review of the Literature. Acad Psychiatry 36, 401–407 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ap.10080110

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ap.10080110

Keywords

Search

Navigation