Re-Examining the Effect of Audience Response Systems on Learning Outcomes: Evidence from the Last Decade

References

• *Agbatogun, A. O. (2014). Developing learners’ second language communicative competence through active learning: Clickers or communicative approach? Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(2), 257–269.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Anderson, S., Goss, A., Inglis, M., Kaplan, A., Samarbakhsh, L., & Toffanin, M. (2018). Do clickers work for students with poorer grades and in harder courses? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 42(6), 797–807. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2017.1323188
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Andzik, N. R., Gist, C. M., Smith, E. E., Xu, M., & Neef, N. A. (2019). The effects of gaming on university student quiz performance. Journal of Effective Teaching in Higher Education, 2(1), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.36021/jethe.v2i1.11
   Google Scholar
• *Aras, G. N., & Çiftçi, B. (2021). Comparison of the effect of reinforcement with question-answer and kahoot method on the success and motivation levels of nursing students: A quasi-experimental review. Nurse Education Today, 102, 104930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2021.104930
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Asmalı, M. (2018). Integrating technology into ESP classes: Use of student response system in English for specific purposes instruction. Teaching English with Technology, 18(3), 86–104.
   Google Scholar
• *Barrio, C. M., Muñoz-Organero, M., & Soriano, J. S. (2015). Can gamification improve the benefits of student response systems in learning? An experimental study. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing, 4(3), 429–438. https://doi.org/10.1109/TETC.2015.2497459
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Bartsch, R. A., & Murphy, W. (2011). Examining the effects of an electronic classroom response system on student engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(1), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.44.1.b
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Bojinova, E., & Oigara, J. (2011). Teaching and learning with clickers: Are clickers good for students? Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 7(1), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.28945/1506
   Google Scholar
• *Bolat, Y. İ., Şimşek, Ö., & Ülker, Ü. (2017). Oyunlaştırılmış çevrimiçi sınıf yanıtlama sisteminin akademik başarıya etkisi ve sisteme yönelik görüşler. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(4), 1741–1761. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2017.17.32772-363964
   Google Scholar
• *Can, Y., Bardakci, S., & Sarikaya, E. E. (2023). The effect of using student response system on achievement and achievement emotions in an English course. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 28(1), 79–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09578-3
   Google Scholar
• *Cárdenas-Moncada, C., Véliz-Campos, M., & Véliz, L. (2020). Game-based student response systems: The impact of Kahoot in a Chilean vocational higher education EFL classroom. Computer-Assisted Language Learning Electronic Journal (CALL-EJ), 21(1), 64–78.
   Google Scholar
• *Chan, E. K., & Knight, L. A, (2011). Clicking" with your Audience: Evaluating the Use of Personal Response Systems in Library Instruction. Comminfolit, 4(2), 192–201. https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2011.4.2.96
   Google Scholar
• *Christopherson, K. M. (2011). Hardware or wetware: What are the possible interactions of pedagogy and technology in the classroom?. Teaching of Psychology, 38(4), 288–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628311421332
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Chui, L., Martin, K., & Pike, B. (2013). A quasi-experimental assessment of interactive student response systems on student confidence, effort, and course performance. Journal of Accounting Education, 31(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccedu.2013.01.002
   Google Scholar
• *Cin Seker, Z. (2020). The effect of web 2.0 educational tools on the success of secondary school 5th grade students in affix-root teaching. Online Submission, 5(1), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3758588
   Google Scholar
• *Crandall, P. G., Clark, J. A., Shoulders, C. W., & Johnson, D. M. (2019). Do embedded assessments in a dual-level food chemistry course offer measurable learning advantages? Journal of Food Science Education, 18(3), 67–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4329.12159
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Dabbour, E. (2016). Quantifying the effects of using online student response systems in an engineering ethics course. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 142(2), 04015010. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)ei.1943-5541.0000260
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Dizon, G., & Tang, D. (2017). Comparing the Efficacy of Digital Flashcards versus Paper Flashcards to Improve Receptive and Productive L2 Vocabulary. The EuroCALL Review, 25(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.4995/eurocall.2017.6964
   Google Scholar
• *Edwards, B. I., Aris, B., Shukor, N. A., & Mohammed, H. (2015). Using response system through voting in peer instruction for learning sustainability. Jurnal Teknologi, 77(13), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v77.6371
   Google Scholar
• *Elkhamisy, F. A. A., & Wassef, R. M. (2021). Innovating pathology learning via Kahoot! game-based tool: A quantitative study of students perceptions and academic performance. Alexandria Journal of Medicine, 57(1), 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/20905068.2021.1954413
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Eltahir, M., Alsalhi, N. R., Al-Qatawneh, S., AlQudah, H. A., & Jaradat, M. (2021). The impact of game-based learning (GBL) on students’ motivation, engagement and academic performance on an Arabic language grammar course in higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 26(3), 3251–3278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10396-w
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Özer, E., Koçoğlu, Y., & Zeynep, Z. (2017). The use of Quizlet flashcard software and its effects on vocabulary learning. Dil Dergisi, 0(168), 61–82. https://doi.org/10.1501/Dilder_0000000238
   Google Scholar
• *Fergusson, S. J., Aka, J. J., Hennessy, C. M., Wilson, A. J., Parson, S. H., Harrison, E. M., Finn, G. M., & Gillingwater, T. H. (2018). Examining the impact of audience response systems on student performance in anatomy education: A randomized controlled trial. Scottish Medical Journal, 63(1), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0036933017741409
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Fortner-Wood, C., Armistead, L., Marchand, A., & Morris, F. B. (2013). The effects of student response systems on student learning and attitudes in undergraduate psychology courses. Teaching of Psychology, 40(1), 26–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628312465860
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Galal, S. M., Mayberry, J. K., Chan, E., Hargis, J., & Halilovic, J. (2015). Technology vs. pedagogy: Instructional effectiveness and student perceptions of a student response system. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 7(5), 590–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2015.06.004
   Google Scholar
• *Ge, Z. G. (2022). Investigating the effect of real-time multi-peer feedback with the use of a web-based polling software on e-learners’ learning performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(1), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1643743
   Google Scholar
• *Gebru, M. T., Phelps, A. J., & Wulfsberg, G. (2012). Effect of clickers versus online homework on students’ long-term retention of general chemistry course material. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(3), 325–329. https://doi.org/10.1039/C2RP20033C
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *González, A. (2018). Turning a traditional teaching setting into a feedback-rich environment. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0114-1
   Google Scholar
• *Green, A. (2016). Significant returns in engagement and performance with a free teaching app. The Journal of Economic Education, 47(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.2015.1106359
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Guarascio, A. J., Nemecek, B. D., & Zimmerman, D. E. (2017). Evaluation of students’ perceptions of the Socrative application versus a traditional student response system and its impact on classroom engagement. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching & Learning, 9(5), 808–812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2017.05.011
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• *Hung, H. T. (2017). Clickers in the flipped classroom: Bring your own device (BYOD) to promote student learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(8), 983–995. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2016.1240090
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Ivanov, I. D. (2021). The Use of interactive student response software in an introductory international relations course. Journal of Political Science Education, 17(sup1), 421–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2019.1694533
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Iwamoto, D. H., Hargis, J., Taitano, E. J., & Vuong, K. (2017). Analyzing the efficacy of the testing effect using KahootTM on student performance. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18(2), 80–80. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.306561
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Jones, S. J., Crandall, J., Vogler, J. S., & Robinson, D. H. (2013). Classroom response systems facilitate student accountability, readiness, and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49(2), 155–171. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.49.2.b
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Kang, H., Lundeberg, M., Wolter, B., delMas, R., & Herreid, C. F. (2012). Gender differences in student performance in large lecture classrooms using personal response systems (‘clickers’) with narrative case studies. Learning, Media and Technology, 37(1), 53–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2011.556123
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Kapsalis, G. D., Galani, A., & Tzafea, O. (2020). Kahoot! as a formative assessment tool in foreign language learning: A case study in Greek as an I2. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 10(11), 1343–1350. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1011.01
   Google Scholar
• *Keough, S. M. (2012). Clickers in the classroom: A review and a replication. Journal of Management Education, 36(6), 822–847. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562912454808
   Google Scholar
• *Khalilian, B., Hosseini, H., & Ghabanchi, Z. (2021). On the effect of employing the online Kahoot game-based app on Iranian EFL learners’ structural ability and their motivation. Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 11(2), 42–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Kim, H. S. (2019). The use of Socrative and Kahoot! English grammar. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 22(4), 57–78. https://doi.org/10.15702/mall.2019.22.4.57
   Google Scholar
• *Lee, C. C., Hao, Y., Lee, K. S., Sim, S. C., & Huang, C. C. (2019). Investigation of the effects of an online instant response system on students in a middle school of a rural area. Computers in Human Behavior, 95, 217–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Liu, C., Sands-Meyer, S., & Audran, J. (2019). The effectiveness of the student response system (SRS) in English grammar learning in a flipped English as a foreign language (EFL) class. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(8), 1178–1191. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1528283
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Liu, F. C., Gettig, J. P., & Fjortoft, N. (2010). Impact of a student response system on short-and long-term learning in a drug literature evaluation course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 74(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.5688/aj740106
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Lundeberg, M. A., Kang, H., Wolter, B., delMas, R., Armstrong, N., Borsari, B., Boury, N., Brickman, P., Hannam, K., Heinz, C., Horvath, T., Knabb, M., Platt, T., Rice, N., Rogers, B., Sharp, J., Ribbens, E., Maier, K. S., Deschryver, M., … Herreid, C. F. (2011). Context matters: Increasing understanding with interactive clicker case studies. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(5), 645–671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-010-9182-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Marsa, S. S., Kuspiyah, H. R., & Agustina, E. (2021). The Effect of Kahoot! Game to Teaching Reading Comprehension Achievement. JET (Journal of English Teaching), 7(2), 133–149. https://doi.org/10.33541/jet.v7i2.2738
   Google Scholar
• *Marshall, L. L., & Varnon, A. W. (2012). An empirical investigation of clicker technology in financial accounting principles. Journal of Learning in Higher Education, 8(1), 7–17.
   Google Scholar
• *Mays, B. R., Yeh, H. C., & Chen, N. S. (2020). The effects of using audience response systems incorporating student-generated questions on EFL students’ reading comprehension. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(6), 553–566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-020-00506-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Molin, F., Haelermans, C., Cabus, S., & Groot, W. (2021). Do feedback strategies improve students’ learning gain?-Results of a randomized experiment using polling technology in physics classrooms. Computers & Education, 175, 104339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104339
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Muir, S., Tirlea, L., Elphinstone, B., & Huynh, M. (2020). Promoting classroom engagement through the use of an online student response system: A mixed methods analysis. Journal of Statistics Education, 28(1), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2020.1730733
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Patterson, B., Kilpatrick, J., & Woebkenberg, E. (2010). Evidence for teaching practice: The impact of clickers in a large classroom environment. Nurse Education Today, 30(7), 603–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2009.12.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Powell, S., Straub, C., Rodriguez, J., & VanHorn, B. (2011). Using clickers in large college psychology classes: Academic achievement and perceptions. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(4), 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• *Priego-Quesada, J. I., Jimenez-Perez, I., Cibrián Ortiz de Anda, R. M., González-Peña, R., & Salvador Palmer, R. (2019). Effect of in-class group clicker-quiz competition on student final exam performance. Advances in Physiology Education, 43(3), 430–434. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00032.2019
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Quiroz, M. F., Gutiérrez, R., Rocha, F., Valenzuela, M. P., & Vilches, C. (2021). Improving English vocabulary learning through Kahoot!: A quasi-experimental high school experience. Teaching English with Technology, 21(2), 3–13.
   Google Scholar
• *Radulovic, B. (2021). Educational efficiency and students’ involvement of teaching approach based on game-based student response system. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 20(3), 495–506. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.495
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Remón, J., Sebastián, V., Romero, E., & Arauzo, J. (2017). Effect of using smartphones as clickers and tablets as digital whiteboards on students’ engagement and learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 18(2), 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417707618
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Sánchez-Mora, J., Tamayo, R. M., & Corredor-Aristizábal, J. (2022). Affordances of audience response systems: Effects of instant and regular feedback. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 27(4), 1063–1080. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09528-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Sénécal, A. M., Mezzaluna, V., & Cardoso, W. (2018). Make words click! Learning English vocabulary with clickers. In P. Taalas, J. Jalkanen, L. Bradley & S. Thouësny (Eds.), Future-proof CALL: Language learning as exploration and encounters – short papers from EUROCALL 2018 (pp. 290–295). Research-Publishing.net. https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2018.26.852
   Google Scholar
• *Sercanoğlu, M., Bolat, Y. İ., & Göksu, İ. (2021). Kahoot! as a gamification tool in vocational education: More positive attitude, motivation and less anxiety in EFL. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 9(18), 682–701. https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.924882
   Google Scholar
• *Shykhnenko, K. I. (2021). Clicker systems as a smart technology-based tool for teaching English to master’s students majoring in public administration. Information Technologies and Learning Tools, 81(1), 297–309. https://doi.org/10.33407/itlt.v81i1.3776
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Shyr, W. J., Hsieh, Y. M., & Chen, C. H. (2021). The effects of peer-based instant response system to promote learning performance, intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy. Sustainability, 13(8), 4320. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084320
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Solhi Andarab, M. (2019). Learning vocabulary through collocating on Quizlet. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7(4), 980–985. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2019.070409
   Google Scholar
• *Sutherlin, A. L., Sutherlin, G. R., & Akpanudo, U. M. (2013). The effect of clickers in university science courses. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(5), 651–666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9420-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Tlhoaele, M., Hofman, A., Naidoo, A., & Winnips, K. (2014). Using clickers to facilitate interactive engagement activities in a lecture room for improved performance by students. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51(5), 497–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.796725
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Tregonning, A. M., Doherty, D. A., Hornbuckle, J., & Dickinson, J. E. (2012). The audience response system and knowledge gain: A prospective study. Medical Teacher, 34(4), e269–e274. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.660218
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Turan, Z., & Meral, E. (2018). Game-based versus to non-game-based: The impact of student response systems on students’ achievements, engagements and test anxieties. Informatics in Education, 17(1), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2018.07
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Wichadee, S., & Pattanapichet, F. (2018). Enhancement of performance and motivation through application of digital games in an English language class. Teaching English with Technology, 18(1), 77–92.
   Google Scholar
• *Yarahmadzehi, N., & Goodarzi, M. (2020). Investigating the role of formative mobile based assessment in vocabulary learning of pre-intermediate EFL learners in comparison with paper-based assessment. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 21(1), 181–196. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.690390
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Yürük, N. (2020). Using Kahoot as a skill improvement technique in pronunciation. Dil ve Dilbilimi Çalışmaları Dergisi, 16(1), 137–153. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.712669
   Google Scholar
• *Zayac, R. M., Ratkos, T., Frieder, J. E., & Paulk, A. (2016). A comparison of active student responding modalities in a general psychology course. Teaching of Psychology, 43(1), 43–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628315620879
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adesope, O. O., & Nesbit, J. C. (2013). Learning with animated and static concept maps. Learning and Instruction, 27, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.02.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altwijri, O., Alsadoon, E., Shahba, A. A. W., Soufan, W., & Alkathiri, S. (2022). The effect of using “Student Response Systems (SRS)” on faculty performance and student interaction in the classroom. Sustainability, 14(22), 14957. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142214957
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andre, T. (1979). Does answering higher-level questions while reading facilitate productive learning? Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 280–318. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543049002280
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andre, T., & Thieman, A. (1988). Level of the adjunct question, type of feedback, and learning concepts by reading. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13(3), 296–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(88)90028-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beatty, I. D., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., & Dufresne, R. J. (2006). Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching. American Journal of Physics, 74(1), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2121753
   Google Scholar
• Bessler, W. C., & Nisbet, J. J. (1971). The use of an electronic response system in teaching biology. Science Education, 55(3), 275–284. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730550305
   Google Scholar
• Bittner, J. V., & Shipper, J. (2014). Motivational effects and age differences of gamification in product advertising. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 31(5), 391–400. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-04-2014-0945
   Google Scholar
• Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Rothstein, H. (2007). Meta-analysis: Fixed effect vs. random effects. Meta-analysis.com. Retrieved March 10, 2022, from https://www.meta-analysis.com/downloads/Meta-analysis%20fixed%20effect%20vs%20random%20effects%20072607.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Brady, M., Seli, H., & Rosenthal, J. (2013). “Clickers” and metacognition: A quasi-experimental comparative study about metacognitive self-regulation and use of electronic feedback devices. Computers & Education, 65, 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butler, J. A. (1992). Use of teaching methods within the lecture format. Medical Teacher, 14(1), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.3109/01421599209044010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cain, J., Black, E. P., & Rohr, J. (2009). An audience response system strategy to improve student motivation, attention, and feedback. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 73(2), 21. https://doi.org/10.5688/aj730221
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06-12-0205
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Casanova, J. (1971). An instructional experiment in organic chemistry. The use of a student response system. Journal of Chemical Education, 48(7), 453. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed048p453
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castillo-Manzano, J. I., Castro-Nuño, M., López-Valpuesta, L., Sanz-Díaz, M. T., & Yñiguez, R. (2016). Measuring the effect of ARS on academic performance: A global meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 96, 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, P. D., Gonyea, R., & Kuh, G. (2008). Learning at a distance: Engaged or not. Journal of Online Education, 4(3). https://nsuworks.nova.edu/innovate/vol4/iss3/3
   Google Scholar
• Coca, D., & Slisko, J. (2013). Software Socrative and smartphone as tools for implementation of basic processes of active learning in classroom: An initial feasibility study with prospective teachers. European Journal of Physics Education, 4(2), 17–24.
   Google Scholar
• Cohn, S. T., & Fraser, B. (2016). Effectiveness of student response systems in terms of learning environment, attitudes and achievement. Learning Environments Research, 19(2), 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-015-9195-0
   Google Scholar
• De Gagne, J. C. (2011). The impact of clickers in nursing education: A review of literature. Nurse Education Today, 31(8), e34–e40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2010.12.007
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Deeks, J. J., Higgins, J. P., & Altman, D. G. (2019). Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 241–284. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604.ch10
   Google Scholar
• Draper, S. W., & Brown, M. I. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(2), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00074.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan, D. (2005). Clickers in the classroom: How to enhance science teaching using classroom response systems. Addison Wesley and Benjamin Cummings.
   Google Scholar
• Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000a). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method. Biometrics, 56(2), 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000b). A nonparametric “trim and fill” method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95(449), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2000.10473905
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Field, A. P., & Gillett, R. (2010). How to do a meta-analysis. The British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63(Pt 3), 665–694. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711010X502733
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fies, C., & Marshall, J. (2006). Classroom response systems: A review of the literature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-0360-1
   Google Scholar
• Filer, D. (2010). Everyone’s answering: Using technology to increase classroom participation. Nursing Education Perspectives, 31(4), 247–250.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• FitzPatrick, K. A., Finn, K. E., & Campisi, J. (2011). Effect of personal response systems on student perception and academic performance in courses in a health sciences curriculum. Advances in Physiology Education, 35(3), 280–289. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00036.2011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gagné, R. M., & Driscoll, M. P. (1988). Essentials of learning for instruction. Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Gauci, S. A., Dantas, A. M., Williams, D. A., & Kemm, R. E. (2009). Promoting student-centered active learning in lectures with a personal response system. Advances in Physiology Education, 33(1), 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00109.2007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Göksün, D. O., & Gürsoy, G. (2019). Comparing success and engagement in gamified learning experiences via Kahoot and Quizizz. Computers & Education, 135, 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, C. R., Tripp, T. R., Seawright, L., & Joeckel, G. (2007). Empowering or compelling reluctant participators using audience response systems. Active Learning in Higher Education, 8(3), 233–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787407081885
   Google Scholar
• Hak, T., van Rhee, H. J., & Suurmond, R. (2016). How to interpret results of meta-analysis (Version 1.3). Erasmus Rotterdam Institute of Management. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3241367
   Google Scholar
• Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics text data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamaker, C. (1986). The effects of adjunct questions on prose learning. Review of Educational Research, 56(2), 212–242. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543056002212
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamilton, R. J. (1985). A framework for the evaluation of the effectiveness of adjunct questions and objectives. Review of Educational Research, 55(1), 47–85. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543055001047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han, J. H., & Finkelstein, A. (2013). Understanding the effects of professors’ pedagogical development with clicker assessment and feedback technologies and the impact on students’ engagement and learning in higher education. Computers & Education, 65, 64–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heward, W. L. (1994). Three “low-tech” strategies for increasing the frequency of active student response during group instruction. In R. Gardner, III & D. M. Sainato (Eds.), Behavior analysis in education: Focus on measurably superior instruction (pp. 283–220). Brooks/Cole.
   Google Scholar
• Higgins, J. P., & Thompson, S. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1539–1558. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186
   Google Scholar
• Hoffman, C., & Goodwin, S. (2006). A clicker for your thoughts: Technology for active learning. New Library World, 107(9/10), 422–433. https://doi.org/10.1108/03074800610702606
   Google Scholar
• Hunsu, N. J., Adesope, O., & Bayly, D. J. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of audience response systems (clicker-based technologies) on cognition and affect. Computers & Education, 94, 102–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hussain, F. N., & Wilby, K. J. (2019). A systematic review of audience response systems in pharmacy education. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching & Learning, 11(11), 1196–1204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2019.07.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, M. E., Antonenko, P. D., & Greenwood, C. M. (2012). The impact of collaborative and individualized student response system strategies on learner motivation, metacognition, and knowledge transfer. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(5), 477–487. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00470.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Judson, E., & Sawada, D. (2002). Learning from past and present: Electronic response systems in college lecture halls. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(2), 167–181.
   Google Scholar
• Kay, R. H., & LeSage, A. (2009). A strategic assessment of audience response systems used in higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2), 235–249. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1152
   Google Scholar
• Knight, J. K., & Wood, W. B. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology Education, 4(4), 298–310. https://doi.org/10.1187/05-06-0082
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Koenig, K. (2010). Building acceptance for pedagogical reform through wide-scale implementation of clickers. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39(3), 46–50.
   Google Scholar
• Laird, R. J., & Turner, C. R. (2008). Interactive web-based placement management–principles and practice using OPUS. In Proceedings of CGU-WACE 2008 Symposium.
   Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E., Stull, A., DeLeeuw, K., Almeroth, K., Bimber, B., Chun, D., Bulger, M., Campbell, J., Knight, A., & Zhang, H. (2009). Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.04.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E. (1975). Forward transfer of different reading strategies evoked by test-like events in mathematics text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(2), 165–169. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menon, A. S., Moffett, S., Enriquez, M., Martinez, M. M., Dev, P., & Grappone, T. (2004). Audience response made easy: Using personal digital assistants as a classroom polling tool. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 11(3), 217–220. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M1468
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mory, E. H. (2004). Feedback research revisited. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp.745–783). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G., & Sharples, M. (2004). Report 11: Literature review in mobile technologies and learning. NESTA Futurelab. http://www2.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/lit_reviews/Mobile_Review.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, C., Hartling, L., Campbell, S., & Oswald, A. E. (2012). The effects of audience response systems on learning outcomes in health professions education. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 21. Medical Teacher, 34(6), e386–e405. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.680938
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neumann, R. (2001). Disciplinary differences and university teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 26(2), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070120052071
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson, A. M., Dunn, P. K., McDonald, C., & Oprescu, F. (2015). Crisp: An instrument for assessing student perceptions of classroom response systems. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(4), 432–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9528-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rickards, J. P. (1979). Adjunct post questions in text: A critical review of methods processes. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 181–196. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543049002181
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rickards, J. P., & Di Vesta, F. J. (1974). Type and frequency of questions in processing textual material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(3), 354–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036349
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenthal, R. (1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 118(2), 183–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.2.183
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903541015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sagerman, N., & Mayer, R. E. (1987). Forward transfer of different reading strategies evoked by adjunct questions in science text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(2), 189–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.79.2.189
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi, L., & Lin, L. (2019). The trim-and-fill method for publication bias: Practical guidelines and recommendations based on a large database of meta-analyses. Medicine, 98(23), e15987. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000015987
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shieh, R. S., & Chang, W. (2013). Implementing the interactive response system in a high school physics context: Intervention and reflections. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(5), 748–761. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.331
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stallings, J. (1980). Allocated academic time revisited, or beyond time on task. Educational Researcher, 9(11), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X009011011
   Google Scholar
• Steinert, Y., & Snell, L. S. (1999). Interactive lecturing: Strategies for increasing participation in large group presentations. Medical Teacher, 21(1), 37–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421599980011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan, R. (2009). Principles for constructing good clicker questions: Going beyond rote learning and stimulating active engagement with course content. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 37(3), 335–347. https://doi.org/10.2190/ET.37.3.i
   Google Scholar
• Wang, A. I. (2015). The wear out effect of a game-based student response system. Computers & Education, 82, 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, A. I., & Tahir, R. (2020). The effect of using Kahoot! for learning–A literature review. Computers & Education, 149, 103818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103818
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001
   Google Scholar
• Zainuddin, Z., Shujahat, M., Haruna, H., & Chu, S. K. W. (2020). The role of gamified e-quizzes on student learning and engagement: An interactive gamification solution for a formative assessment system. Computers & Education, 145, 103729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103729
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar