The effects of audience response systems on learning outcomes in health professions education. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 21

References

• Abrahamson L. A brief history of networked classrooms: Effects, cases, pedagogy, and implications. Audience response systems in higher education: Applications and cases, DA Banks. Information Science Publishing, Hershey, PA 2006; 25
   Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banks DA, Bateman S. Audience response systemsin education: Supporting a ‘lost in the desert' learning scenario. International Conference on Computers in Education (ICCE2004, Acquiring and Constructing Knowledge Through Human-Computer Interaction Creating New Visions for the Future of Learning), Melbourne. 2004
   Google Scholar
• Barbour ME. Electronic voting in dental materials education: The impact on students’ attitudes and exam performance. J Dent Educ 2008; 72(9)1042–1047
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berkson L. Problem-based learning: Have the expectations been met?. Acad Med 1993; 68(10 Suppl.)79–88
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berry J. Technology support in nursing education: Clickers in the classroom. Nurs Educ Perspect 2009; 30(5)295–298
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cain J, Black EP, Rohr J. An audience response system strategy to improve student motivation, attention, and feedback. Am J Pharm Educ 2009; 73(2)21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cain J, Robinson E. A primer on audience response systems: Current applications and future considerations. Am J Pharm Educ 2008; 72(4)77
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caldwell JE. Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE Life Sci Educ [Electronic Resource] 2007; 6(1)9–20
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Distlehorst LH, Dawson E, Robbs RS, Barrows HS. Problem-based learning outcomes: The glass half-full. Acad Med 2005; 80(3)294–299
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(12)e570–e579
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duggan PM, Palmer E, Devitt P. Electronic voting to encourage interactive lectures: A randomised trial. BMC Med Educ 2007; 7: 25
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Elashvili A, Denehy GE, Dawson DV, Cunningham MA. Evaluation of an audience response system in a preclinical operative dentistry course. J Dent Educ 2008; 72(11)1296–1303
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fies C, Marshall J. Classroom response systems: A review of the literature. J Sci Educ Technol 2006; 15(1)101–109
   Google Scholar
• Forsetlund L, Bjorndal A, Rashidian A, Jamtvedt G, O’Brien MA, Wolf F, Davis D, Odgaard-Jensen J, Oxman AD. Continuing education meetings and workshops: Effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009, 2: CD003030
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimes C, Rogers GJ, Volker D, Ramberg E. Classroom performance system use in an accelerated graduate nursing program. Comput Inform Nurs 2010; 28(2)79–85
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halloran L. A comparison of two methods of teaching. computer managed instruction and keypad questions versus traditional classroom lecture. Comput Nurs 1995; 13(6)285–288
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hartling L, Spooner C, Tjosvold L, Oswald A. Problem-based learning in pre-clinical medical education: 22 years of outcome research. Med Teach 2010; 32(1)28–35
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, Cochrane Collaboration 2006
   Google Scholar
• Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002; 21(11)1539–1558
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327(7414)557–560
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Judson E, Sawada D. Learning from past and present: Electronic response systems in college lecture halls. J Comput Math Sci Teach 2002; 21(2)167–181
   Google Scholar
• Kay RH, LeSage A. A strategic assessment of audience response systems used in higher education. Australas J Educ Technol 2009; 25(2)235–249
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkpatrick DL, Kirkpatrick JD. Evaluating training programs: The four levels3rd. Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA 2006
   Google Scholar
• Liu FC, Gettig JP, Fjortoft N. Impact of a student response system on short- and long-term learning in a drug literature evaluation course. Am J Pharm Educ 2010; 74(1)6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lymn JS, Mostyn A (2009) Use of audience response technology to engage non-medical prescribing students in pharmacology. ICERI2009 Proceedings, MadridMadrid, 16 to 18 November, 2009, Spain, pp. 4518–4524
   Google Scholar
• MacArthur JR, Jones LL. A review of literature reports of clickers applicable to college chemistry classrooms. Chem Educ Res Pract 2008; 9(3)187–195
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(2)109–115
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Morrison A, Moulton K, Clark M, Polisena J, Fiander M, Mierzwinski-Urban M, Mensinkai S, Clifford T, Hutton B. English-language restriction when conducting systematic review-based meta-analyses: Systematic review of published studies. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa 2009
   Google Scholar
• Moser LR, Kalus JS, Brubaker C, 2010. Evaluation of an audience response system on pharmacy student test performance. Unpublished manuscript
   Google Scholar
• O’Brien TE, Wang W, Medvedev I, Wile MZ, Nosek TM. Use of a computerized audience response system in medical student teaching: Its effect on exam performance. Med Teach 2006; 28(8)736–738
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palmer, E J, and Devitt, P G. 2007. Assessment of higher order cognitive skills in undergraduate education: Modified essay or multiple choice questions? Research paper, BMC Medical Education, 2007, 7:49 [Accessed 26 April 2010] http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/7/49.
   Google Scholar
• Palmer EJ, Devitt PG, De Young NJ, Morris D. Assessment of an electronic voting system within the tutorial setting: A randomised controlled trial. BMC Med Educ 2005; 5(1)24
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Patterson B, Kilpatrick J, Woebkenberg E. Evidence for teaching practice: The impact of clickers. Nurse Educ Today, 2009; 30(7)603–607
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plant JD. Incorporating an audience response system into veterinary dermatology lectures: Effect on student knowledge retention and satisfaction. J Vet Med Educ 2007; 34(5)674–677
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poulis J, Massen C, Robens E, Gilbert M. Physics lecturing with audience paced feedback. Am J Phys 1998; 66(5)439–441
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(5)1827–1830
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roschelle J, Penuel WR, Abrahamson L. The networked classroom. Educ Leadersh 2004; 61(5)50–54
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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(6)W319–W322
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schackow TE, Chavez M, Loya L, Friedman M. Audience response system: Effect on learning in family medicine residents. Fam Med 2004; 36(7)496–504
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt HG, Dauphinee WD, Patel VL. Comparing the effects of problem-based and conventional curricula in an international sample. J Med Educ 1987; 62(4)305–315
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schmidt HG, Machiels-Bongaerts M, Hermans H, Ten Cate TJ, Venekamp R, Boshuizen HPA. The development of diagnostic competence: Comparison of a problem-based, an integrated, and a conventional medical curriculum. Acad Med 1996; 71(6)658–664
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson V, Oliver M. Electronic voting systems for lectures then and now: A comparison of research and practice. Australas J Educ Technol 2007; 23(2)187–208
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slain D, Abate M, Hodges BM, Stamatakis MK, Wolak S. An interactive response system to promote active learning in the doctor of pharmacy curriculum. Am J Pharm Educ 2004; 68(5)1–9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stein PS, Challman SD, Brueckner JK. Using audience response technology for pretest reviews in an undergraduate nursing course. J Nurs Educ 2006; 45(11)469–473
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tamblyn R, Abrahamowicz M, Dauphinee D, Girard N, Bartlett G, Grand’Maison P. Effect of a community oriented problem based learning curriculum on quality of primary care delivered by graduates: Historical cohort comparison study. BMJ 2005; 331(7523)1002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vernon DT, Blake RL. Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluative research. Acad Med 1993; 68(7)550–563
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GA Wells, Shea, B, O'Connell, D, Peterson, J, Welch, V, Losos, M, Tugwell, P. 2011. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, [Accessed 26 April 2010] http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp.
   Google Scholar