Clicking Toward Better Grades: The Use of Student Response Systems in Social Work Education

References

• Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED340272)
   Google Scholar
• Brewer, C. A. (2004). Near real-time assessment of student learning and understanding in biology courses. BioScience, 54, 1034–1039. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[1034:NRAOSL]2.0.CO;2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cole, S., & Kosc, G. (2010). Quit surfing and start “clicking”: One professor’s effort to combat the problems of teaching the US survey in a large lecture hall. History Teacher, 43, 397–410.
   Google Scholar
• Erikson, E. H. (1994). Identity and the life cycle. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
   Google Scholar
• Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). (2013). Data de-identification: An overview of basic terms (34 CFR §99.30).
   Google Scholar
• Friedline, T., Mann, A. R., & Lieberman, A. (2013). Teaching note—Ask the audience: Using student response systems in social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 49, 782–792.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. M. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced student-centered learning environments. Instructional Science, 25, 167–202. doi:10.1023/A:1002997414652
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes, M. R., Tracy, E. M., Painter, L. L., Oestreich, T., & Park, H. (2015). Moving from flipcharts to the flipped classroom: Using technology-driven teaching methods to promote active learning in foundation and advanced masters social work courses. Clinical Social Work Journal, 43(2), 215–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes, J. E. (2005). The role of teacher knowledge and learning experiences in forming technology integrated pedagogy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13, 277–302.
   Google Scholar
• Kaleta, R., & Joosten, T. (2007). Student response systems: A University of Wisconsin system study of clickers. Educause Research Bulletin, 1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Kay, R. H., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 53, 819–827. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P., Jr, Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED108134)
   Google Scholar
• Lavin, A. M., Korte, L., & Davies, T. L. (2011). The impact of classroom technology on student behavior. Journal of Technology Research, 2(1), 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Lopez, J. A., Love, C., & Watters, D. (2014). Clickers in biosciences: Do they improve academic performance? International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 22(3), 26–41.
   Google Scholar
• MacGeorge, E. L., Homan, S. R., Dunning, J. B., Jr, Elmore, D., Bodie, G. D., Evans, E., … Geddes, B. (2007). Student evaluation of audience response technology in large lecture classes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 125–145. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9053-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masikunis, G., Panayiotidis, A., & Burke, L. (2009). Changing the nature of lectures using a personal response system. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46, 199–212. doi:10.1080/14703290902843935
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30, 159–167. doi:10.1152/advan.00053.2006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Premkumar, K., & Coupal, C. (2008). Rules of engagement—12 tips for successful use of “clickers” in the classroom. Medical Teacher, 30, 146–149. doi:10.1080/01421590801965111
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preszler, R. W., Dawe, A., Shuster, C. B., & Shuster, M. (2007). Assessment of the effects of student response systems on student learning and attitudes over a broad range of biology courses. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 29–41. doi:10.1187/cbe.06-09-0190
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Quinn, A. (2010). An exploratory study of opinions on clickers and class participation from students of human behavior in the social environment. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 20, 721–731. doi:10.1080/10911351003749102
   Google Scholar
• Revere, L., & Kovach, J. V. (2011). Online technologies for engaged learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 12, 113–124.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, L. A., Shon, H., & Santiago, R. (2011). Audience response systems: Using “clickers” to enhance BSW education. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 29, 120–132. doi:10.1080/15228835.2011.587737
   Google Scholar
• Smith-Osborne, A. (2014). Perceived influence of adoption of personal electronic response systems by students with and without disabilities and limited English proficiency in small social work classes. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 32, 54–64. doi:10.1080/15228835.2013.857283
   Google Scholar
• Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4–28. doi:10.1006/jesp.1998.1373
   Web of Science ®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, 651–666. doi:10.1007/s10956-012-9420-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vicens, Q., & Caspersen, M. E. (2014). Getting more scientists to revamp teaching. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(5), 22–27. doi:10.2505/4/jcst14_043_05_22
   Google Scholar