Effects of different student response modes on science learning

References

• A. B. Combs Elementary School Case Study. (2010). Students gain leadership skills by teaching peers with interactive presentation tool. Retrieved from http://www.microsoft.com/multipoint/mouse-mischief/en-us/learn-more.aspx#CaseStudies.
   Google Scholar
• Alvarez, C., Brown, C., & Nussbaum, M. (2011). Comparative study of netbooks and tablet PCs for fostering face-to-face collaborative learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 834–844. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.11.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blasco-Arcas, L., Buil, I., Hernandez-Ortega, B., & Sese, F. J. (2013). Using clickers in class. The role of interactivity, active collaborative learning and engagement in learning performance. Computers & Education, 62, 102–110. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonaiuti, G., Calvani, A., & Piazza, D. (2015). Increasing classroom engagement and student comprehension through the use of clickers: An Italian secondary school experience. Research on Education and Media, 5(1), 95–108.
   Google Scholar
• Byrne, R. (2010). Microsoft mouse mischief: Free powerpoint add-on. Retrieved from http://www.freetech4teachers.com/2010/04/microsoft-mouse-mischief-student.html#.V_MbCPQsAXs
   Google Scholar
• Caldwell, J. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best practice tips. Life Science Education, 6(1), 9–20. doi:10.1187/cbe.06–12–0205
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carnaghan, C., & Webb, A. (2007). Investigating the effects of group response systems on student satisfaction, learning, and engagement in accounting education. Issues in Accounting Education, 22(3), 391–409. doi:10.2308/iace.2007.22.3.391
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, L. W., & Holwadel, J. (2007). Help! What is wrong with these literature circles and how can we fix them? The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 20–29. doi:10.1598/RT.61.1.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cortright, R. N., Collins, H. L., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2005). Peer instruction enhanced meaningful learning: Ability to solve noble problems. Advances in Physiology Education, 29, 107–111. doi: 10.1152/advan.00060.2004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, R. S., & West, R. E. (2014). Technology integration in school. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 841–853). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Day, D., & Ainley, G. (2008). From skeptic to believer: One teacher’s journey implementing literature circles. Reading Horizons, 48(3), 157–176.
   Google Scholar
• Draper, S., & Brown, M. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(2), 81–94. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00074.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eber, P. A., & Parker, T. S. (2007). Assessing student learning: Applying Bloom’s taxonomy. Human Services, 27(1), 45–53.
   Google Scholar
• Edmonds, C. T., & Edmonds, T. P. (2010). An examination of the links between SRS technology and an active learning environment in a managerial accounting course. Advances in Accounting Education, 11, 81–100. doi:10.1108/S1085-4622(2010)0000011007
   Google Scholar
• Falloon, G. (2015). What's the difference? Learning collaboratively using iPads in conventional classrooms. Computers & Education, 84, 62–77. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.01.010
   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. doi:10.1007/s10956-006-0360-1
   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. doi:10.1177/0098628312465860
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galton, M., Hargreaves, L., & Pell, T. (2009). Group work and whole-class with 11- to 14-year olds compared. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 119–140. doi:10.1080/03057640802701994
   Google Scholar
• Good, K. C. (2013). Audience response systems in higher education courses: A critical review of the literature. Instructional Technology, 10(5), 19–34.
   Google Scholar
• Granger, E. M., Bevis, T. H., Saka, Y., Southerland, S. A., Sampson, V., & Tate, R. L. (2012). The efficacy of student-centered instruction in supporting science learning. Science, 338(6103), 105–108. doi:10.1126/science.1223709
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, S. B., Lissitz, R. W., & Mulaik, S. A. (1977). Limitations of coefficient alpha as an index of test unidimensionality. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 827–838. doi:10.1177/001316447703700403
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heaslip, G., Donovan, P., & Cullen, J. G. (2014). Student response systems and learner engagement in large classes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(1), 11–24. doi:10.1177/1469787413514648
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heward, W. (2000). Exceptional children: An introduction to special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Hounsell, D. (2003). Student feedback, learning and development. In M. Slowey & D. Watson (Eds.), Higher education and the lifecourse (pp. 67–78). Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Huck, S. W. (2012). Reading statistics and research (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Hutchful, D., Matur, A., Cutrell, E., & Joshi, A. (2010). Cloze: An authoring tool for teachers with low computer proficiency. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE international conference on information and communication technologies and development (p. 21). New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, M. E., Antonenko, P. D., & Greenwood, C. M. (2012). The impact of collaboration and individualized student response system strategies on learner motivation, metacognition, and knowledge transfer. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(5), 477–487. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00470.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Julio Verne School Spain Case Study. (2010). Interaction and participation in the classroom as a stimulus to increase and better learning. Retrieved from http://www.cjulioverne.com.es/casestudy/pdf/CS_julio_verne_Ingles_07_09_14.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lantz, M. (2010). The use of “clickers’ in the classroom: Teaching innovation or merely an amusing novelty. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 556–561. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martyn, M. (2007). Clickers in the classroom: An active learning approach. Educause Quarterly, 30(2), 71–74.
   Google Scholar
• Marzano, R., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
   Google Scholar
• Microsoft. (2010). Microsoft mouse mischief. Retrieved from http://www.microsoft.com/multipoint/mouse-mischief/en-us/learn-more.aspx#FAQ
   Google Scholar
• Microsoft. (2016). Microsoft mouse mischief. Retrieved Jun 27, 2016, from https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=7037
   Google Scholar
• Moraveji, N., Kim, T., Ge, J., Pawar, U. S., Mulcahy, K., & Inkpen, K. (2008). Mischief: Supporting remote teaching in developing regions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 353–362). New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Nicol, D. J., & Boyle, J. T. (2003). Peer instruction versus class-wide discussion in large classes: A comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom. Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 457–473. doi:10.1080/0307507032000122297
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nordal School Norway Case Study. (2010). Norwegian school improves instruction and student interest with interactive tool. Retrieved May 10, 2014, from http://www.microsoft.com/multipoint/mouse-mischief/en-us/learn-more.aspx/l “CaseStudies”, http://www.microsoft.com/multipoint/mouse-mischief/en-us/learn-more.aspx#CaseStudies
   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
• Rohrbeck, C. A., Ginsburg-Block, M. D., Fantuzzo, J. W., & Miller, T. R. (2003). Peer-assisted learning interventions with elementary school students: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 240–257. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.240
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roth, W., McGinn, M., Woszcyna, C., & Boutonne, S. (1999). Differential participation during science conversations: The interaction of focal artifacts, social configurations, and physical arrangements. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 293–347. doi:10.1080/10508406.1999.9672073
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmitz, M., & Winskel, H. (2008). Towards effective partnerships in a collaborative problem-solving task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 581–596. doi:10.1348/000709908X281619
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siau, K., Sheng, H., & Nah, F. (2006). Use of classroom response system to enhance classroom interactivity. IEEE Transactions on Education, 49(3), 398–403. doi:10.1109/TE.2006.879802
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, M., & Goes, J. (2013). Dissertation and scholarly research: Recipes for success. USA: Create Space Independent Publishing Platform.
   Google Scholar
• Simpson, V., & Oliver, M. (2006). Using electronic voting systems in lectures. Retrieved from http://tlc.zmml.uni-bremen.de/resource_files/resources/384/ElectronicVotingSystems.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Smith, M., Wood, W., Adams, W., Wieman, C., Knight, J., Guild, N., & Su, T. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323, 122–124. doi:10.1126/science.1165919
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tofade, T., Elsner, J., & Haines, S. T. (2013). Best practice strategies for effective use of questions as a teaching tool. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 77(7). doi:10.5688/ajpe777155
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631–645. doi:10.1080/01443410500345172
   Google Scholar
• Trees, A. R., & Jackson, M. H. (2007). The learning environment in clicker classrooms: Student processes of learning and involvement in large university-level courses using student response systems. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(1), 21–40. doi:10.1080/17439880601141179
   Google Scholar
• VanDeGrift, T., Wolfman S. A., Yasuhara, K., & Anderson, R. J. (2002). Promoting interaction in large classes with computer-mediated feedback system. Washington: Washington State University. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.cs.washington.edu/tr/2002/12/UW-CSE-02-12-02.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wash, P. D. (2012). The power of a mouse! SRATE Journal, 21(2), 39–46.
   Google Scholar
• Zurita, G., & Nussbaum, M. (2004). Computer supported collaborative learning using wirelessly interconnected handheld computers. Computers & Education, 42(3), 289–314. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2003.08.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar