Using clickers to facilitate interactive engagement activities in a lecture room for improved performance by students

References

• Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P., & Major, C. H. (2005). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Biemans, H. J. A., Deel, O. R., & Simons, P. R. (2001). Differences between successful and less successful students while working with the CONTACT-2 strategy. Learning and Instruction, 11, 265–282. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00033-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biggs, J. B. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. London: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Biggs, J. B., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The revised two factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133–149. doi:10.1348/000709901158433.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyle, J. T., & Nichol, D. J. (2003). Using classroom communication systems to support interaction and discussion in large class settings. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 11, 43–57.
   Google Scholar
• Bunce, D. M., Van den Plas, J. R., & Havanki, L. L. (2006). Comparing the effectiveness of student achievement of student response system vs. online WebCT quizzes. Journal of Chemical Education, 83, 488–493. doi:10.1021/ed1083p1488.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cahyadi, V. (2004). The effect of interactive engagement teaching on student understanding of introductory physics at the faculty of engineering, University of Surabaya, Indonesia. Higher Education Research and Development, 23, 455–464.
   Google Scholar
• Carr, S. C., & Thompson, B. (1996). The effects of prior knowledge and schema activation strategies on the inferential reading comprehension of children with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19, 48–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The dynamics of educational effectiveness. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, B. G. (1999). Cooperative learning: Students working in small groups. Stanford University newsletter on teaching, 10, 1–4.
   Google Scholar
• d’Inverno, R., Davis, H., & White, S. (2003). Using a personal response system for promoting student interaction. Teaching Mathematics and its applications, 22, 163–169.
   Google Scholar
• Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. M. (1999). The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 69, 145–186. doi:10.3102/00346543069002145.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Draper, S. W., Cargill, J., & Cutts, Q. (2002). Electronically enhanced classroom interaction. Australian journal of educational technology, 18, 13–23.
   Google Scholar
• Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., Mestre, J. P., & Leonard, W. J. (2000). ASK.IT/A2L: Assessing student knowledge with instructional technology. University of Massachusetts, Physics education research group. Retrieved June 01, 2010, from http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0508/0508144.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., Mestre, J. P., & Wenk, L. (1996). Classtalk: A classroom communication system for active learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 7, 3–47.
   Google Scholar
• Gagné, R. M., Wager, W., & Rojas, A. (1981). Planning and authoring computer-assisted instruction lesson. Educational Technology, 29, 17–21.
   Google Scholar
• Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hake, R. R. (2007). Six lessons from the Physics education reform effort. Latin American Journal of Physics Education, 1, 24–31. Retrieved November 08, 2011, from http://journal.lapen.org.mx
   Google Scholar
• Hancock, T. M. (2010). Use of audience response systems for summative assessment in large classes. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26, 226–237. Retrieved November 20, 2011, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet.html
   Google Scholar
• Horne, J. (2007). Gender differences in computerised and conventional educational tests. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 47–55. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00198.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). The Kolb Learning Style Inventory – Version 3.1: Technical Specifications. Retrieved February 11, 2011, from http://www.whitewater-rescue.com/support/pagepics/lsitechmanual.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational Research, 58, 79–97. doi:10.3102/00346543058001079.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kyriakides, L., Campbell, R. J., & Gagatsis, A. (2000). The significance of classroom effect in primary schools: An application of Creemer’s comprehensive model of educational effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11, 501–529.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindenfeld, P. (2001). We can do better: A report on some teaching innovations. Physics and Society, 30, 1–2.
   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
• Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Mazur, E. (2009). Farewell, lecture? Science, 323, 51–52. doi:10.1126/science.1168927.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McManus, D. A. (2005). Leaving the lectern: Cooperative learning and the critical first days of students working in groups. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Nicol, D. J., & Boyle, J. T. (2003). Peer instruction vs. classwide discussion in large classes: A comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom. Studies in Higher Education, 28, 457–473. doi:10.1080/0307507032000122297.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patrick, A., Kpangban, E., & Chibueze, O. (2007). Motivation effects on test scores of senior secondary school science students. Studies on Home Community Science, 1, 57–64.
   Google Scholar
• Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T. G., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategy for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor: National Centre for Research to Improve Post Secondary Teaching and Learning: University of Michigan.
   Google Scholar
• Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 223–231. Retrieved June 09, 2011, from http://www224.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/Prince_AL.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Simpson, V., & Oliver, M. (2007). Electronic voting systems for lectures then and now: A comparison of research and practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23, 187–208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tella, A. (2007). The impact of motivation on students’ academic achievement and learning outcomes in Mathematics among secondary school students in Nigeria. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3, 149–156.
   Google Scholar
• Van den Berg, M. N., & Hofman, W. H. A. (2005). Study success in university education: A multi-measurement study of the impact of student and faculty factors on study progress. Higher Education, 50, 413–446. doi:10.1007/s10734-10004-16361-10731.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar