The audience response system and knowledge gain: A prospective study

References

• Alexander C, Crescini W, Juskewitch J, Lachman N, Pawlina W. Assessing the integration of audience response system technology in teaching of anatomical sciences. Anat Sci Educ 2009; 2: 160–166
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beatty I. Transforming student learning with classroom communication systems. EDUCAUSE Cent Appl Res Bull 2004; 2004: 1–13
   Google Scholar
• Beekes W. The ‘millionaire’ method for encouraging participation. Act Learn High Educ 2006; 7: 25–36
   Google Scholar
• Brown G, Manogue M. AMEE medical education guide no. 22: Refreshing lecturing: A guide for lecturers. Med Teach 2001; 23: 231–244
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caldwell J. Clickers in the large classroom: Current reseach and best tips. CBE-Life Sci Educ 2007; 6: 9–20
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chan D. Development of the clinical learning environment inventory: Using the theoretical framework of learning environment studies to assess nursing students’ perceptions of the hospital as a learning environment. J Nurs Educ 2002; 41: 69–75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Copeland HL, Stoller JK, Hewson MG, Longworth DL. Making the continuing medical education lecture effective. J Contin Educ Health Prof 1998; 18: 227–234
   Google Scholar
• Cwiak C, Edelman A, Hatcher R, Zieman M, Nichols M, Jensen R, Emmons S, Khan I. Teaching contraception: An interactive presentation using managing contraception. Am J Obstetr Gynecol 2004; 191: 1788–1792
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Debourgh G. Use of classroom ‘clickers’ to promote acquisition of reasoning skills. Nurs Educ Pract 2008; 8: 76–87
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Duggan P, Palmer E, Devitt P. Electronic voting to encourage interactive lectures: A randomised trial. BMC Med Educ 2007; 7: 25
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fischer R, Jacobs S, Herbert W. Small-group discussion versus lecture format for third-year students in obstetrics and gynecology. Am Coll Obstetr Gynecol 2004; 104: 349–353
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gauci S, Dantas A, Williams D, Kemm R. Promoting student-centered active learning in lectures with a personal response system. Adv Physiol Educ 2009; 33: 60–71
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gulpinar M, Yegen B. Interactive lecturing for meaningful learning in large groups. Med Teach 2005; 27: 590–594
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes RG, Blalock JS, Parker MH, Haywood VB, Holmes RG, Blalock JS, Parker MH, Haywood VB. Student accuracy and evaluation of a computer-based audience response system. J Dent Educ 2006; 70: 1355–1361
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hoyt A, Mcnulty JA, Gruener G, Chandrasekhar A, Espiritu B, Ensminger D, Price R, Naheedy R. An audience response system may influence student performance on anatomy examination questions. Anat Sci Educ 2010; 3: 295–299
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hutchinson L. ABC of learning and teaching. Educational environment. BMJ 2003; 326: 810–812
   Google Scholar
• Joyce C, Stoelwinder J, Mcneil J, Piterman L. Riding the wave: Current and emerging trends in graduates from Australian univeristy medical schools. MJA 2007; 186: 309–312
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latessa R, Mouw D, Latessa R, Mouw D. Use of an audience response system to augment interactive learning. Fam Med 2005; 37: 12–14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mccoubrie P. Improving the fairness of multiple-choice questions: A literature review. Med Teach 2004; 26: 709–712
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLaughlin K, Mandin H. A schematic approach to diagnosing and resolving lecturalgia. Med Educ 2001; 35: 1135–1142
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menon A, Moffett S, Enriquez M, Martinez M, Dev P, Grappone T. Audience response made easy: Using personal digital assistants as a classroom polling tool. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2004; 11: 217–219
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller RG, Ashar BH, Getz KJ, 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: 109–115
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nayak L, Erinjeri P. Audience response systems in medical student education benefit learners and presenters. Acad Radiol 2008; 15: 383–389
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newble D, Cannon R. A handbook for medical teachers. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Great Britain 2001
   Google Scholar
• Nguyen L, Fraunholz B, Salzman S, Smith R, 2006. Students’ performance and perception linked to the use of Group and Audience Response Systems (GARS) in large classes, ColleCTeR
   Google Scholar
• O’Brien T, Wang W, Medvedev I, Wile M, Nosek T. Use of a computerized audience response system in medical student teaching: Its effect on exam performance. Med Teach 2006; 28: 736–738
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinsky L, Irby D. “If at first you don’t succeed”: Using failure to improve teaching. Acad Med 1997; 72: 973–976
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pradhan A, Sparano D, Ananth CV, 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: 1827–1830
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson D. Don’t dump the didactic lecture; fix it. Adv Physiol Educ 2008; 32: 23–24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robertson LJ. Twelve tips for using a computerized interactive audience response system. Med Teach 2000; 22: 237–239
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uhari M, Renko M, Soini H, Uhari M, Renko M, Soini H. Experiences of using an interactive audience response system in lectures. BMC Med Educ 2003; 3: 12
   PubMedGoogle Scholar