Skip to main content

Center for Teaching

Classroom Response System (“Clickers”) Bibliography [Archived]

Print Version

by Derek Bruff

Below is a bibliography of articles on classroom response systems (CRSs). Most of the articles present some form of research on the effectiveness or impact of CRSs on student learning. The first group of articles are not discipline-specific; the later articles are grouped by discipline. For more on CRSs, visit our CRS Teaching Guide.

Note that some of the links below may not work off of Vanderbilt’s campus. If you have trouble following a link or if you know of an appropriate article to add to this bibliography, please contact Derek Bruff.

[295 entries as of March 25, 2014.]

General Audience

Books

  • Banks, D. A. (Ed.). (2006). Audience response systems in higher education: Applications and cases. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
  • Bruff, D. (2009). Teaching with classroom response systems: Creating active learning environments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [More Information]
  • Case, S.M., & Swanson, D.B. (2002). Constructing written test questions for the basic and clinical sciences. Philadelphia: National Board of Medical Examiners.
  • Duncan, D. (2005). Clickers in the classroom: How to enhance science teaching using classroom response systems. San Francisco: Pearson Education.

Introductions to Clickers

Literature Reviews

  • Caldwell, J.E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9-20.
  • De Gagne, J. (2011). The impact of clickers in nursing education: A review of literature. Nurse Education Today, 31(8).
  • Fies, C., & Marshall, J. (2006). Classroom response systems: A review of the literature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 101-109.
  • Judson, E., & Sawada, D. (2002). Learning from past and present: Electronic response systems in college lecture halls. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(2), 167-181.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • MacArthur, J. R., & Jones, L. L. (2008). A review of literature reports of clickers applicable to college chemistry classrooms. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9, 187-195.
  • Roschelle, J., Penuel, W.R., & Abrahamson, L. (2004). Classroom response and communication systems: Research review and theory. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
  • Simpson, V., & Oliver, M. (2002). Using electronic voting systems in lectures. Retrieved June 11, 2007.
  • 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(2), 187-208.

Research on Student Perceptions

  • Barnett, J. (2006). Implementation of personal response units in very large lecture classes: Student perceptions. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(4), 474-494.
  • Cheesman, E. & Winograd, G. (2008). Classroom response systems: Student perceptions by learning style, age, and gender. In K. McFerrin et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 4056-4062). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  • Fredericksen, E. E., & Ames, M. (2009). Can a $30 piece of plastic improve learning? An evaluation of personal response systems in large classroom settings. Accessed October 16, 2009.
  • Graham, C. R., Tripp, T. R., Seawright, L., & Joeckel, G. L. (2007). Empowering or compelling reluctant participators using audience response systems. Active Learning in Higher Education, 8(3), 233-258.
  • Hoekstra, A. (2008). Vibrant student voices: Exploring effects of the use of clickers in large college courses. Learning, Media, & Technology, 33(4), 329-341.
  • Kaleta, R., & Joosten, T. (2007). Student response systems: A University of Wisconsin study of clickers. Retrieved June 13, 2007.
  • Keller, C., et al. (2007). Research-based practices for effective clicker use. Proceedings of the 2007 Physics Education Research Conference.
  • MacGeorge, E. L., et al. (2007). Student evaluation of audience response technology in large lecture classes. Educational Technology Research and Development, online edition.
  • Nagy-Shadman, E., & Desrochers, C. (2008). Student response technology: Empirically grounded or just a gimmick? International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 2023-2066.
  • Patry, M. (2009). Clickers in large classes: From student perceptions towards an understanding of best practices. International Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(2).
  • 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).

Vendor Comparisons & Adoption Issues

  • Barber, M., & Njus, D. (2007). Clicker evolution: Seeking intelligent design. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 1-8.
  • Briggs, L. (2008, March 26). 10 tips for injecting new technology into your campus. Campus Technology.
  • Bugeja, M. (2008, December 5). Classroom clickers and the cost of technology. Chronicle of Higher Education.
  • Burnstein, R. A., & Lederman, L. M. (2003). Comparison of different commercial wireless keypad systems. The Physics Teacher, 41(5), 272-275.
  • Freeman, M., Bell, A., Comerton-Forder, C., Pickering J., & Blayney, P. (2007). Factors affecting educational innovation with in class electronic response systems. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(2), 149-170.
  • Goeman, B., & Killion, J. (2006). Why classroom response systems? Challenges and potentials. Retrieved June 13, 2007.
  • Gunderson, M., & Wilson, G. Introducing Student Response Systems at MU. Retrieved June 13, 2007.
  • Lichti, S. M. (2006). Purdue’s system-wide deployment of a classroom response system. Presented at SIGUCCS, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
  • Lowery, R.C. (2005). Teaching and learning with interactive student response systems: A comparison of commercial products in the higher-education market. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwestern Social Science Association, New Orleans, LA.
  • Michigan State University Resource Center for Persons with Disabilities. (2008). Classroom response systems: An accessibility viewpoint. Accessed March 5, 2009.
  • Murphy, T. (2008). Success and failure of audience response systems in the classroom. Presented at the 36th Association for Computing Machinery SIGUCCS Conference on User Services, Portland, Oregon.
  • Sibley, J. (2006). Clickers: Another update from the quickly changing landscape. Retrieved June 13, 2007.
  • Twetten, J., Smith M. K., Julius, J., & Murphy-Boyer, L. (2007). Successful clicker standardization. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 30(4).
  • White, P., Delaney, D., Syncox, D., Akerberg, O., & Alters, B. (2011). Clicker implementation models. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 34(4).

Mobile Devices (Cell Phones, etc.)

Miscellaneous (but Interesting!) Articles

  • Banks, D. (2003). Using keypad-based group process support systems to facilitate student reflection. Paper presented at the 20th Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, Adelaide, Australia.
  • Beatty, I. D. & Gerace, W. J. (2009). Technology-enhanced formative assessment: A research-based pedagogy for teaching science with classroom response technology. Journal of Science Education & Technology.
  • Bergtrom, G. (2006). Clicker sets as learning objects. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 2, 105-110.
  • Briggs, C., & Keyek-Franssen, D. (2010). CATs with clickers: Using learner response systems for formative assessments in the Classroom. Presented at the 2010 EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative Conference, Austin, Texas.
  • Cue, N. (1998). A universal learning tool for classrooms? Proceedings of the First Quality in Teaching and Learning Conference.
  • Cutts, Q., Kennedy, G., Mitchell, M., & Draper, S. (2004). Maximising dialogue in lectures using group response systems. Proceedings of the 7th IASTED International Conference on Computers and Advanced Technology in Education.
  • Dawson, D., Meadows, K., & Haffie T. (2010). The effect of performance feedback on student help-seeking and learning strategy use: Do clickers make a difference? The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 1(1).
  • Draper, S.W., & Brown, M.I. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(2), 81-94.
  • Draper, S. W., Cargill, J., & Cutts, Q. (2002). Electronically enhanced classroom interaction. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 18(1), 13-23.
  • Fagen, A.P., Crouch, C.H., & Mazur, E. (2002). Peer instruction: Results from a range of classrooms. The Physics Teacher, 40(4), 206-209.
  • Fies, C., & Marshall, J. (2008). The C3 framework: Evaluating classroom response system interactions in university classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 483-499.
  • Hanson, C. R. (2007). An evaluation of a student response system used at Brigham Young University. Master’s thesis.
  • Harlow, J. et al. (2008). What’s all the clicking about? A study of classroom response system use at the University of Toronto. Accessed March 5, 2009.
  • Klein, K. (2009). Promoting collaborative social learning communities with student response systems. Journal of Online Teaching and Learning, 5(4).
  • Kolikant, Y., Drane, D., & Calkins, S. (2010). Clickers as catalysts for transformation of teachers. College Teaching 58(4), 127-135.
  • Liu, T., Liang, J., Wang, H., & Chan, T. (2003). The features and potential of interactive response systems. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computers in Education, Hong Kong.
  • O’Donoghue, M., & O’Steen, B. (2007). Clicking on or off? Lecturers’ rationale for using student response systems. Presented at the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education Conference, Singapore.
  • Penuel, W. R., Boscardin, C. K., Masyn, K., & Crawford, V. M. (2007). Teaching with student response systems in elementary and secondary education settings: A survey study. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 55(4).
  • Penuel, W.R., Roschelle, J., Crawford, V., Shechtman, N., & Abrahamson, L. (2005). CATAALYST workshop report: Advancing research on the transformative potential of interactive pedagogies and classroom networks. Retrieved June 11, 2007.
  • Sullivan, R. (2008). Principles for constructing good clicker questions: Going beyond rote learning and stimulating active engagement with course content. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 37(3), 335-347.
  • Woods, H. A., & Chiu, C. Wireless response technology in college classrooms. Accessed November 17, 2007.

Discipline-Specific Audience

Biological Sciences

Business, Accounting, and Management

  • Beekes, W. (2006). The “Millionaire” method for encouraging participation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 7(1), 25-36.
  • Carnaghan, C., & Webb, Alan. (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.
  • Flint, M. (2011). Classroom response systems as a literacy tool in business education: A case study in auditing. Advances in Financial Education, 9, 104-118.
  • Freeman, M., Blayney, P., & Ginns, P. (2006). Anonymity and in class learning: The case for electronic response systems. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(4), 568-580.
  • Guthrie, R. W., & Carlin, A. (2004). Waking the dead: Using interactive technology to engage passive listeners in the classroom. Presented at the Tenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, New York, NY.
  • Levey, B. (2011). In-class polling: Less teaching, more learning? Essays on Teaching with Technology 2(1).
  • Lincoln, D. J. (2007). Using student response pads (“clickers”) in the principles of marketing classroom. Presented at the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference, Dunedin, New Zealand.
  • Masikunas, G., Panayiotidis, A., & Burke, L. (2007). The use of electronic voting systems in lectures within business and marketing: A case study of their impact on student learning. Open & Distance Education and eLearning, 15(1), 3-20.
  • Mula, J. M., & Kavanagh, M. (2009). Click go the students, click-click-click: The efficacy of a student response system for engaging students to improve feedback and performance. e-Journal of Business Education and Scholarship of Teaching, 3(1), 1-17.
  • Muncy, J., & Eastman, J. (2012). Using classroom response technology to create an active learning environment in marketing classes. American Journal of Business Education, 5(2).
  • Nelson, M. L., & Hauck, R. V. (2008). Clicking to learn: A case study of embedding radio-frequency-based clickers in an introductory management information systems course. Journal of Information Systems Education, 19(1), 55-64.
  • Segovia, J. (2008). Personal response system and its effect on student learning. Accounting Instructors’ Report, Winter 2008.
  • Williams, J. B. (2003). Learning by remote control: Exploring the use of an audience response system as a vehicle for content delivery. Presented at the Twentieth Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, Adelaide, Australia.
  • Yourstone, S. A., Kraye, H. S., & Albaum, G. (2008). Classroom questioning with immediate electronic response: Do clickers improve learning? Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 6(1), 75-88.

Chemistry

  • Addison, S., Wright, A., & Milner, R. (2009). Using clickers to improve student engagement and performance in an introductory biochemistry class. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 37(2), 84-91.
  • Asirvatham, M. R. (2005). IR clickers and ConcepTests: Engaging students in the classroom. Paper presented at the Winter 2005 CONCHEM: Trends and New Ideas in Chemical Education, online.
  • Blackman, M. S., Dooley, P., Kuchinski, B., & Chapman, D. (2002). It worked a different way. College Teaching, 50(1), 27-28.
  • Bunce, D. M., VandenPlas, J., & Havanki, K. (2006). Comparing the effectiveness on student achievement of a student response system versus online WebCT quizzes. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(3), 488-493.
  • Donovan, W. (2008). An electronic response system and ConcepTests in general chemistry courses. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 27(4), 369-389.
  • Emenike, M., & Holme, T. (2012). Classroom response systems have not “crossed the chasm”: Estimating numbers of chemistry faculty who use clickers. Journal of Chemical Education, online.
  • Hall, R. H., Collier, H. L., Thomas, M., & Hilgers, M. G. (2005). A student response system for increasing engagement, motivation, and learning in high enrollment lectures. Paper presented at the 11th Americas Conference on Information Systems, Omaha, Nebraska.
  • King, D. B., & Joshi, S. (2006). Quantitative measures of personal response device effectiveness. Poster presented at the 232nd Meeting of the American Chemical Society, San Francisco, CA.
  • King, D. B., & Joshi, S. (2008). Gender differences in the use and effectiveness of personal response devices. Journal of Science Education and Technology, “Online First” edition.
  • Woelk, K. (2008). Optimizing the use of personal response devices (clickers) in large-enrollment introductory courses. Journal of Chemical Education, 85(10), 1400-1405.

Communications

  • Barrett, M. S., Bornsen, S. E., Erickson, S. L., Markey, V., & Spiering, K. (2005). The personal response system as a teaching aid. Communication Teacher, 19(3), 89-92.
  • Rice, R. E., & Bunz, U. (2003). Evaluating a wireless course feedback system: The role of demographics, expertise, fluency, competency, and usage. Presented at the 89th National Communication Association Convention, Miami, FL.
  • Winograd, G. R., & Cheesman, E. A. (2007). Using classroom response systems in communication courses. In L. W. Hugenberg, S. P. Morreale, D. W. Worley, B. Hugenberg & D. C. Worley (Eds.), Basic communication course best practices: A training manual for instructors (pp. 177-193). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

Computer Science

  • Cutts, Q., Carbone, A., & van Haaster, K. (2004). Using an electronic voting system to promote active reflection on coursework feedback. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computers in Education, Melbourne, Australia.
  • Cutts, Q. I., & Kennedy, G. E. (2005). Connecting learning environments using electronic voting systems. Presented at the Australasian Computing Education Conference, Newcastle, Australia.
  • Davenport, J., Hayes, A., & Parmar, N. (2009). The use of an electronic voting system to enhance student feedback. Presented at the Plymouth e-Learning Conference, Plymouth, UK.
  • Fan, K.-Y. D., & van Blink, C. D. (2006). A comparison and evaluation of personal response systems in introductory computer programming. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Chicago, Illinois.
  • Kennedy, G. E., & Cutts, Q. I. (2005). The association between students’ use of an electronic voting system and their learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(4), 260-268.
  • Lopez-Herrejon, R. E., & Schulman, M. (2004). Using interactive technology in a short Java course: an experience report. Presented at the Ninth SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, Leeds, UK.
  • Martyn, M. (2007). Clickers in the classroom: An active learning approach. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 30(2), 71-74.
  • Purchase, H. C., Mitchell, C., & Ounis, I. (2004). Gauging students’ understanding through interactive lectures. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3112.

Earth & Environmental Science

  • Czekanski, A. J., & Roux, D.-M. P. (2008). The use of clicker technology to evaluate short- and long-term concept retention. Presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Middle Atlantic Section Spring Conference, Baltimore, Maryland.
  • Gray, K., Owens, K., Liang, X., & Steer, D. (2012). Assessing multimedia influences on student responses using a personal response system. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(3), 392-402.
  • Greer, L., & Heaney, P. J. (2004). Real-time analysis of student comprehension: An assessment of electronic student response technology in an introductory earth science course. Journal of Geoscience Education, 52(4), 345-351.
  • McConnell, D. A., et al. (2006). Using ConcepTests to assess and improve student conceptual understanding in introductory geoscience courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 54(1), 61-68.
  • Oigara, J., & Keengwe, J. (2013). Students’ perceptions of clickers as an instructional tool to promote active learning. Education and Information Technologies, 18(1), 15-28.
  • Salmon, T. P., & Stahl, J. N. (2005). Wireless audience repsonse system: Does it make a difference? Journal of Extension, 43(3).
  • Zimmerman, A.R., & Smith, M.C. (2006). Engaging today’s students in earth science 101. EOS, 87(34), 339-344.

Economics

  • Elliott, C. (2003). Using a personal response system in economics teaching. International Review of Economics Education, 1(1), 80-86.
  • Freeman, M., & Blayney, P. (2005). Promoting interactive in-class learning environments: A comparison of an electronic response system with a traditional alternative. Paper presented at the 11th Australasian Teaching Economics Conference, Sydney, Australia.
  • Hinde, K., & Hunt, A. (2006). Using the personal response system to enhance student learning: Some evidence from teaching economics. In Banks, D. A. (Ed.), Audience Response Systems in Higher Education: Applications and Cases. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
  • Nguyen, L., Fraunholz, B., Salzman, S., & Smith, R. (2006). Students’ performance and perception linked to the use of group and audience repsonse systems (GARS) in large classes. Paper presented the 2006 Collaborative Electronic Commerce Technology and Research Conference, Adelaide, Australia.
  • Salemi, M. K. (2008). Clickenomics: Using a classroom response system to increase student engagement in a large-enrollment principles of economics course. Accessed March 5, 2009.

Education

  • Harper, B. E. (2009). ‘I’ve never seen or heard it this way!’ Increasing student engagement through the use of technology-enhanced feedback. Teaching Educational Psychology, 3(3).
  • Johnson, T., & Meckelborg, A. (2008). Student response systems: A cure for lecturalgia?. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008 (pp. 4709-4717). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
  • Kyei-Blankson, L. Enhancing student learning in a graduate research and statistics course with clickers. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 32(4).
  • Pace, D., & Schwartz, D. (2008). Accessibility in post secondary education: Application of UDL to college curriculum. US-China Education Review, 5(12), 20-26.

Engineering

  • Felce, A. (2007). A critical analysis of the use of electronic voting systems: Ask the audience. Emirates Journal for Engineering Research, 12(1), 11-26.
  • Hall, S. R., et al. (2002). Adoption of active learning in a lecture-based engineering class. Paper presented at the 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Boston, MA.
  • McLoughlin, E. (2008). Enhancing the learning environment using classroom response systems. Presented at the International Symposium for Engineering Education, Dublin, Ireland.
  • Nicol, D., & Boyle, J. (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.
  • Paschal, C. B. (2002). Formative assessment in physiology teaching using a wireless classroom communication system. Advances in Physiology Education, 26(4), 299-308.
  • Roselli, R. J., & Brophy, S. P. (2002). Exploring an electronic polling system for the assessment of student progress in two biomedical engineering courses. Presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Montreal, Canada.
  • Roselli, R. J., & Brophy, S. P. (2006). Experiences with formative assessment in engineering classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 95, 311-324.
  • Siau, K., Sheng, H., & Nah, F. F. (2006). Use of a classroom response system to enhance classroom interactivity. IEEE Transactions on Education, 49(3), 398-403.
  • Su, Q. (2002). Teaching innovation using a computerised audience response system. Presented at the Australasian Universities Power Engineering Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
  • van Dijk, L. A., van den Berg, G. C., & van Keulen, H. (2001). Interactive lectures in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 26(1), 15-28.

English

  • Jenkins, A. (2007). Technique and technology: Electronic voting systems in an English literature lecture. Pedagogy, 7(3), 526-533.
  • Miller, M. (2009). Basic writers using clickers: A case study. Dissertation.

Health Professions (Other than Nursing)

  • Alexander, C., Crescini, W., Juskewitch, J., Lachman, N., & Pawlina, W. (2009). Assessing the integration of audience response system technology in teaching of anatomical sciences. Anatomical Sciences Education, 2(4), 160-166.
  • Barour, M. E. (2008). Electronic voting in dental materials education: The impact on students’ attitudes and exam performance. Journal of Dental Education, 72(9), 1042-1047.
  • Cain, J., Black, E. P., & Rohr, J. (2009). An audience response system strategy to improve student motivation, attention, and feedback. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 73(2).
  • Cain, J., & Robinson, E. (2008). A primer on audience response systems: Current applications and future considerations. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 72(4), 77.
  • Collins, L. (2007). Livening up the classroom: Using audience response systems to promote active learning. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 26(1), 81-88.
  • Duggan, P. M., Palmer, E., & Devitt, P. (2007). Electronic voting to encourage interactive lectures: A randomised trial. BMC Medical Education, 7(25).
  • Eggert, C. H., West, C. P., & Thomas, K. G. (2004). Impact of an audience response system. Medical Education, 38, 576.
  • Fitch, J. L. (2004). Student feedback in the college classroom: A technology solution. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(1), 71-77.
  • Homme, J., Asay, G., & Morgenstern, B. (2004). Utilisation of an audience response system. Medical Education, 38, 575.
  • Johnson, J. T. (2005). Creating learner-centered classrooms: Use of an audience response system in pediatric dentistry education. Journal of Dental Education, 69(3), 378-381.
  • Kenwright, K. (2009). Clickers in the classroom. TechTrends, 53(1), 74-77.
  • Latessa, R., & Mouw, D. (2005). Use of an audience response system to augment interactive learning. Family Medicine, 37(1), 12-14.
  • Miller, R. G., Ashar, B. H., & Getz, K. J. (2003). Evaluation of an audience response system for the continuing education of health professionals. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 23, 109-115.
  • Moy, J. R., Rodenbaugh, D. W., Collins, H. L., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2000). Who wants to be a physician? An educational tool for reviewing pulmonary physiology. Advances in Physiology Education, 24(1), 30-37.
  • Pileggi, R., & O’Neill, P. (2008). Team-based learning using an audience response system: An innovative method of teaching diagnosis to undergraduate dental students. Journal of Dental Education, 72(10), 1182-1188.
  • Pradhan, A., Sparano, D., & Ananth, C. V. (2005). The influence of an audience response system on knowledge retention: An application to resident education. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 193, 1827-1830.
  • Rao, S. P., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2000). Peer instruction improves performance on quizzes. Advances in Physiology Education, 24(1), 51-55.
  • Robertson, L. J. (2000). Twelve tips for using a computerised interactive audience response system. Medical Teacher, 22(3), 237-239.
  • Schackow, T. E., Chavez, M., Loya, L., & Friedman, M. (2004). Audience response system: Effect on learning in family medicine residents. Family Medicine, 36(7), 496-504.
  • Slain, D., et al. (2004). An interactive response system to promote active learning in the doctor of pharmacy curriculum. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 68(5).
  • Stevenson, F. (2007). Clickers: The use of audience response questions to enliven lecture and stimulate teamwork. Journal of the International Association of Medical Science Educators, 17(2), 106-111.
  • Torbeck, L. (2007). Enhancing programme evaluation using the audience response system. Medical Education, 41, 1088-1089.
  • Trapskin, P. J., Smith, K. M., Armistead, J. A., & Davis, G. A. (2005). Use of an audience response system to introduce an anticoagulation guide to physicians, pharmacists, and pharmacy students. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 69(2), 190-197.
  • Uhari, M., Renko, M., & Soini, H. (2003). Experiences of using an interactive audience response system in lectures. BMC Medical Education, 3(12).
  • Williams, B., & Boyle M. (2008). The use of interactive wireless keypads for interprofessional learning experiences by undergraduate emergency health students. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, 4(1).

History

Human & Organizational Development

  • Gentry, D. B. (2007). Using audience response systems in family and consumer sciences. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 99(2), 42-44.
  • Radosevich, D. J., Salomon, R., Radosevich, D. M., & Kahn, P. (2008). Using student response systems to increase motivation, learning, and knowledge retention. Innovate, 5(1).

Interdisciplinary Areas

  • Frame, I., & Hayler, A. (2007). Interactive engagement of students in large class settings using an electronic classroom communication response system. Presented at the Built Environment Education Annual Conference, London, UK.

Language Instruction

Law

Library Science & Information Literacy

Mathematics & Statistics

See also the bibliography available at Project Math QUEST’s resource page.

  • Blodgett, D.L. (2006). The effects of implementing an interactive student response system in a college algebra classroom. Retrieved June 17, 2007.
  • Bode, M., Drane, D., Kolikant, Y. B., Schuller, M. (2009). A clicker approach to teaching calculus. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 56(2), 253-256.
  • Butler, M. (2005). What I learned from using a personal response system. Mathematical Association of America FOCUS, 25(3), 15.
  • Cline, K. (2006). Classroom voting in mathematics. Mathematics Teacher, 100(2), 100-104.
  • Cline, K., Zullo, H., & Parker, M. (2007). Teaching with classroom voting. Mathematical Association of America FOCUS, 27(5), 22-23.
  • Cline, K., Zullo, H., & Parker, M. (2007). Using classroom voting in mathematics courses. Paper presented at the 19th Annual International Conference on Technology in Collegiate Mathematics, Boston, MA.
  • d’Inverno, R., Davis, H., & White, S. (2003). Using a personal response system for promoting student interaction. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 22(4), 163-169.
  • Kaplan, J. (2011). Innovative activities: How clickers can facilitate the use of simulations in large lecture classes. Technology Innovation in Statistics Education, 5(1).
  • King, S. O., & Robinson, C. L. (2009). “Pretty Lights” and maths! Increasing student engagement and enhancing learning through the use of electronic voting systems. Computers & Education, 53, 189-199.
  • King, S. O. & Robinson, C. L. (2009). Staff perspectives on the use of technology for enabling formative assessment and automated student feedback. ITALICS 8(2), 24-35.
  • King, S. O. & Robinson, C. L. (2009). Formative teaching: A conversational framework for evaluating the impact of response technology on student experience, engagement, and achievement. Paper presented at the 39th Annual Frontiers in Education (FIE) Conference, San Antonio, Texas, October 18-21, 2009.
  • Lass, D., Morzuch, B., & Rogers, R. (2007). Teaching with technology to engage students and enhance learning. University of Massachusetts-Amherst Department of Resource Economics Working Paper. Accessed December 13, 2007.
  • Lomen, D. O., & Robinson, M. K. (2004). Using ConcepTests in single and multivariable calculus. Paper presented at the 16th Annual International Conference on Technology in Collegiate Mathematics, Chicago, IL.
  • Lucas, A. (2009). Using peer instruction and i>clickers to enhance student participation in calculus. PRIMUS, 19(3), 219-231.
  • McCabe, M., Heal, A., & White, A. (2001). Integration of group response systems into teaching. Paper presented at the 5th International CAA Conference.
  • McCabe, M., Heal, A., & White, A. (2001). New approaches to computer assessment for higher level learning. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Technology in Mathematics Teaching.
  • McGowan, H., & Gunderson, B. (2010). A randomized experiment exploring how certain features of clicker use effect undergraduate students’ engagement and learning in statistics. Technology Innovations in Statistics Education, 4(1).
  • Miller, R.L., Santana-Vega, E., & Terrell, M.S. (2006). Can good questions and peer discussion improve calculus instruction?, PRIMUS, 16(3).
  • Titman, A., & Lancaster, G. (2011). Personal response systems for teaching postgraduate statistics to small groups. Journal of Statistics Education, 19(2).
  • Wit, E. (2003). Who wants to be… The use of a personal response system in statistics teaching. MSOR Connections, 3(2), 14-20.

Nursing

  • Berry, J. (2009). Technology support in nursing education: Clickers in the classroom. Nursing Education Perspectives, 30(5), 295-298.
  • DeBourgh, G. A. (2008). Use of classroom “clickers” to promote acquisition of advanced reasoning skills. Nurse Education in Practice, 8(2), 76-87.
  • Fifer, P. (2012). Student perception of clicker usage in nursing education. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 7(1), 6-9.
  • Moredich, C., & Moore, E. (2007). Engaging students through the use of classroom response systems. Nurse Educator, 32(3), 113-116.
  • Skiba, D. J. (2006). Got large lecture hall classes? Use clickers. Nursing Education Perspectives, 27(5), 278-280.
  • Stein, P. S., Challman, S. D., & Brueckner, J. K. (2006). Using audience response technology for pretest reviews in an undergraduate nursing course. Journal of Nursing Education, 45(11), 469-473.
  • Vana, K., Silva, G., Muzyka, D., Hirani, L. (2011). Effectiveness of an audience response system in teaching pharmacology to baccalaureate nursing students. Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 29(6), 105-113.
  • Zurmehly, J., & Leadingham, C. (2008). Exploring student response systems in nursing education. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 26(5), 265-270.

Philosophy

Physics and Astronomy

  • Beatty, I., Gerace, W., Leonard, W., & Dufresne, R. (2006). Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching. American Journal of Physics, 74(1), 31-39.
  • Beuckman, J., Rebello, N. S., & Zollman, D. (2006). Impact of a classroom interaction system on student learning. Presented at the Physics Education Research Conference, Syracuse, New York.
  • Bullock, D. W., et al. (2002). Enhancing the student-instructor interaction frequency. The Physics Teacher, 40, 30-36.
  • Burnstein, R. A., & Lederman, L. M. (2001). Using wireless keypads in lecture classes. The Physics Teacher, 39, 8-11.
  • Byrd, G. G., Coleman, S., & Werneth, C. (2004). Exploring the universe together: Cooperative quizzes with and without a classroom performance system in Astronomy 101. Astronomy Education Review, 3(1), 26-30.
  • Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970-977.
  • Dufresne, R. J., & Gerace, W. J. (2004). Assessing-to-learn: Formative assessment in physics instruction. The Physics Teacher, 42, 428-433.
  • Duncan, D. (2006). Clickers: A new teaching aid with exceptional promise. Astronomy Education Review, 5(1), 70-88.
  • Fies, C. H. (2005). Classroom response systems: What do they add to an active learning environment? Accessed October 10, 2007.
  • Gonzalez-Espada, W. J., & Bullock, D. W. (2007). Innovative applications of classroom response systems: Investigating students’ item response times in relation to final course grade, gender, general point average, and high school ACT scores. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 6.
  • James, M. C. (2006). The effect of grading incentive on student discourse in peer instruction. American Journal of Physics, 74(8), 689-691.
  • James, M. C., Barbieri, F., & Garcia, P. (2008). What are they talking about? Lessons learned from a study of peer instruction. Astronomy Education Review, 7(1).
  • Lasry, N. (2008). Clickers or flashcards: Is there really a difference? The Physics Teacher 46(4), 242-244.
  • Lasry, N., Mazur, E., & Watkins, J. (2008). Peer instruction: From Harvard to the two-year college. American Journal of Physics, 76(11), 1066-1069.
  • Len, P. M. (2007). Different reward structures to motivate student interaction with electronic response systems in astronomy. Astronomy Education Review, 5(2), 5-15.
  • Lorenzo, M., Crouch, C., & Mazur, E. (2006). Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom. American Journal of Physics, 74(2), 118-122.
  • Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Mazur, E. (2009). Farewell, lecture? Science, 323(5910), 50-51.
  • Meltzer, D. E., & Manivannan, K. (2002). Transforming the lecture-hall environment: The fully interactive physics lecture. American Journal of Physics, 70(6), 639-454.
  • Milner-Bolotin, M. (2004). Tips for using a peer response system in a large introductory physics class. The Physics Teacher, 42, 253-254.
  • Prather, E., Rudolph, A., & Brissenden, G. (2009). Teaching and learning astronomy in the 21st century. Physics Today, 62(10).
  • Prather, E. E., Rudolph, A. L., Brissenden, G., & Schlingman, W. M. (2009). A national study assessing the teaching and learning of introductory astronomy: Part 1: The effect of interactive instruction. American Journal of Physics, 77(3).
  • Prather, E. E., & Brissenden, G. (2009). Clickers as data gathering tools and students’ attitudes, motivations, and beliefs on their use in this application. Astronomy Education Review, 8(1).
  • Reay, N. W., et al. (2005). Toward the effective use of voting machines in physics lectures. American Journal of Physics, 73(6), 554-558.
  • Reay, N. W., Li, Pengfei, & Bao, Lei. (2008). Testing a new voting machine methodology. American Journal of Physics, 72(2), 171-178.
  • Rudolph, A., Prather, E., Brissenden, G., Consiglio, D, & Gonzaga, V. (2010). A national study assessing the teaching and learning of introductory astronomy: Part 2: The connection between student demographics and learning. Astronomy Education Review, 9(1).
  • Sharma, M. D., Khachan, J., Chan, B., & O’Bryne, J. (2005). An investigation of the effectiveness of electronic classroom communication systems in large lectures. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(2), 137-154.
  • Turpen, C., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2007). Understanding how physics faculty use peer instruction. Proceedings of the 2007 Physics Education Research Group Conference, 204-207.
  • Turpen, C. & Finkelstein, N. D. (2009). Not all interactive engagement is the same: Variations in physics professors’ implementation of Peer Instruction. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 5, 020101.
  • Watkins, E. & Sabella, M. (2008). Examining the effectiveness of clickers in promoting learning by tracking the evolution of student responses. Proceedings of the 2008 Physics Education Research Conference.
  • Willoughby, S. D., & Gustafson, E. (2009). Technology talks: Clickers and grading incentive in the large lecture hall. American Journal of Physics, 77(2), 180-183.

Political Science

  • Beavers, S. L. (2010). Some days, things just “click” in the classroom: Clicker technology in the introductory US politics classroom. Presented at the 2010 Meeting of the Western Political Science Association, San Francisco, California.
  • Kam, C. D., & Sommer, B. (2005). Real-time polling technology in a public opinion course. Accessed November 15, 2007.
  • Peterson, G. D. (2007). To click or not to click: The impact of student response systems on political science courses. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Teaching and Learning Conference, Charlotte, North Carolina.
  • Webking, R., & Valenzuela, F. (2006). Using audience response systems to develop critical thinking. In Banks, David A. (Ed.), Audience Response Systems in Higher Education: Applications and Cases. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.

Psychology

  • Brady, M., Seli, H., & Rosenthal, J. (2013). “Clickers” and metacognition: A quasi-experimental comparative study about metacognitive self-regulation and use of electronic feedback devices. Computers & Education, 65, 56-63.
  • Briggs, L. (2008, September 24). Using classroom clickers to engage every student. Campus Technology.
  • Campbell, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). Questioning as an instructional method: Does it affect learning from lectures? Applied Cognitive Psychology, online.
  • Cleary, A. M. (2008). Using wireless response systems to replicate behavioral research findings in the classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 35(1), 42-44.
  • Edens, K. M. (2009). The interaction of pedagogical approach, gender, self-regulation, and goal orientation using student response system technology. Jounal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(2), 161-177.
  • Epstein, M. L, et al. (2002). Immediate feedback assessment technique promotes learning and corrects inaccurate first responses. The Psychological Record, 52(2), 187-201.
  • Ewing, A. (2006). Increasing classroom engagement through the use of technology . Accessed April 18, 2008.
  • Fisher, C. M. (2006). Automated classroom response systems: Implications for sexuality education and research. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 1(4), 23-31.
  • Glass, A. L., Brill, G., & Ingate, M. (2008). Combined online and in-class pretesting improves exam performance in general psychology. Educational Psychology, 28(5), 483-503.
  • Kellum, K. K., Carr, J. E., & Dozier, C. L. (2001). Response-card instruction and student learning in a college classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 28(2), 101-104.
  • Langley, M. M., Cleary, A. M., & Kostic, B. N. (2007). On the use of wireless response systems in experimental psychology: Implications for the behavioral researcher. Behavior Research Methods, 39(4), 816-823.
  • Lee, J. B., & Bainum, C. K. (2006, April). Do clickers depersonalize the classroom? An evaluation by shy students. Poster presented at the 86th Annual Convention of the Western Psychological Association, Palm Springs, CA.
  • Mayer, R. E., Stull, A., DeLeeuw, K., Almeroth, K., Bimber, B., Chun, D., Bulger, M., Campbell, J., Knight, A., & Zhang, H. (2009). Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 51-57.
  • Morling, B., McAuliffe, M., Cohen, L., & DiLorenzo, T. M. (2008). Efficacy of personal response systems (“clickers”) in large, introductory psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 35(1), 45-50.
  • Poirier, C. R., & Feldman, R. S. (2007). Promoting active learning using individual response technology in large introductory psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 34(3), 194-196.
  • Shaffer, D. M., & Collura, M. J. (2009). Evaluating the effectiveness of a personal response system in the classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 36(4), 273-277.
  • Shapiro, A. (2009). An empirical study of personal response technology for improving attendance and learning in a large class. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9(1), 13-26.
  • Stowell, J. R., & Nelson, J. M. (2007). Benefits of electronic audience response systems on student participation, learning, and emotion. Teaching of Psychology, 34(4), 253-258.

Sociology