Open Science Research Excellence

Open Science Index

Commenced in January 2007 Frequency: Monthly Edition: International Publications Count: 30526


Select areas to restrict search in scientific publication database:
10011168
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Electronic Response Systems in Technology-Oriented Classes
Authors:
Abstract:
Electronic Response Systems such as Kahoot, Poll Everywhere, and Google Classroom are gaining a lot of popularity when surveying audiences in events, meetings, and classroom. The reason is mainly because of the ease of use and the convenience these tools bring since they provide mobile applications with a simple user interface. In this paper, we present a case study on the effectiveness of using Electronic Response Systems on student participation and learning experience in a classroom. We use a polling application for class exercises in two different technology-oriented classes. We evaluate the effectiveness of the usage of the polling applications through statistical analysis of the students performance in these two classes and compare them to the performances of students who took the same classes without using the polling application for class participation. Our results show an increase in the performances of the students who used the Electronic Response System when compared to those who did not by an average of 11%.

References:

[1] D. Lebow. Constructivist values for instructional systems design: Five principles toward a new mindset. ETR&D, 41:4–16, 1993.
[2] W. R. Klemm. What good is learning if you don’t remember it? The Journal of Effective Teaching, 7(1):61–73, 2007.
[3] A. W. Chickering and Z. F. Gamson. Development and adaptations of the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1999(80):75–81, 2002.
[4] W. M. Boyd. Repeating questions in prose learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 64:31–38, 1973.
[5] R. W. Kulhavy. Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research, 53:211–232, 1977.
[6] D. A. Karp and W. C. Yoels. The college classroom: Some observations on the meanings of student participation. Sociology and Social Research, 60:421–439, 1976.
[7] E. Stones. Students’ attitudes to the size of teaching groups. Educational Review, 21(2):98–108, 1970.
[8] J. Schacter and C. Fagnano. Does computer technology improve student learning and achievement? How, when, and under what conditions? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20(4):329–343, 1999.
[9] K. Hinde and A. Hunt. Using the personal response system to enhance student learning: Some evidence from teaching economics. In D. Banks, editor, Audience response systems in higher education: Applications and cases. Information Science Publishing, Hershey, PA, 2006.
[10] D. Duncan. Clickers: A new teaching aid with exceptional promise. Astronomy Education Review, 5:1–24, 2006.
[11] R. R. Hake. Interactive-engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousandstudent survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66:64–74, 1998.
[12] Poll Everywhere Support, https://www.polleverywhere.com/ ,2019
[13] James Madison University Course Catalog, shorturl.at/fKMQV ,2019
Vol:14 No:07 2020Vol:14 No:06 2020Vol:14 No:05 2020Vol:14 No:04 2020Vol:14 No:03 2020Vol:14 No:02 2020Vol:14 No:01 2020
Vol:13 No:12 2019Vol:13 No:11 2019Vol:13 No:10 2019Vol:13 No:09 2019Vol:13 No:08 2019Vol:13 No:07 2019Vol:13 No:06 2019Vol:13 No:05 2019Vol:13 No:04 2019Vol:13 No:03 2019Vol:13 No:02 2019Vol:13 No:01 2019
Vol:12 No:12 2018Vol:12 No:11 2018Vol:12 No:10 2018Vol:12 No:09 2018Vol:12 No:08 2018Vol:12 No:07 2018Vol:12 No:06 2018Vol:12 No:05 2018Vol:12 No:04 2018Vol:12 No:03 2018Vol:12 No:02 2018Vol:12 No:01 2018
Vol:11 No:12 2017Vol:11 No:11 2017Vol:11 No:10 2017Vol:11 No:09 2017Vol:11 No:08 2017Vol:11 No:07 2017Vol:11 No:06 2017Vol:11 No:05 2017Vol:11 No:04 2017Vol:11 No:03 2017Vol:11 No:02 2017Vol:11 No:01 2017
Vol:10 No:12 2016Vol:10 No:11 2016Vol:10 No:10 2016Vol:10 No:09 2016Vol:10 No:08 2016Vol:10 No:07 2016Vol:10 No:06 2016Vol:10 No:05 2016Vol:10 No:04 2016Vol:10 No:03 2016Vol:10 No:02 2016Vol:10 No:01 2016
Vol:9 No:12 2015Vol:9 No:11 2015Vol:9 No:10 2015Vol:9 No:09 2015Vol:9 No:08 2015Vol:9 No:07 2015Vol:9 No:06 2015Vol:9 No:05 2015Vol:9 No:04 2015Vol:9 No:03 2015Vol:9 No:02 2015Vol:9 No:01 2015
Vol:8 No:12 2014Vol:8 No:11 2014Vol:8 No:10 2014Vol:8 No:09 2014Vol:8 No:08 2014Vol:8 No:07 2014Vol:8 No:06 2014Vol:8 No:05 2014Vol:8 No:04 2014Vol:8 No:03 2014Vol:8 No:02 2014Vol:8 No:01 2014
Vol:7 No:12 2013Vol:7 No:11 2013Vol:7 No:10 2013Vol:7 No:09 2013Vol:7 No:08 2013Vol:7 No:07 2013Vol:7 No:06 2013Vol:7 No:05 2013Vol:7 No:04 2013Vol:7 No:03 2013Vol:7 No:02 2013Vol:7 No:01 2013
Vol:6 No:12 2012Vol:6 No:11 2012Vol:6 No:10 2012Vol:6 No:09 2012Vol:6 No:08 2012Vol:6 No:07 2012Vol:6 No:06 2012Vol:6 No:05 2012Vol:6 No:04 2012Vol:6 No:03 2012Vol:6 No:02 2012Vol:6 No:01 2012
Vol:5 No:12 2011Vol:5 No:11 2011Vol:5 No:10 2011Vol:5 No:09 2011Vol:5 No:08 2011Vol:5 No:07 2011Vol:5 No:06 2011Vol:5 No:05 2011Vol:5 No:04 2011Vol:5 No:03 2011Vol:5 No:02 2011Vol:5 No:01 2011
Vol:4 No:12 2010Vol:4 No:11 2010Vol:4 No:10 2010Vol:4 No:09 2010Vol:4 No:08 2010Vol:4 No:07 2010Vol:4 No:06 2010Vol:4 No:05 2010Vol:4 No:04 2010Vol:4 No:03 2010Vol:4 No:02 2010Vol:4 No:01 2010
Vol:3 No:12 2009Vol:3 No:11 2009Vol:3 No:10 2009Vol:3 No:09 2009Vol:3 No:08 2009Vol:3 No:07 2009Vol:3 No:06 2009Vol:3 No:05 2009Vol:3 No:04 2009Vol:3 No:03 2009Vol:3 No:02 2009Vol:3 No:01 2009
Vol:2 No:12 2008Vol:2 No:11 2008Vol:2 No:10 2008Vol:2 No:09 2008Vol:2 No:08 2008Vol:2 No:07 2008Vol:2 No:06 2008Vol:2 No:05 2008Vol:2 No:04 2008Vol:2 No:03 2008Vol:2 No:02 2008Vol:2 No:01 2008
Vol:1 No:12 2007Vol:1 No:11 2007Vol:1 No:10 2007Vol:1 No:09 2007Vol:1 No:08 2007Vol:1 No:07 2007Vol:1 No:06 2007Vol:1 No:05 2007Vol:1 No:04 2007Vol:1 No:03 2007Vol:1 No:02 2007Vol:1 No:01 2007