Clicker technology in health and medicine

From HLWIKI Canada

Jump to: navigation, search
Using clickers (CCSs) during lectures
Are you interested in contributing to HLWIKI Canada - hlwiki.ca? contact: dean.giustini@ubc.ca

To browse other articles on a range of HSL topics, see the wiki index.

Contents

Introduction

See also Clicker technology in workshops & Information technology topics new2.gif

Clicker systems (also audience response systems and classroom communication systems (CCSs)) are a combination of handheld remote devices, receivers and software that allow students to send responses (typically multiple-choice) to a computer which are collected and tabulated in real-time. Responses are transmitted wirelessly to a receiver attached to a computer and tabulated by its software. CCSs also include shared display of results.

How are they used in classrooms?

The main benefit of clicker technology in classroom is the potential to increase interactivity with the students. Those students who are more engaged during class have been found to be better students; recent research shows that increasing the peer-to-peer and student-teacher interaction improves learning and course effectiveness (Hake, Mazur, etc.). Some specific applications or strategies using clickers include:

  • question and answer formats
  • unit reviewing
  • collaborative work (pairs, groups)
  • debating points or issues
  • voting and peer evaluation
  • data collection (survey, statistical analyses)
  • customized instruction (based on understanding)
  • informal assessment

Library science & information literacy

Medicine

  • Barour ME. Electronic voting in dental materials education: the impact on students' attitudes and exam performance. J Dent Educ. 2008;72(9):1042-1047.
  • Cain J, Robinson E. A primer on audience response systems: Current applications and future considerations. Am J Pharmaceut Educ. 2008;72(4):77.
  • Collins L. Livening up the classroom: Using audience response systems to promote active learning. Med Ref Serv Q. 2007;26(1):81-88.
  • Duggan PM, Palmer E, Devitt P. Electronic voting to encourage interactive lectures: a randomised trial. BMC Med Educ. 2007;7(25).
  • Eggert CH. Impact of an audience response system. Med Educ. 2004;38:576.
  • Fitch JL. Student feedback in the college classroom: a technology solution. Educ Tech Res Development. 2004;2(1):71-77.
  • Homme J. Utilisation of an audience response system. Med Educ. 2004;38:575.
  • Kenwright K. Clickers in the classroom. TechTrends. 2009;53(1):74-77.
  • Latessa R. Use of an audience response system to augment interactive learning. Fam Med. 2005;37(1):12-14.
  • Miller RG. Evaluation of an audience response system for the continuing education of health professionals. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 23: 109-115.
  • Moy JR. Who wants to be a physician? an educational tool for reviewing pulmonary physiology. Adv Physiol Educ. 2000;24(1):30-7.
  • Pradhan A. The influence of an audience response system on knowledge retention: an application to resident education. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:1827-30.
  • Rao SP. Peer instruction improves performance on quizzes. Advances in Physiology Education. 2000;24(1):51-55.
  • Robertson LJ. Twelve tips for using a computerised interactive audience response system. Medical Teacher. 2000;22(3):237-239.
  • Schackow TE. Audience response system: effect on learning in family medicine residents. Family Medicine. 2004;36(7):496-504.
  • Slain D. An interactive response system to promote active learning in the doctor of pharmacy curriculum. Am J Pharm Educ. 2004;68
  • Stevenson F. Clickers: The use of audience response questions to enliven lecture and stimulate teamwork. J Int Assoc Med Sci Educ. 2007;17(2):106-111.
  • Torbeck L. Enhancing programme evaluation using the audience response system. Med Educ. 2007;41:1088-1089.
  • Uhari M. Experiences of using an interactive audience response system in lectures. BMC Med Educ. 2003;3(12).
  • Williams B. The use of interactive wireless keypads for interprofessional learning experiences by undergraduate emergency health students. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT). 2008;4(1).

Nursing

  • Berry J. Technology support in nursing education: clickers in the classroom. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2009;30(5):295-298.
  • DeBourgh GA. Use of classroom "clickers" to promote acquisition of advanced reasoning skills. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2008;8(2):76-87.
  • Moredich C, Moore E. Engaging students through the use of classroom response systems. Nurse Educat. 2007;32(3):113-116.
  • Skiba DJ. Got large lecture hall classes? Use clickers. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2006;27(5):278-280.
  • Stein PS, Challman SD, Brueckner JK. Using audience response technology for pretest reviews in an undergraduate nursing course. J Nurs Educ. 2006;45(11):469-473.
  • Zurmehly J, Leadingham C. Exploring student response systems in nursing education. Comput Informat Nurs. 2008;26(5):265-270.

Psychology

  • Campbell J, Mayer RE. Questioning as an instructional method: does it affect learning from lectures? Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2008.
  • Cleary AM. Using wireless response systems to replicate behavioral research findings in the classroom. Teaching of Psychology. 2008;35(1):42-44.
  • Edens KM. The interaction of pedagogical approach, gender, self-regulation, and goal orientation using student response system technology. J Res Tech Educ. 2009;41(2):161-177.
  • Epstein ML. Immediate feedback assessment technique promotes learning and corrects inaccurate first responses. Psychological Record. 2002;52(2):187-201.
  • Fisher CM. Automated classroom response systems: Implications for sexuality education and research. Am J Sexuality Educ. 2006;1(4):23-31.
  • Glass AL. Combined online and in-class pretesting improves exam performance in general psychology. Ed Psych. 2008;28(5), 483-503.
  • Kellum KK. Response-card instruction and student learning in a college classroom. Teaching of Psychology. 2001;28(2):101-104.
  • Langley MM. On the use of wireless response systems in experimental psychology: implications for the behavioral researcher. Behavior Research Methods. 2007;39(4):816-823.
  • Lee JB. Do clickers depersonalize the classroom? An evaluation by shy students. Annual Convention of the Western Psychological Association, Palm Springs, CA; 2006.
  • Mayer RE. Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2009;34:51-57.
  • Morling B. Efficacy of personal response systems ("clickers") in large, introductory psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology. 2008;35(1):45-50.
  • Poirier CR. Promoting active learning using individual response technology in large introductory psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology. 2007;34(3), 194-196.
  • Shaffer DM. Evaluating the effectiveness of a personal response system in the classroom. Teaching of Psychology. 2009;36(4), 273-277.
  • Stowell JR. Benefits of electronic audience response systems on student participation, learning, and emotion. Teaching of Psychology. 2007;34(4), 253-258.
Retrieved from "http://hlwiki.slais.ubc.ca/index.php/Clicker_technology_in_health_and_medicine"
Personal tools