You are here:

Electronic voting systems for lectures then and now: A comparison of research and practice
ARTICLE

,

Australasian Journal of Educational Technology Volume 23, Number 2, ISSN 0814-673X Publisher: Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education

Abstract

Research and practice in the use of electronic voting systems has developed over the last five years. Electronic voting systems, also known as personal response systems, audience response systems or classroom communication systems, use handsets to elicit responses from students as part of structured teaching sessions, typically lectures. The use of this information has implications for pedagogy; they are associated with the introduction of interactive, discursive and more segmented approaches to teaching. The pedagogic and organisational implications of adopting such systems are summarised, along with the perceptions that staff and students hold. Comparisons are drawn between practice up to 2002 and between 2002 and 2006; these reveal how both practice and research on this topic has matured, highlighting (for example) the development of models that seek to abstract and share practice. The paper concludes by outlining the ways in which such tools can be used to improve lecturing, and identifies an agenda for future work in this area.

Citation

Simpson, V., Oliver, M. & Oliver, M. (2007). Electronic voting systems for lectures then and now: A comparison of research and practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(2),. Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. Retrieved August 6, 2024 from .

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Banks, D. (2003). Using keypad-based group process support systems to facilitate student reflection. In G. Crisp, D. Thiele, I. Scholten, S. Barker and J. Barron (Eds), Interact, Integrate, Impact: Proceedings 20th ASCILITE Conference. (pp. 3746). Http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/adelaide03/docs/pdf/37.pdf
  2. Barnett, J. (2006). Implementation of personal response units in very large lecture classes: Student perceptions. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(4), 474-494. Http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet22/barnett.html
  3. 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.
  4. Bell, M., Bush, D., Nicholson, P., O’Brien, D. & Tran, T. (2002) A survey of online education and services in Australia. Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training. [viewed 3 Aug 2006, verified 8 Apr 2007] http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/publications_resources/profiles/online_education_services_in_ustralia.htm
  5. Bligh, D. (1998). What’s the use of lectures? Exeter: Intellect.
  6. Boyle, J. & Nicol, D. (2003). Using classroom communication systems to support interaction and discussion in large class settings. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 11(3), 43-57.
  7. Burnstein, R. & Lederman, L. (2001). Using wireless keypads in lecture classes. The Physics Teacher, 39, 8-11. Http://www.replysystems.com/pdfs/benefits/24.pdf [viewed 3 Aug 2006]
  8. Burton, K. (2004). Interactive Powerpoints: Is there any point in giving power to students? Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, 11(4). [viewed 3 Aug 2006] http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/
  9. Cooper, C., Gerth, S., Lewis, K., Maxwell, D. & Tymchysyn, P. (1997). Computerized classroom presentation with keypad questions as compared to traditional classroom lecture. In Gerdin, U., Tällberg, M. & Wainwright, P.
  10. Crouch, C. & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69, 970-977.
  11. Cue, N. (1998). A universal learning tool for classrooms? Proceedings of the First Quality in Teaching and Learning Conference. Hong Kong International Trade and Exhibition Center (HITEC), Hong Kong SAR, China 10-12 December 1998. Http://celt.ust.hk/ideas/prs/pdf/Nelsoncue.pdf [viewed 3 Aug 2006]
  12. Cutts, Q., Carbone, A. & Van Haaster, K. (2004). Using an electronic voting system to promote active reflection on coursework feedback. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers in Education 2004, Australia. [verified 8 Apr 2007] http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~quintin/papers/ICCE04QC.pdf
  13. Cutts, Q., Kennedy, G., Mitchell, C. & Draper, S. (2004). Maximising dialogue in lectures using group response systems. 7th IASTED International Conference on Computers and Advanced Technology in Education. Hawaii, August 2004. [verified 206 Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2007, 23(2)
  14. Cutts, Q. & Kennedy, G. (2005). Connecting learning environments using electronic voting systems. In A. Young& D. Tolhurst (Eds), Australasian Computing
  15. Draper, S. & Brown, M. (2002). Use of the PRS (Personal Response System) handsets at Glasgow University, Interim Report. [viewed 3 Aug 2006] http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/%7Esteve/ilig/interim.html
  16. Draper, S. & Brown, M. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 81-94.
  17. Draper, S., Cargill, J. & Cutts, Q. (2002). Electronically enhanced classroom interaction. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 18(1), 13-23.
  18. Duncan, D. (2005). Clickers in the Classroom. San Francisco: Pearson Education.
  19. Elliott, C. (2002). Case study: Economics lectures using a personal response system. The Economics Centre of the Learning and Teaching Support Network. [viewed 3 Aug 2006] http://www.economics.ltsn.ac.uk/showcase/elliott_prs.htm
  20. Elliott, C. (2003). Using a personal response system in economics teaching. International Review of Economics Education, 1(1). [viewed 3 Aug 2006] http://www.economics.ltsn.ac.uk/iree/i1/elliott.htm
  21. 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.
  22. Halloran, L. (1995). A comparison of two methods of teaching: Computer managed instruction and keypad questions versus traditional classroom lecture. Computers in Nursing, 13(6), 285-288.
  23. Herr, R.B. (1994). Computer assisted communication within the classroom: Interactive lecturing. Newark: Delaware University. ERIC Document ED416821. [verified 8 Apr 2007] http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?
  24. Jones, P. (1999). Improving learning in lectures using keypad-response units. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Teaching Learning Forum. The University of Western Australia, 3-4 February. Http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1999/jones.html
  25. 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.
  26. Kennedy, G. & Cutts, Q. (2005). The association between students’ use of an electronic voting system and their learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 260-268.
  27. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd Edition). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
  28. Lopez-Herrejon, R. & Schulman, M. (2004). Using interactive technology in a short Java course: An experience report. The 9th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education 2004 (pp. 203-207) Leeds, 28-30 June.
  29. Martin, E. (1999). Changing academic work: Developing the learning university. Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press.
  30. Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.
  31. Oliver, M. & Conole, G. (2003). Evidence-based practice and e-learning in higher education: Can we and should we? Research Papers in Education, 18(4), 385-397.
  32. Oliver, M. & Harvey, J. (2002). What does ‘impact’ mean in the evaluation of learning technology? Educational Technology& Society, 5(3), 18-26.
  33. Purchase, H., Mitchell, C. & Ounis, I. (2004). Gauging students’ understanding through interactive lectures. In H. Williams& L. McKinnon (Eds), Proceedings of BNCOD 21. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3112: 234-243. [verified 8 Apr 2007] http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/ilig/papers/hcp1.pdf
  34. Reay, N., Bao, L., Li, P., Warnakululasooriya, R. & Baugh, G. (2005). Towards the effective use of voting machines in physics lectures. American Journal of Physics 73(6), 554-558.
  35. Sharma, M., Khachan, J., Chan, B. & O’Byrne, J. (2005). An investigation of the effectiveness of electronic classroom communication systems in large lecture classes. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(2), 137-154.
  36. Williams, D. (2002). As seen on TV. The Guardian Education. [viewed 3 August 2006] http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,9830,719051,00.html
  37. Williams, J. (2003). ‘Learning by remote control’: Exploring the use of an audience response system as a vehicle for content delivery. In G. Crisp, D. Thiele, I. Scholten, S. Barker and J.Barron (Eds), Interact, Integrate, Impact: Proceedings ASCILITE Conference. (pp 739-838) Adelaide, 7-10 December.
  38. Van Dijk, L.A., VandenBerg, G.C. & Van Keulen, H. (2001). Interactive lectures in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 26(1), 15-28.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.