Content uploaded by Robert Linsenmeier
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Robert Linsenmeier on Aug 14, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Session M4C
1-4244-0257-3/06/$20.00 © 2006 IEEE October 28 – 31, 2006, San Diego, CA
36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
M4C-16
Instructor and Course Changes Resulting from an
HPL-inspired Use of Personal Response Systems
Robert A. Linsenmeier1, Suzanne A. Olds2, Yifat Ben-David Kolikant3
1 Biomedical Engineering Department and Department of Neurobiology and Physiology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, r-linsenmeier@northwestern.edu
2 Biomedical Engineering Department, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, s-olds@northwestern.edu
3 School of Education, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel, yifatbdk@mscc.huji.ac.il
Abstract - Personal response systems (PRS) are beneficial
because they can facilitate instruction that implements the
theoretical framework of How People Learn (HPL), which
emphasizes learner-, knowledge-, community-, and
assessment-centered approaches. In this work we present
case studies of moderately large biomedical engineering
and biology courses. We discuss what types of questions
and classroom strategies are effective in supporting HPL-
inspired induction. A possibly unrecognized benefit of
using a PRS system is its effect on instructors. We discuss
the beneficial effects of PRS use on instructors and the
changes in teaching strategies these systems brought
about. The insight about the fragility of students'
knowledge revealed by the PRS prompted the instructors
to invest more time in designing formative assessment and
in developing ways to address misconceptions. Use of the
PRS also prompted the instructors to expand their
instruction from merely content to include thought
processes typical in their domain. Finally, the community
of learners that was generated or reinforced by PRS had a
positive effect on encouraging classroom discussion, and
the instructors’ teaching evolved to take advantage of that.
Index Terms - classroom communication systems, formative
assessment, pedagogy, personal response systems, PRS
INTRODUCTION
Personal Response Systems (PRS) are a simple technology
that can make the classroom more interactive. Using a
computer platform for PRS, which now has good integration
with Microsoft PowerPoint, the instructor poses a multiple
choice question and gives a set of possible answers. Students
respond using individual infrared or RF transmitters, and when
they answer, their transmitter number or their names appear in
a matrix overlaid on the question screen. Their answer itself
does not appear, so anonymity is preserved. When all or most
responses have been collected, a histogram showing the
distribution of answers is displayed. At this point, the
instructor has several choices of how to proceed, as described
under Strategies. Some of the advantages of these systems for
student learning have been discussed previously [1]-[8], but
two aspects have received little attention. First, there are
several methods for using PRS, and several types of questions
that could be asked. Which methods work best, and what
kinds of questions are most effective? Second, we believe that
the influence of PRS on faculty conceptions of teaching have
received little scrutiny.
To frame the discussion of these questions, we first
review the goals that we have attempted to achieve through
the use of PRS in moderately large (50 - 90 student) classes in
biomedical engineering. We then discuss how and why PRS
can help meet these goals, in the context of the educational
principles described in the How People Learn (HPL)
philosophies [9] that underlie much of the curricular design in
the VaNTH Engineering Research Center (ERC) in
Bioengineering Educational Technologies (www.vanth.org),
and provide evidence that it does work. A section is then
devoted to the way PRS can and does influence faculty to
reflect on and modify their teaching styles. Finally, we raise
questions that can be addressed in ongoing and future studies
of the optimal ways to use PRS systems.
GOALS OF USING PRS
Our experience comes from using PRS (InterWrite PRS,
GTCO CalComp, Columbia, MD) in a thermodynamics course
of approximately 50 students taken primarily by biomedical
engineering (BME) sophomores and juniors (SAO), and a
systems physiology course of up to 90 students taken
primarily by BME juniors (RAL). The frequency and
methods of use are similar in both courses. For the classes for
which survey data is reported, the PRS was typically used in
1-2 class sessions per week, or about 30% to 50% of classes.
Both instructors use the PRS to solicit responses from
individuals working independently and also to solicit
responses from students after they have consulted with a peer.
In both courses we have attempted to:
• Help students actively construct knowledge in class
• Reveal the extent of misconceptions
• Provide feedback to the instructor on where students are
having difficulties
• Demonstrate to students that there are others who do not
understand
• Encourage student interaction to promote learning
• Encourage a discussion between class and instructor
• Emphasize important concepts
• Provide a motivational basis for the next phase of lecture
• Help determine the pace of the instruction
• Keep students engaged and focused (and awake)
Session M4C
1-4244-0257-3/06/$20.00 © 2006 IEEE October 28 – 31, 2006, San Diego, CA
36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
M4C-17
All of these goals are centered on improving student learning
and are not unique to our use of these systems. In addition to
the common goals, the nuances of our goals are somewhat
different. An additional goal for SAO is:
• Build a community among the students
And an additional goals for RAL is to:
• Illustrate and discuss types of questions that students
might see on exams
QUESTION AND DISCUSSION STRATEGIES
PRS Questions
The types of questions asked with the PRS are important to
meeting the goals effectively. We try to avoid questions that
are too easy and simply test recall of facts, on the one hand,
and questions that are too abstract or computationally complex
on the other hand. The former seem to bore students, and the
latter frustrate them and also occupy too much time in class.
The effective middle ground is not easy to define precisely,
but seems to involve conceptual questions, whether or not they
require calculations, that make the students reflect on material
that has recently been presented. However, sometimes we
wish to give students mini-challenges that foreshadow the
topics that are about to be presented. These are not as
comfortable for students, because they may have no idea about
the answer, but they serve to pique their interest in the
forthcoming material, and to alert the instructors to their
preconceptions. Other questions that work well are multistep
problems with series of questions that get increasingly
difficult, and questions that have more than one right answer.
Including the answer choice “more information is required” is
often useful, especially if it is true only in some cases. Until
very recently, PRS question types were limited to multiple
choice. There are now some systems that support short
answer and numeric inputs, but these have not yet been used
by the authors. Nevertheless, we did not find the multiple
choice questions to be a severe limitation. We have
experimented with several types of questions, including ones
based on analysis of graphs. Two questions are shown in
Figure 1. The first one is a relatively straightforward concept
question and requires the students to understand osmotic
pressure, and whether water or solute would move across the
membrane, but the presence of the last answer may cause them
to question whether this would be true under all conditions.
The second question is a graphical concept question used after
this type of graph is explained in a renal physiology unit after
graphs of filtration (F), reabsorption (R) and excretion (E)
have been explained. This question requires students to
understand how secretion (S) would be included. They need
to quickly do a mass balance to determine the excretion line,
and also to realize that more hydrogen ion is secreted than is
filtered.
FIGURE 1
TWO EXAMPLES OF PRS QUESTIONS
Discussion Strategies
After the response histogram is displayed, the instructor has a
number of possible courses of action, all of which we have
used. The least interesting is to tell the class what the right
answer was and briefly explain why. A more interesting
option is to ask students to explain why they arrived at their
answers before revealing which one is correct. Because only
one is correct (generally), justifications of wrong answers will
often bring out misconceptions, and the instructor or other
students can explain what was wrong with the reasoning that
led to the wrong answer. If a large fraction of the students
gave an incorrect response when tackling the problem on their
own, it can be effective if the instructor does not reveal the
right answer, but asks the students to discuss the problem in
small groups and respond again. This is the “peer instruction”
technique of Mazur [1], which already has been demonstrated
to have value in the engineering context [5]. Peer-to-peer
consulting increases the frequency of correct responses when
we offer a second chance to answer the question. In both
thermodynamics and physiology, students simply pair in an ad
hoc way on these occasions, and we do not yet know exactly
what type of discussion occurs in those small groups.
Whatever occurs, it seems to be helpful, and it is important to
note that use of PRS is an effective way to allow peer learning
in a large class where reporting out by groups, or monitoring
of groups by the instructor, would otherwise not be feasible.
Another strategy after asking a question once is to provide
hints or additional material that the instructors (modeling the
behavior of experts) would have taken into account in
answering the question. Alternatively, the additional
discussion of the topic might be followed by a slightly
different question.
Session M4C
1-4244-0257-3/06/$20.00 © 2006 IEEE October 28 – 31, 2006, San Diego, CA
36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
M4C-18
EFFECTIVENESS OF PRS FOR STUDENTS
At the end of the courses in Winter and Spring of 2005,
students were surveyed about their perceptions of PRS using
an instrument with 19 items rated on a 5 point Likert scale
from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). This was
modeled after a survey used by Nichol and Boyle [5]. Analysis
of selected data from those surveys is shown in Table 1. The
values represent the percentage of students who agreed or
strongly agreed (Agree %), and those who disagreed or
strongly disagreed (Disagree %). The headings in the table
(Conceptual Understanding, etc) did not appear in the
questionnaire.
TABLE 1
SURVEY DATA FROM SYSTEMS PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOTHERMODYNAMICS IN 2005. THE “AGREE” COLUMNS INDICATE THE PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WHO
SELECTED AGREE OR STRONGLY AGREE. THE “DISAGREE” COLUMNS INDICATE THE PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WHO SELECTED DISAGREE OR STRONGL Y
DISAGREE. THE REMAINING PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS (NOT SHOWN) SELECTED “NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE.”
Systems Physiology
BME 303 (n=57 students)
Biothermodynamics
BME 250 (n=42 students)
Agree % Disagree% Agree % Disagree %
Conceptual Understanding
1. In this course I am more aware of misunderstandings and misconceptions
than in courses that do not use PRS. 54 7 71.4 14.3
1A. The change in awareness is mainly due to use of PRS (n=34) 45 18
2. PRS helps me to understand the concepts behind problems. 71 5 47.6 21.4
3. PRS questions help me to understand what is expected in this course. 67 18 54.8 16.7
4. PRS classes provide insight into relevance of material to the outside
world. 74 7 64.3 14.3
Interaction and Discussion
5. I got to know fewer students compared to traditional classes. 23 25 7.1 83.3
6. I think anonymous participation is a good idea. 89 3.5 81 7.1
7. I am more actively involved in PRS classes than traditional classes 54 11 71.4 14.3
7A. I am more/less actively involved in this course primarily due to PRS
(n=35) 57 17
11. Discussing PRS questions helps me to understand the subject matter 74 11 71.4 11.9
12. Hearing other students explain problems helps learning.
75 8.8 64.3 14.3
13. Seeing the class responses to a concept question (histogram) helps
increase my confidence. 61 11 59.5 11.9
16. Using the PRS helps the teacher to become aware of student difficulties. 86 2 92.9 4.8
Enjoyment
14. I enjoy this class more than traditional lecture classes. 58 9 76.2 2.4
14A. I enjoy this course more/less than I enjoy traditional lecture courses
primarily due to the use of the PRS (n=35) 35 24
15. The PRS system should be used for other subjects. 68 9 76.2 9.5
17. I am more likely to attend class because of using the PRS. 26 30 23.8 33.3
Learning
8. I have to think more in classes that use PRS than traditional classes 79 11 64.3 7.1
9. I study less outside class for courses that use PRS than for traditional
classes 2 49 23.8 26.2
10. I remember less after a class that uses PRS than in a traditional class 9 51 4.8 52.4
Session M4C
1-4244-0257-3/06/$20.00 © 2006 IEEE October 28 – 31, 2006, San Diego, CA
36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
M4C-19
Three questions were asked only in Systems Physiology
in order to determine the extent to which any positive or
negative impressions of the course were directly due to PRS
rather than to other attributes of the course or instructor. The
number of students responding to those questions, which were
asked contingent on the student’s answer to the question just
above it, is given after the question.
It is clear from Table 1 that students were quite positive
about the use of PRS, which is consistent with earlier work
(e.g. [5], [7], [10], [11]). The ratings provide support for the
idea that most of the goals listed earlier were met. The ratings
of conceptual understanding and learning were generally
positive. Responses to questions 2, 3, 8, and 11 show that the
PRS helped students construct knowledge in class, and
retention was at least as good (question 10). Responses to
question 1 show that students recognized their misconceptions
more readily in these classes, and that this was attributable to
the PRS (question 1A) as opposed to other aspects of the
course. Students overwhelmingly felt that PRS helped the
instructors to understand where the students were having
problems (question 16). Students recognized that they were
not the only ones getting wrong answers, and appreciated
discussing those answers (questions 11,12 and 13). Students
were more actively engaged in these classes (question 7) and
again, this was due to PRS (question 7A). The motivation to
come to class was enhanced for 25% of each group (question
17). The goal of building community was met for the course
that engaged in more group work and had that objective
(question 5).
It is interesting that the two courses differed in the
students’ perception of how PRS influenced their study time
outside of class. In Systems Physiology, only one student felt
that use of PRS decreased his or her study time outside of
class, but in Biothermodynamics about 24% of students felt
that they spent less time than they would have in a class
without PRS. We speculate that this difference occurred
because thermodynamics has a modest number of concepts
that continue to build on each other, so successful
performance on PRS questions signaled to the best students
that they understood the material. The breadth of concepts in
Systems Physiology is greater, so successful performance on
PRS still leaves a great deal for everyone to study.
We began to use PRS because our background in the
VaNTH ERC suggested that it would be a good way to
incorporate the How People Learn (HPL) framework [9] into
our teaching. HPL provides a set of principles for guiding
pedagogy, and the PRS allows the instructor to build these
principles into instruction at a low cost of time and effort
relative to other learning technologies. HPL provides a set of
four principles or attributes of good pedagogical design, rather
than prescriptions for teaching. The education should be
“assessment-centered,” “learner-centered,” “community-
centered,” and “knowledge-centered,” and PRS enhances all
of these.
Consider making education assessment-centered,
probably the single greatest benefit of PRS. Often when an
instructor asks a question in class, there is a dialog with one
student and others may tune out, but with PRS, all students
become engaged in a non-threatening way. Students and the
instructor find out if students are understanding the material at
the level that the instructor expects. Everyone is receiving
formative assessment in real time.
The environment also becomes more learner-centered,
because the pace of the class slows, if for no other reason than
30 to 120 sec is allowed for the response to a question.
Students therefore have an opportunity to think during a
lecture rather than after it, which allows them to raise
questions when they occur. The focus on the learner also
occurs because the instructor has an opportunity to discover
and address misconceptions rather than rushing on without
recognizing whether the students have comprehended the last
point.
The PRS promotes a community-centered approach in at
least three ways. Students often have the opportunity to work
together to arrive at solutions, as described above. They also
have more opportunities to see how an expert in the domain,
the instructor, analyzes a problem, which connects them to the
community of practice that we hope they will join in the
future. The third aspect is that appropriate PRS questions can
connect classroom material to research problems, clinical
problems, or issues in the news, so that the course becomes
more integrated into the student’s view of a wide variety of
real world issues. This is seen strongly in the answer to
question 4 of the survey. This last point is also an element of
making the class more “knowledge-centered,” that is,
providing ways for students to construct knowledge by
allowing them to make connections to a larger body of
information. The responses to question 10 bear on this point
as well. To rephrase that result, half of the students believe
that they remember as much or more of the material from class
sessions that use PRS as from ones that do not.
EFFECTS OF PRS ON FACULTY
When we first began to use the PRS, we expected some of the
advantages for students that are discussed above, but did not
predict its extensive effects on us as instructors, and this has
only received limited attention in the literature [10]. With
some experience in hand, it seems useful to reflect on these
effects, because they have impacted the way we think about
education. PRS has gradually become more integral to our
classes. We use it a greater fraction of the time and the lesson
plans have changed so that in at least some cases, PRS
questions are used as an important part of the way we teach
concepts, not simply as periodic assessment checks.
One way to understand these effects is to continue to refer
to HPL. HPL is often conceptualized as the environment of
the classroom; with respect to PRS, the PRS opens up
classroom opportunities for the four “centerednesses”
discussed above. But the instructor is such an important part
of the environment that the classroom cannot become “more
HPL” without the instructor changing to become “more HPL”
himself or herself.
Session M4C
1-4244-0257-3/06/$20.00 © 2006 IEEE October 28 – 31, 2006, San Diego, CA
36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
M4C-20
The PRS has helped us to become more learner-centered.
We have an enhanced recognition of the speed with which
students can process information. Use of the PRS provides a
frequent reminder of the difference between an expert and a
novice in the domains in which we teach. While we do not
have a measure of the number of concepts that students can
process effectively in a 50 min class, we are sure that it is
smaller than what most engineering faculty assume. There is a
tendency for those at elite universities to believe that their
students can handle concepts at the speed of speech, but the
frequency of wrong answers to PRS questions indicates that
we need to slow down. Thus, there has been a strong effect of
the PRS on the pacing of our courses, partially because of this
recognition, and partially because one simply has to allow
time for students to respond to PRS questions. Because we
cannot move so fast through the material, the corollary, which
relates to knowledge-centeredness, is that we need to more
carefully consider what concepts are essential to discuss in
class and what ones are easy for students to learn on their own,
given the foundation provided in class.
Another aspect of our learner-centeredness is that we
recognize from discussions following PRS questions that,
despite the clarity of our presentations, students hold many
misconceptions. Seeing what were initially surprising answers
to PRS questions helps us to recognize where those
misconceptions are. Correcting them is not easy, but knowing
what the misconceptions are has prompted us to craft
additional PRS questions to address them, whereas prior to
incorporating PRS we remained ignorant and did nothing in
class to help students change their incorrect conceptions. In
addition, the revelation of these misconceptions has provoked
us to look more deeply at our instruction and discover areas in
which we were unclear that may have contributed to
reinforcing students’ initial misconceptions. Discovering
these misconceptions drove us to ask the same or similar PRS
questions at several points in the course. We have been
surprised about the fragility of students’ knowledge and this
information has encouraged us to frequently return to previous
concepts in the classroom. Even if students do not have
misconceptions, the discussion brings out the point that they
frequently use only a fraction of the information that we
believe should be available to them, so they reach incorrect
conclusions. They do not use their information efficiently,
another aspect of the expert/novice distinction. As a result of
these points, we have not only slowed down, but have
redistributed the time in the course to attempt to deal with
misconceptions and areas of difficulty. PRS questions are an
effective way to do this.
Third, the range of answers on any question leads us to
remember that even in a college engineering class, we are
dealing with a range of students in terms of analytical
capabilities and decision making. Of course, we often see
poor responses and grades on exams, but we can easily
attribute this to a failure of the students to prepare for the
exams. Students might not be learning enough material, or the
right material, or be practicing the material. The range of
student responses to a PRS question challenges the belief that
preparation is the only important variable. The PRS questions
are most often about material that we have just covered, and
we know that the students were in that particular class, and at
a school like Northwestern, mostly paying attention. This
suggests that the differences we see on PRS may be caused
partly by differences in students’ abilities to process
information in real time. It may also be due in part to the
students’ previous experiences, where they were rewarded for
simple accumulation of facts and not comprehension or
application of that knowledge. By avoiding recall questions
and probing conceptual understanding, we believe that we are
training students to have a deeper approach to the material.
Fourth, when we lecture, we rarely explain how it is that
we reach conclusions or how we sort out correct from
incorrect answers. Reviewing the answers to PRS questions
gives us an opportunity to model the skills we are using as
experts, which is an aspect of knowledge- and community
centeredness. We can unpack the problem into its components
and make our thinking visible. Of course this works better
when the PRS questions are relatively complex. Finally, using
the PRS makes teaching fresher for us as instructors, and as a
result we are willing to put in the time it takes to create
questions that we believe will assist learning. Part of the
freshness relates to increased discussion in class. Having a
discussion in classes of more than 40 students is not easy, and
we are still exploring ways of enhancing the community-
centeredness in this respect, but the PRS helps considerably.
It often leads the discussion down interesting paths that we
had not anticipated and brings out new ideas or problems for
us to solve. As discussed elsewhere [12]-[13], use of PRS in
even 30% of the classes tends to change the overall classroom
dynamics, even in class sessions when it is not used. It breaks
the “culture of silence” that is prevalent in lecture courses,
making the environment less formal. At least some students
seem more willing to take the risk of asking and answering
questions at times when the PRS is not used.
While we have attributed a great deal to the use of PRS,
and believe that it has been very important, we should stress
that it is only one of several teaching strategies that we use to
supplement lecture and increase the HPL aspects of our
classes.
DISCUSSION
The VaNTH ERC has initiated programs to develop and use
several novel educational technologies. Some of these have
unique properties that mesh with HPL principles better than
other educational platforms do (www.vanth.org). One of the
principal attributes of these platforms is that they provide
formative feedback, and for a faculty member wishing to
enhance lecture classes, these may provide great value. Their
disadvantage is that they take considerable time and effort to
use. In contrast, PRS is a simple technology that requires very
little investment of energy, time, or money, and appears to
return a large benefit. As such, it is an easy entry into learning
technology, and faculty then may wish to do more.
Session M4C
1-4244-0257-3/06/$20.00 © 2006 IEEE October 28 – 31, 2006, San Diego, CA
36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
M4C-21
While we believe the results for students and faculty in
our studies and others provide ample reason to use PRS, there
are research questions we can ask to further our understanding
of its value. One concern is whether the gains we see in the
surveys are simply in student perception, or whether they are
tied deeply to real improvements in their learning. We will in
the future address the question of whether students who more
regularly use the PRS in class do better on exams and in
courses than students who do not, and whether answering
more PRS questions predicts success on exams. Some data of
this type exist at present and show positive correlations.
Roselli and Brophy [4] divided a biomechanics class into three
groups based on the frequency with which students used PRS,
and found that performance in the class was worst for the third
that used PRS least. All the D or F students were in the group
using PRS least. There was no differences in performance for
the middle and high PRS-use groups. Jenkins and Goo [8]
found that performance on PRS questions was highly
correlated with performance on exams. These results are
interesting, but are correlational and do not prove that PRS
made the difference, because it may be better and/or more
motivated students that perform well on all measures.
However, a recent study by Slain and coworkers [7] in a
pharmacy school was well controlled, and showed that
students performed significantly better on exams in all three
courses studied during a year when PRS was used compared
to a cohort in the previous year when it was not used. The
same material was covered in both years. The baseline
characteristics of the students were well matched and the
instructors were all experienced and taught in both years.
We are interested in several other questions about PRS.
First, how well students do across PRS questions. Do some
students almost always see the right answer and others
generally get the wrong answer? Does improvement over time
in PRS correlate with improvement on exams? What occurs
in the discussions and do students actually benefit? Is there a
certain profile for students who retain misconceptions the
longest?
We also hope to address who benefits most and least from
PRS. Many of the measures in Table 1 show a high level of
agreement that conceptual understanding, learning, and
enjoyment are enhanced with PRS systems, findings in
common with other studies. However, 30 to 50% of the
students gave neutral answers to some questions, indicating
that PRS did not influence them positively. The question is
why some students value it, and others are neutral. It could be
that neutral students are the ones who came to class less and
therefore used PRS less often, or the neutral students are the
ones who are less aware of the techniques that actually
enhance their learning, or that the neutral students are the ones
who would have done just as well without PRS. While the
negative students are a small minority on almost every
measure, we need to know who they are as well, and why they
are negative. Are they the top students who feel that the
course slows down too much? Are they the ones who don’t
like teamwork? Are they the ones who don’t understand the
questions or never get the right answers? Are these the people
who are neutral or negative about most things?
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Dr. Denise Drane for assistance developing the
questionnaire. This work was supported primarily by the
Engineering Research Centers Program of the National
Science Foundation under Award Number EEC-9876363.
REFERENCES
[1] Mazur, E. Peer Instruction: A user's manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall, 1997.
[2] Bransford, J, Brophy, S, & Williams, S. When computer technologies
meet the learning sciences: issues and opportunities. Journal of Applied
Development Psychology, 21(1), 2000, 59-84.
[3] Roselli, RJ & Brophy, SP Movement from a taxonomy-driven strategy
of instruction to a challenge-driven strategy in teaching introductory
biomechanics. Session 1309. Proceedings, 2001 American Society for
Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2001.
[4] Roselli, RJ, & Brophy, SP. Exploring an electronic polling system for
the assessment of student progress in two biomedical engineering
courses. Proceeding of the 2002 American Society for Engineering
Education Annual Conference and Exposition (CD-ROM DEStech
Publications) Session 2609, 2002.
[5] Nicol, DJ & Boyle, JT, 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), 2003, 457-473
[6] Roselli, RJ. Challenge-based instruction in biotransport. Proceedings,
2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference
& Exposition, 2004.
[7] Slain, D, Abate, M, Hodges, BM, Stamatakis, MK, & Wolak, S. An
interactive response system to promote active learning in the doctor of
pharmacy curriculum. Am. J. Pharmaceutical Education. 68(5), 2004,
Article 117, pp. 1 – 9.
[8] Jenkins, M & Goo, EK. Concept-based inventory and personal response
systems (PRS) as an assessment method for introductory materials
science and engineering. Proceedings, 2004 American Society for
Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2005.
[9] Bransford, JD, Brown, AL & Cocking, RR, eds. How People Learn:
Brain, Mind, Experience and School. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press, 1999
[10] Dempster, W., Lee, CK & Boyle, JT Teaching of thermodynamics and
fluid mechanics using interactive learning methods in large classes.
Session 2613. Proceedings, 2002 American Society for Engineering
Education Annual Conference & Exposition, 2002.
[11] Siegel, JA, Schmidt, KJ & Cone, J. INTICE – Interactive technology to
improve the classroom experience. Session 2531. Proceedings, 2004
American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference &
Exposition, 2004.
[12] Kolikant, Y B-D, McKenna, A, Yalvac, B. Using the personal response
system as a cultural bridge from silent absorption to active participation.
In P. Kommers & G. Richards (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference
on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2005,
pp. 2660-2667.
[13] Kolikant, Y B-D and Drane, D. Utilizing the Personal Response System
Technology to Crack the Culture of Silence. Proceedings, AERA 2006.
