2008
DOI: 10.1007/s10956-008-9116-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The C3 Framework: Evaluating Classroom Response System Interactions in University Classrooms

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
11
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
2
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Hoekstra (2008), and Blood and Neel (2008) also report increases in self-reported engagement for undergraduate students enrolled in general chemistry, and masters and undergraduate students enrolled in a variety of programs respectively. Fies and Marshall (2008) report a similar finding in their review of the literature. Reasons for the increased feelings of participation and engagement vary, but include providing a change of pace from the lecture, and providing an opportunity to talk to peers (Hoekstra 2008); greater cognitive involvement, the opportunity for physical activity, and the opportunity for self-assessment (Rice & Bunz 2006); and greater interest in the topic under discussion (Fies & Marshall 2008).…”
Section: Student Participation and Engagementsupporting
confidence: 64%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Hoekstra (2008), and Blood and Neel (2008) also report increases in self-reported engagement for undergraduate students enrolled in general chemistry, and masters and undergraduate students enrolled in a variety of programs respectively. Fies and Marshall (2008) report a similar finding in their review of the literature. Reasons for the increased feelings of participation and engagement vary, but include providing a change of pace from the lecture, and providing an opportunity to talk to peers (Hoekstra 2008); greater cognitive involvement, the opportunity for physical activity, and the opportunity for self-assessment (Rice & Bunz 2006); and greater interest in the topic under discussion (Fies & Marshall 2008).…”
Section: Student Participation and Engagementsupporting
confidence: 64%
“…However, Fies and Marshall (2008) also note that most studies also report a small minority of students, usually 7% or less, who did not enjoy the technology. An investigation of this issue by Trees and Jackson (2007) in the context of large undergraduate classes in physics, communications, and astronomy find that the students who are most positive about SRSs are those who self-report as valuing feedback, those who do not value a traditional lecture style, and those who prefer to be engaged in a large class.…”
Section: Student Satisfaction and Enjoymentmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…This technology allows the instructor to pose a question to the class and easily collect the responses. Advocates of this technological solution report that, when used in a learner-centered framework, the increased interaction through strategically posed questions can, among other things, assess prior knowledge; elicit a misperception; stimulate discussion; and exercise a cognitive skill [8,11]Many of the strategies described in this issue are complemented by audience response systems.…”
Section: Evaluation Questionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Assessment in this case acts like a bridge across a whole teaching activity [5]. Many studies have worked on introducing the interactive response system (IRS) into teaching in the classroom, especially in those science related courses or large classes [6]. IRS is a learning environment of information technology application.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%