2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaccedu.2012.05.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Using student response systems in the accounting classroom: Strengths, strategies and limitations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
65
0
17

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 60 publications
(86 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
2
65
0
17
Order By: Relevance
“…SRS also allowed students to measure their level of understanding of knowledge taught in classes and allowed them to gauge the knowledge of other students in the class (Draper & Brown, 2004;Han & Finkelstein, 2013). Carnaghan, Edmonds, Lechner, and Olds (2011) reviewed the studies on using SRSs and categorized the benefits: student preparation for class (Carnaghan & Webb, 2007), student attendance (Robinson, 2006), student participation and engagement (Hoekstra, 2008;Fies & Marshall, 2008), student satisfaction and enjoyment (Mula & Kavanagh, 2009), improved instructor performance (C. T. Edmonds & T. P. Edmonds, 2010), improved student learning (Carnaghan & Webb, 2007;C. T. Edmonds & T. P. Edmonds, 2010;Premuroso, Tong, & Beed, 2011), and more frequent and timely feedback to students (Mayer et al, 2009).…”
Section: Research Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…SRS also allowed students to measure their level of understanding of knowledge taught in classes and allowed them to gauge the knowledge of other students in the class (Draper & Brown, 2004;Han & Finkelstein, 2013). Carnaghan, Edmonds, Lechner, and Olds (2011) reviewed the studies on using SRSs and categorized the benefits: student preparation for class (Carnaghan & Webb, 2007), student attendance (Robinson, 2006), student participation and engagement (Hoekstra, 2008;Fies & Marshall, 2008), student satisfaction and enjoyment (Mula & Kavanagh, 2009), improved instructor performance (C. T. Edmonds & T. P. Edmonds, 2010), improved student learning (Carnaghan & Webb, 2007;C. T. Edmonds & T. P. Edmonds, 2010;Premuroso, Tong, & Beed, 2011), and more frequent and timely feedback to students (Mayer et al, 2009).…”
Section: Research Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the designs of SRS questions require careful consideration to encourage problem solving and deeper ongoing retention of knowledge. Carnaghan et al (2011) suggested that SRS questions should be interspersed throughout the class; opportunity for peer discussion should be provided in answering the SRS questions; flexibility and variety should be allowed in the instructor questions and behavior used to explore the SRS responses; the aggregated response graph should be displayed; and SRS questions should be sufficiently difficult, so that students would need to pay attention to answer.…”
Section: Research Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The review of literature on the use of clickers in the various streams of business and management revealed that only 33 articles have been published in this area to date. These articles comprise 14 from business (e.g., Blasco-Arcas et al, 2013;Heaslip et al, 2014;Thoms and Williams, 2010), eight from accounting (e.g., Carnaghan et al, 2011;Chui et al, 2013;Dunnett et al, 2011), six from management (e.g., Han and Finkelstein, 2013;Kullven and Westin, 2012), four from marketing (e.g., Hedgcock and Rouwenhorst, 2014;Sprague and Dahl, 2010), two from management information systems (MIS) (i.e., Bain and Przybyla, 2009;Hoanca, 2009), and one from finance (i.e., Snavely and Chan, 2008) (see Table 1). Moreover, two articles (i.e., Humphries and Whelan, 2009;Robinsson, 2007) were used in cross-discipline streams of business and management.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, Humphries and Whelan (2009) used both business and accounting streams whereas Robinsson (2007) used accounting and marketing streams. Koppel and Berenson (2008), Matestic and Adams (2008), Stagg and Lane (2010), Thoms and Williams (2010) Accounting (8) Carnaghan and Webb (2007), Carnaghan et al (2011), Chui et al (2013), Dunnett et al (2011), Humphries and Whelan (2009), Marshall and Varnon (2012), Mula andKavanagh (2009), Robinsson (2007) Management (6) Han and Finkelstein (2013), Kullven and Westin (2012), Lojo (2009), Nelson and Hauck (2008), Robinsson (2007), Slauson (2011) Marketing (4) Hedgcock and Rouwenhorst (2014), Lincoln (2007), Robinson and Ritzko (2006), Sprague and Dahl (2010) Management Information Systems (2) Bain andPrzybyla (2009), Hoanca (2009) Finance (1) Snavely and Chan (2008) To undertake the critical review of literature, we divided the studies primarily based on their possible themes into 17 various categories (see Table 2). The analysis indicates that engagement is the most explored aspect of clickers in the educational settings followed by performance, learning, participation, feedback, satisfaction, attitude, anonymity, attendance, motivation, fun to use or enjoyability, interactivity, assessment, understanding, effectiveness, and attention as some other frequently used themes.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Clickers integrate a “game approach” (Martyn, ) into traditional lecture classes by incorporating different game elements such as goals, rules, competitions, timing, reward structures (eg, points) or feedback (Kapp, ). Using the motivational pull of games, clickers can engage learners (Blasco‐Arcas et al ., ), and increase students' motivation and satisfaction (Buil et al ., ), while facilitating participation in class (Carnaghan, Edmonds, Lechner, & Olds, ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%