No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching
1.R. J. Dufresne, W. J. Gerace, W. J. Leonard, J. P. Mestre, and L. Wenk, “Classtalk: A classroom communication system for active learning,” J. Comput. High. Educ. 7, 3–47 (1996).
2.R. Hake, “Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses,” Am. J. Phys. 66, 64–74 (1998).
3.E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: A User's Manual (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1997).
4.W. R. Penuel, J. Roschelle, V. Crawford, N. Shechtman, and L. Abrahamson, “CATAALYST workshop report: Advancing research on the transformative potential of interactive pedagogies and classroom networks,” Workshop Report P14566, SRI International (2004).
5.J. Roschelle, W. R. Penuel, and L. Abrahamson, “The networked classroom,” Educ. Leadership 61, 50–54 (2004).
6.D. Zollman and N. S. Rebello, “The evolving classroom response system at KSU: Classtalk, PRS, PDAs,” contributed talk EG08 at the 130th National Meeting of the American Association of Physics Teachers (Albuquerque, NM, 2005).
7.R. J. Dufresne and W. J. Gerace, “Assessing-to-learn: Formative assessment in physics instruction,” Phys. Teach. 42 (7), 428–433 (2004).
8.R. J. Dufresne, W. J. Gerace, J. P. Mestre, and W. J. Leonard, “ASK-IT/A2L: Assessing student knowledge with instructional technology,” Technical Report UMPERG-2000-09 (University of Massachusetts Physics Education Research Group, 2000).
9.A. Feldman and B. Capobianco, “Real-time formative assessment: A study of teachers' use of an electronic response system to facilitate serious discussion about physics concepts,” Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Chicago, IL, 2003).
10.I. D. Beatty, “Transforming student learning with classroom communication systems,” Research Bulletin ERB0403, Educause Center for Applied Research (2004).
11.I. D. Beatty, W. J. Leonard, W. J. Gerace, and R. J. Dufresne, “Question driven instruction: Teaching science (well) with an audience response system,” in Audience Response Systems in Higher Education: Applications and Cases, edited by D. A. Banks (Idea Group, Hershey, PA, in press).
12.P. Li, N. W. Reay, and L. Bao, “Effects of in-class polling on student performance in learning physics,” contributed poster CO26 at the 129th National Meeting of the American Association of Physics Teachers, Sacramento, CA (2004).
13.W. J. Leonard, W. J. Gerace, and R. J. Dufresne, “Analysis-based problem solving: Making analysis and reasoning the focus of physics instruction,” Technical Report UMPERG-2001-12 (University of Massachusetts Physics Education Research Group, 2001).
14.J. D. Bransford and D. Schwartz, “Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications,” in Review of Research in Education, edited by A. Iran-Nejad and P. D. Pearson (American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC, 1999), Vol. 24, pp. 61–100.
15.J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, and R. R. Cocking, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1999).
16.B. Bell and B. Cowie, “The characteristics of formative assessment in science education,” Sci. Educ. 85, 536–553 (2001).
17.P. Black and D. William, “Assessment and classroom learning,” Assessment in Education 5, 7–74 (1988).
18.P. Black and D. William, “Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment,” Phi Delta Kappan 80, 139–147 (1988).
19.C. Boston, “The concept of formative assessment,” Technical Report ED470206, ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation (2002).
20.E. H. Hobson, “Formative assessment: An annotated bibliography,” The Clearing House MMPI Publ. 71 (2), 123–125 (1997).
Article metrics loading...
Full text loading...
Most read this month