














































Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 4, No. 1, June 2015, pp. 40-60. 

doi: 10.14434/jotlt.v4n1.13002 

 

Revisiting Use of Real-Time Polling for Learning Transfer 

Sheri Stover1, Dan Noel2, Mindy McNutt3, & Sharon G. Heilmann4 

Abstract: Instructors in five different undergraduate courses designed their courses to include 

real-time polling to increase their students’ levels of engagement and participation in an attempt 

to enhance students’ learning transfer. Bjork (1994) defined learning transfer as “the ability to 

use information after significant periods of disuse and the ability to use information to solve 

problems that arise in a context different (if only slightly) from the context in which the 

information was originally learned” (p. 187). This mixed methods research study examined the 

results of those efforts after surveying students’ perceptions of whether the use of real-time 

polling had an effect on their understanding of the course content and their levels of 

participation and engagement in the classroom. Instructors used Poll Everywhere to incorporate 

real-time polling in classes where 98% of students had suitable devices to respond to the polls. 

Results from this survey indicate that the use of real-time polling helped students better 

understand the course material and also increased their level of participation and engagement.  

 

Keywords: real-time polling, Poll Everywhere, learning transfer 

 

Faculty members in higher education have begun to implement clickers in their 

classroom. Clickers are also known as audience response systems and real-time polling. Clickers 

are hand-held devices that students use to respond to questions displayed on a computer 

projector. A receiver device records students’ responses and then displays the aggregated results 

for the entire class to see (Campt & Freeman, 2010). Most frequently,  clickers are used to 

respond to  multiple-choice questions, but some clickers allow students to type in short, open-

ended responses. Clickers are sold for about $30 to $40 from manufacturers such as 

TurningPoint and iClicker (Kelly, 2011). These costs can place an additional financial burden on 

students, many of whom have reported dissatisfaction in being required to purchase a clicker and 

then having to remember to bring it to class (Patry, 2009).  

Companies like Poll Everywhere now provide real-time polling where students can use 

their cell phones to respond to polls. The advantage of using cell phones is that students can use 

a tool that most of them have readily available (Dahlstrom, 2012). Poll Everywhere has an 

educational plan where instructors can utilize the polling for free in classes that have no more 

than 40 students. Once the polls are created, the instructor displays the questions on the computer 

projector for all students to see. Students can use their smart phones, feature phones, laptop 

computers, or tablets to respond to the real-time polls (Poll Everywhere, n.d.).  

                                                 
1  Department of Leadership Studies in Education and Organizations, Wright State University, 3640 Colonel Glenn 

Hwy., Dayton, OH 45435 sheri.stover@wright.edu 
2  Department of Leadership Studies in Education and Organizations, Wright State University, 3640 Colonel Glenn 

Hwy., Dayton, OH 45435 dan.noel@wright.edu 
3 Department of Leadership Studies in Education and Organizations, Wright State University, 3640 Colonel Glenn 

Hwy., Dayton, OH 45435 mindy.mcnutt@wright.edu 
4  Department of Leadership Studies in Education and Organizations, Wright State University, 3640 Colonel Glenn 

Hwy., Dayton, OH 45435 sharon.heilmann@wright.edu 



Stover, S., Noel, D., McNutt, M., & Heilmann, S. G. 

41 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 4, No. 1, June 2015. 

jotlt.indiana.edu 

It is not the technology that enhances students’ learning; however, it is the ways in which 

the instructor utilizes the technology. Real-time polling is important because it is a tool that can 

be utilized by instructors to implement teaching methodologies into their classroom that will 

enhance their students’ learning transfer.  

 

Literature Review 
 

Many college faculty members continue to teach the way they were taught, using didactic 

lecture with a mid-term and a final exam to assess students’ learning (Halpern & Hakel, 2003). 

This results in students who can achieve satisfactory grades by memorizing the material to pass 

the test, but does not result in a large numbers of students being able to transfer their learning to 

future situations (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). Instructors need to incorporate teaching 

methodologies that help prepare students to be independent learners, capable of applying their 

learning in authentic situations beyond their college classes (Halpern & Hakel, 2003). This 

literature review will outline  the current research on learning transfer and address whether the 

use of real-time polling can enhance the design of a class to improve learning transfer.  

Ratey (2002) defined learning as a change in the neural networks in the brain. He 

concluded that the brain has the ability to store information in its short-term recall; thus, students 

can memorize information and retrieve it for tests. However, if the information is not used again, 

it is purged from the brain (Ratey, 2002). Bjork (1994) defined learning transfer as “the ability to 

use information after significant periods of disuse and the ability to use information to solve 

problems that arise in a context different (if only slightly) from the context in which the 

information was originally learned” (p. 187). The primary mandate/undertaking of colleges and 

universities is to teach in order for students to be able to transfer their learning. In other words, 

transferring knowledge implies that students can accurately recall and use knowledge, skills, and 

attitudes learned in college at a later time in their career (Schwartz & Bransford, 1998). Since it 

is challenging to predict the types of situations in which  students will be required to apply their 

knowledge, the aim of higher education should be to facilitate students’ ability to transfer what 

they have learned so students can independently implement solutions (Halpern & Hakel, 2003).  

Most instructors assume that learning transfer happens once students have successfully 

completed the class, but this does not always happen (Leimbach & Maringka, 2009). Wiggins 

(2012) found that students have challenges transferring the content learned in previous classes 

unless the classes are specifically designed for learning transfer. Classes that are designed to 

enhance students’ learning transfer need to ensure that students have high levels of engagement 

and participation. Student engagement is defined as the “time, energy, and resources [that 

students] spend on activities designed to enhance learning” (Exeter, et al., 2010, p. 762). Student 

participation is defined as a “student’s willingness, need, desire, and compulsion to participate 

in, and be successful in, the learning process” (Bomia et al., 1997, p. 3). Classes that are 

designed to enhance learning transfer and include high levels of student engagement and 

participation include the following characteristics.  

 

Active Participation.  

 

The first characteristic of classes designed to enhance learning transfer is that students are 

active participants in the learning process. Students cannot simply be passive learners who are 

merely exposed to information through didactic lecture and assessed at surface levels (Bransford 



Stover, S., Noel, D., McNutt, M., & Heilmann, S. G. 

42 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 4, No. 1, June 2015. 

jotlt.indiana.edu 

et al., 2000). It is critical that students gain deep understanding, which requires them to spend a 

substantial amount of time working with the academic content. When students are repeatedly 

required to generate responses to real-time polling questions with minimal cues, they strengthen 

their neural connections. Halpern and Hakel (2003) refer to this strategy as “the single most 

important variable in promoting long-term retention and transfer” (p. 38). Requiring students to 

frequently retrieve information creates a “memory trace” and repeated practice strengthens the 

neural connections. Incorporating frequent real-time polling during each class moves students 

from being passive learners to becoming active participants by continually requiring them to 

“practice at retrieval” (Halpern & Hakel, 2003, p. 38).  

Classes in which students are passive learners and receive information from teachers who 

lecture result in student memorization and ‘cramming’ in preparation for tests (Organization of 

Economic Cooperation and Development, 2009). Students may receive good grades because the 

brain’s short-term recall can store information for 18 to 36 hours (Bjork, 1994). If students do 

not continue to practice using that information, any new cellular material is reabsorbed by the 

brain and the information is not retained (Zadina, 2008). In a lecture-based classroom, the 

instructor is the one who is firing his or her own neuron network and the students are in a state of 

passivity (Doyle, 2011). In a teacher-centered approach, instructors feel pressured to “cover” 

their course material and they march through the textbook material to ensure that every chapter 

of the book is covered. This learning is inert and does not result in high levels of transfer 

(Bransford, Franks, Vye, & Sherwood, 1989). Wiggins and McTighe (2005) called this approach 

to teaching, “Teach, test, and hope for the best” (p. 3). In this approach, the implicit assumption 

is that learning transfer simply takes care of itself. Rogers (1983) argued the need to change 

teacher-centered learning environments because “students become passive, apathetic, and bored” 

(p. 25). The incorporation of real-time polling can enhance students’ levels of engagement and 

participation (Patry, 2009) because it can help shift learning environments from teacher-centered 

to learner-centered by requiring students to participate by using their polling device to respond to 

polling questions (McCabe, 2006).  

 

Deep Understanding.  

 

The second characteristic of classes that enhance learning transfer is that students need to 

move from simple memorization to deep understanding with abstract and contextual knowledge. 

Students become engaged when given opportunities to experience abstraction, which is the 

process of allowing students to apply the content to other contexts (Bransford et al., 2000). 

Students also need to move beyond the lower-level thinking skills such as remembering and 

understanding and move to the higher-order thinking skills of applying, analyzing, evaluating, 

and creating (Krathwohl, 2002; Renkl, Atkinson, Maier, & Stanley, 2002).  

Mazur (1977), a Physics and Applied Physics professor at Harvard University, began 

using real-time polling to ensure his students had deeper levels of understanding. Mazur 

continues to use real-time polling to deepen students’ understanding by interspersing his lectures 

with conceptual questions that are designed to expose challenges in understanding the material. 

The questions he uses require students to use their higher-level application skills to be able to 

provide a response. Mazur gives students a few minutes to deliberate, and then must commit to 

an answer by using the polling device. Using this methodology allows instructors to quickly 

gauge students’ understanding through the instructor response dashboard that summarizes the 

students’ responses (Miller, Lasry, Lukoff, Schell, & Mazur, 2014). When classes have high 



Stover, S., Noel, D., McNutt, M., & Heilmann, S. G. 

43 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 4, No. 1, June 2015. 

jotlt.indiana.edu 

levels of misunderstanding, Mazur asks students to spend a few minutes in groups of three or 

four in order for them to reach consensus on the correct answer. Students then need to think 

through their arguments and discuss them with other students; this process allows them to deepen 

their level of understanding and also clarify any misunderstandings. Since students are trying to 

convince each other of the correct answer, this type of teaching methodology is called peer 

instruction (Mazur, 1997). Following student discussions, instructors have students use the 

polling device to vote again. Instructors can then share the correct answer and respond to any 

lingering questions or provide clarification, if needed. The use of real-time polling in peer-

instruction is an excellent strategy to help enhance students’ learning transfer because it requires 

students to be actively engaged. Students need to apply their knowledge and then defend their 

answers, instead of simply sitting passively in class and taking notes (Lambert, 2012). 

 

Frequent Assessments.  

 

The third characteristic of classes designed to maximize learning transfer is that students 

are actively involved with frequent assessments that are distributed throughout the class. 

Students should not be assessed with one-time tests such as a single mid-term or final exam, but 

be continually assessed using active, dynamic, and continual processes (Bransford et al., 2000). 

Incorporating polling into each and every class requires students to be continually assessed, 

which requires them to stay engaged and results in better long-term retention (Pashler, Rohrer, 

Cepeda, & Carpenter, 2007). Polling can also allow students to review course content by 

assessing prior knowledge (Abrahamson, 1999). Once stored, it is important to continue to 

review the information on a regular basis, thereby strengthening connections between neurons 

(Willis, 2006).  

Instructors teaching Educational Psychology at the University of California found their 

students scored significantly higher on exams when they used clickers during class as formative 

assessments to respond to frequent exam-like questions compared to students enrolled in classes 

not using clickers. The researchers felt the clickers increased student learning because: (a) 

students needed to pay closer attention to the course material to be able to correctly answer the 

exam-like questions; (b) students needed to organize and integrate their course material in their 

brains while formulating answers, and (c) students develop metacognitive skills for gauging their 

levels of understanding of the course material (Mayer et al., 2009).  

Instructors teaching a large enrollment introductory psychology class embedded 

questions throughout the lecture as a formative assessment method to test students’ level of 

understanding. The researchers found the students in classes using clickers had significantly 

higher scores (p < .05) than students enrolled in sections not using this teaching methodology 

(Powell, Straub, Rodriguez, & VanHorn, 2011).  

 

Increase use of Senses.  

 

The fourth characteristic of classes designed to encourage higher learning transfer is that 

students are required to use more of their senses (Seitz, Kim, & Shams, 2006). Real-time polling 

can be used in class to help students utilize more of their senses while learning course content. 

For example, students use their visual memory when seeing the questions, problem sets, and 

possible answers displayed on PowerPoint slides. Students also use their auditory memory when 

hearing their instructor talk about the questions and later, if students are to discuss the answers 



Stover, S., Noel, D., McNutt, M., & Heilmann, S. G. 

44 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 4, No. 1, June 2015. 

jotlt.indiana.edu 

with their peers. Additionally, students use their tactile-kinesthetic memory when moving their 

body from a potentially bored, inattentive, passive listener position to a more alert one in which 

they prepare to use the polling device to choose an answer. Furthermore, students also activate 

their feelings of excitement as they begin to generate eagerness when they are required to make a 

choice on the polling device. The more senses students use in practicing their learning, the more 

pathways become available for recall (Seitz et al., 2006). Implementing multisensory learning 

environments allows for more effective learning transfer for longer periods of time (Medina, 

2008). “Learning will happen more effectively if the learner is as involved as possible, using as 

many of his [or her] faculties as possible, in the learning” (Crosby, 1981, p. 10).  

 

Visible Learning.  

 

The fifth characteristic of classes that are designed for strong learning transfer is that 

classes include activities that require students to make their learning visible, clarify any 

misconceptions, and develop their metacognition (Bransford et al., 2000). Metacognition is a 

person’s awareness of their own thinking and their ability to plan, monitor, evaluate, and repair 

cognitive learning (Kirsh, 2005). Incorporating real-time polling with appropriately crafted 

questions is an excellent strategy to help students strengthen their  metacognition because it 

requires students to repeatedly and frequently apply knowledge to answer questions and receive 

immediate feedback about their level of understanding of the topic (Manke-Brady, 2012). This is 

important because Halpern and Hakel (2003) found that students are poor judges of how well 

they understand complex topics and will develop misunderstandings if they do not have ways to 

accurately judge their levels of understanding. Chabris and Simons (2009) outlined why 

students’ develop misunderstandings by explaining that people have challenges with their 

perception, memory, attention, and reasoning. They went on to note that people frequently miss a 

lot of things happening around them, but due to inattentional blindness, they have no idea what 

they are missing. Developing lessons that help students identify their misconceptions allows 

them to learn content at deeper levels for longer retention.  

 

Increased Participation and Engagement.  

 

The sixth characteristic in classes designed for effective learning transfer is that classes 

are designed to require students to have high levels of participation and engagement in order to 

keep students’ attention. Penner (1984) found that student attention and concentration drops off 

dramatically after 10 to 15 minutes. Research studies have shown that the human brain is not 

equipped to pay attention to auditory information for long periods of time, regardless of the 

students’ grade level or ability (Milton, Pollio, & Eison, 1986). Bligh (2000) conducted research 

to show that when students spend prolonged periods of time on a repetitive task such as note 

taking, their lower centers of the brain (mindless behavior) becomes activated. Research in 

neuroscience has suggested that students need to practice and use information to allow them to 

see how the information has interconnections and how it can be used in other contexts to enhance 

learning transfer (deWinstanley & Bork, 2002). If students are going to achieve learning beyond 

lower-level information acquisition, they need to be actively engaged in the process of learning 

(Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). “If we want students to become more effective in meaningful 

learning and thinking, they need to spend more time in active, meaningful learning and thinking- 

not just sitting and passively receiving information” (McKeachie, Pintrich, Lin, & Smith, 1986, 



Stover, S., Noel, D., McNutt, M., & Heilmann, S. G. 

45 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 4, No. 1, June 2015. 

jotlt.indiana.edu 

p. 77). Incorporating real-time polling is a good way to break-up long lectures (Addison, Wright 

& Milner, 2009) and will ensure that students have high levels of engagement and participation 

which will lead them to develop stronger neural connections to maximize learning transfer 

(Doyle, 2011).  

 

Research Questions 

 

The instructors involved in this research study attempted to utilize the real-time polling in 

their classes to maximize learning transfer of students by increasing students’ levels of 

engagement and participation. The researchers attempted to answer the following questions:  

1) Does the use of real-time polling have an impact on students’ perceived levels of 
participation and engagement?  

2) Does the use of real-time polling have an impact on students’ perceived ability to 
understand the course material?  

 

Method 
 

Three instructors in five different classes used real-time polling in an attempt to increase 

students’ levels of engagement and participation in order to enhance students’ learning transfer.  

 

Demographics 
 

The students in this research study were enrolled in classes at a mid-sized university in 

the Midwest in the United States. The survey was given to 97 participants in five different 

classes taught by three different instructors. There were two students who did not have a device 

to utilize for the real-time polling and could not participate, so they only completed the 

demographics section of the survey. The students in the survey were majoring in Organizational 

Leadership, which is designed to prepare them to become managers and supervisors in the 

private, public, and nonprofit sectors. All students taking the survey were undergraduates with 

the majority being seniors (N = 56), the next being juniors (N = 39), and the least of them being 

sophomores (N = 2). The age of the participants ranged from 18-24 (N = 57), 25-30 (N = 21), 

31-40 (N = 9), 41-50 (N = 9), and 50 and over (N = 1). The gender make-up of the participants 

was more male (N = 53) than female (N = 44). The racial mix of the participants was Caucasian 

(N = 72), African American (N = 21), Other (N = 2), Asian (N = 1), and Hispanic/Latino (N=1).  

 

Instrument 

 

Students were asked to complete a paper and pencil survey to measure their perceptions 

of using the Poll Everywhere real-time polling. The survey was administered by someone other 

than the classroom instructor, to assure students’ privacy. The survey was administered during 

the last week of a semester class. Students completed a 49-question survey that was developed 

by the researchers. The survey included questions about students’ demographics, the type of 

device they used, their level of participation and engagement, their thoughts about learning 

transfer, and their thoughts about using real-time polling in the future. Utilizing a Likert Scale, 

students responded to statements with a (1) Strongly Agree (SA), (2) Agree (A), (3) Disagree 

(D), or (4) Strongly Disagree (SD). Additionally, students were asked to provide comments 



Stover, S., Noel, D., McNutt, M., & Heilmann, S. G. 

46 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 4, No. 1, June 2015. 

jotlt.indiana.edu 

about the impact of real-time polling on their level of understanding, satisfaction, participation, 

and engagement by responding to open-ended questions.  

 

Procedure 

 

Instructors in five different classes asked students to use Poll Everywhere as a real-time 

polling device to respond to polling questions while teaching their classes. Students used their 

personal devices (cell phones, lap top, or tablet) to respond to these real-time polls. Quantitative 

data were gathered from students by asking them to complete a survey questionnaire that asked 

students to give their perceptions about how the use of real-time polling had an impact on their 

level of understanding and their level of participation and engagement. Students were given 

statements such as “Using real-time polling during class helps me to better understand the class 

material” and then select if they (1) Strongly Agree, (2) Agree, (3) Disagree, or (4) Strongly 

Disagree. Students’ Likert scale responses were entered into an Excel spreadsheet and then 

imported into SPSS 21 for quantitative data analysis. On the quantitative survey, there were six 

questions designed to measure for student participation and nine questions designed to measure 

for engagement. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with principal axis factoring and varimax 

rotation was used to identify the underlying relationships between the survey items (Norris & 

Lecavalier, 2009). Results are displayed in Table #1. Principal axis factoring assumes all 

variables have been measured with some degree of error (Kim & Mueller, 1978). Varimax 

(orthogonal) rotation attempts to minimize the number of variables that have high factor 

loadings, thus interpretability of factors can be enhanced. Bartlett’s test of sphericity (χ2=651.93, 

p<.01) indicates the correlation matrix is an identity matrix; thus data appear to be a sample from 

a multivariate normal population.  

 

Table 1. Rotated Factor Matrix 

 

 

Factor 

1 2 3 

Q23  -.545  

Q24 .461 .736  

Q25 .583 .465  

Q26 .684   

Q27 .707   

Q28   .380 

Q31 .686   

Q32 .764   

Q33 .766   

Q34 .709   

Q35   -.442 

Q36 .722   

Q37 .783   

Q38 .760   

Q39 .571  .490 

 



Stover, S., Noel, D., McNutt, M., & Heilmann, S. G. 

47 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 4, No. 1, June 2015. 

jotlt.indiana.edu 

The most conservative approach to interpreting the rotated factor matrix was employed; 

thus any items that loaded across multiple factors were removed. The final variable, Classroom 

Engagement and Participation, is comprised of items 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, and 38.  The 

Cronbach’s Alpha for Classroom Engagement and Participation is .92, which indicates an 

excellent level of internal consistency among these questions (George & Mallery, 2011). 

Qualitative data were gathered from opened-ended questions where students were asked 

two open-ended questions about their thoughts about how the use of real-time polling impacted 

their comfort level speaking in class and how it impacted their level of attention and engagement.  

The responses to opened-ended questions were imported into NVvio 10 research software for 

qualitative analysis to group with common themes. 

 

Results 

 

The results section summarizes the results from the student survey that measures 

students’ perceptions about the incorporation of real-time polling in their class.  

 

Research Question #1 

 

The first research question asked if the use of real-time polling had an impact on 

students’ level of participation and engagement. In total, there were nine questions on the survey 

measuring the impact. Cronbach’s Alpha, the measure for internal consistency, revealed internal 

consistency of .92 which indicates an excellent level of internal consistency (George & Mallery, 

2011). These nine questions were combined to develop a total score to summarize students’ 

perceptions of how the use of real-time polling had an impact on their level of participation and 

engagement (M = 1.5; SD = .45.).  

Four of these questions about students’ level of participation and engagement asked 

students how the use of real-time polling impacted their classroom communication (see Table 2). 

The questions which the students agreed with from most to least included: (1) I feel that using 

real-time polling during class enhances the quality of discussions (M = 1.46); (2) I like that my 

polling responses are anonymous (M = 1.48); (3) The use of real-time polling in class enhances 

controversial discussions (M = 1.51), and (4) Using real-time polling in class makes me feel as if 

I have a voice to contribute during class discussions (M = 1.71).  

 



Stover, S., Noel, D., McNutt, M., & Heilmann, S. G. 

48 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 4, No. 1, June 2015. 

jotlt.indiana.edu 

Table 2. Real-time polling survey: Participation & Engagement questions 

 N SA 

(1) 

A 

(2) 

D 

(3) 

SD 

(4) 

M SD 

1) Q #32: I feel that using real-time 
polling during class enhances the 

quality of discussions. 

94 51 

54% 

43 

46% 

0 

0% 

0 

0% 

1.46 .50 

2) Q #27: I like that my polling 
responses are anonymous.  

94 52 

55% 

39 

42% 

3 

3% 

0 

0% 

1.48 .56 

3) Q #34: The use of real-time 
polling in class enhances 

controversial discussions.  

95 51 

54% 

40 

42% 

4 

4% 

0 

0% 

1.51 .58 

4) Q #26: Using real-time polling in 
class makes me feel as if I have a 

voice to contribute during class 

discussions.  

94 37 

39% 

47 

50% 

10 

11% 

0 

0% 

1.71 .65 

 

There were three questions that asked if students felt the use of real-time polling 

increased levels of participation and engagement because it impacted their enjoyment (see Table 

3). The questions students agreed with from most to least included: (1) I like using a personal 

mobile device to engage in real-time polling during class (M = 1.36); (2) Using mobile devices 

for real-time polling during class is fun (M = 1.40); and (3) I wish that other instructors would 

use real-time polling in their classes (M = 1.49).  

 

Table 3. Poll Everywhere Survey: Enjoyment and fun questions 

 N SA 

(1) 

A 

(2) 

D 

(3) 

SD 

(4) 

M SD 

1) Q #31: I like using a personal 
mobile device to engage in real 

time polling during class.  

95 63 

66% 

30 

32% 

2 

2% 

0 

0% 

1.36 .52 

2) Q #33: Using mobile devices for 
real-time polling during class is 

fun. 

95 60 

63% 

32 

34% 

3 

3% 

0 

0% 

1.40 .55 

3) Q #38: I wish that other 
instructors would use real-time 

polling in their classes  

95 50 

53% 

43 

45% 

2 

2% 

0 

0% 

1.49 .54 

 



Stover, S., Noel, D., McNutt, M., & Heilmann, S. G. 

49 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 4, No. 1, June 2015. 

jotlt.indiana.edu 

There were two questions on the survey (see Table 4) that measured students’ thoughts 

on whether they believed real-time polling kept them engaged and attentive. The questions with 

which the students agreed with from most to least included: (1) I feel more connected to the class 

when participating with real-time polling (M = 1.65) and (2) I become attentive when my 

instructor directs us to respond using real-time polling (M = 1.67).  

 

Table 4. Poll Everywhere Survey: Engagement questions 

 N SA 

(1) 

A 

(2) 

D 

(3) 

SD 

(4) 

M SD 

1) Q #37: I feel more connected to 
the class when participating with 

real-time polling. 

94 43 

46% 

42 

44% 

8 

9% 

1 

1% 

1.65 .68 

2) Q #36: I become attentive when 
my instructor directs us to respond 

using real-time polling. 

95 39 

41% 

48 

51% 

8 

8% 

0 

0% 

1.67 .63 

 

Open-ended comments were grouped into categories where students indicated the use of 

real-time polling had an impact on their participation and engagement. The two categories 

identified were an impact on their active participation and also their levels of participation and 

engagement. In the first category of active participation, some students felt the real-time polling 

allowed them to be more fully active in the class for those students that were shy and they felt 

the polling gave them a voice (see Table 5).  

 

Table 5. Student comments about effect of real-time polling on giving them a voice 

1) Sometimes I can feel uncomfortable speaking in class, this definitely provides an outlet for 
people to be heard, no matter what the comfort level AND takes less time than hearing 

everyone’s opinion.  

2) I get nervous speaking in front of people and with the polling I can still get my statement 
made without being shy.  

 

Some students felt they could be more active in the classroom using real-time polling 

because it allowed them to respond anonymously and they could express their opinions without 

being judged (see Table 6).  

 



Stover, S., Noel, D., McNutt, M., & Heilmann, S. G. 

50 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 4, No. 1, June 2015. 

jotlt.indiana.edu 

Table 6. Student comments about effect of real-time polling on being judged 

1) I don’t speak up b/c [sic] I am often the one who knows the answers and don't want to be the 
“teacher's pet”.  

2) [I don’t speak up because I] feel uncomfortable when I think people are judging my 
disability.  

3) I love that it is anonymous, I don’t feel judged or anxious.  

 

Some students did not believe that real-time polling had any effect on their active 

participation because they felt comfortable speaking up in class and commented, “I prefer getting 

credit for my ideas rather than anonymous responses.” 

The second category identified in the open comments was related to comments regarding 

how real-time polling impacted their levels of participation and engagement. The majority of 

comments from students indicated that the use of real-time polling had a positive impact on their 

level of engagement. Most students felt that the use of real-time polling helped them to stay 

focused and have fun with comments such as those listed in Table 7.  

 

Table 7. Effect of real-time polling on participation and engagement due to focus and fun 

1) Just makes you pay attention.  
2) It keeps things moving and energetic! It’s not just passing through lecture slides [and] offers 

something more.  

3)  It makes class fun. 
4) Feel more engaged.  

 

Students also felt the use of real-time polling impacted their levels of participation and 

engagement because it allowed everyone in the class to feel included (see Table 8).  

 

Table 8. Effect of real-time polling on participation and engagement due to inclusion 

1) They are a good way to interact with the class and keep everyone involved. 
2) I think it allows everyone to feel like they can contribute to the class discussion.  
3) I don't mind speaking up in class. I sometimes have exactly the same thing to say as someone 

else and that may be why I don't say much but I also enjoy using the Real time polling 

because it gives the whole class a voice. 

 

Research Question #2 

 

The second research question asked if the use of real-time polling had a perceived impact 

on students’ ability to understand the course material. There were 90% of the students who 

strongly agreed or agreed (see Table 9) that the use of real-time polling helped them to better 

understand the material (M = 1.84, SD = .57).  

 



Stover, S., Noel, D., McNutt, M., & Heilmann, S. G. 

51 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 4, No. 1, June 2015. 

jotlt.indiana.edu 

Table 9. Poll Everywhere Survey: Perceived Student Learning  

 N SA 

(1) 

A 

(2) 

D 

(3) 

SD 

(4) 

M SD 

Using real-time polling during class 

helps me to better understand the 

class material.  

94 24 

(25%) 

61 

(65%) 

9 

(10%) 

0 

(0%) 

1.84 .57 

 

A bivariate analysis was conducted to determine the empirical relationship between 

Perceived Student Learning and Classroom Engagement and Participation. The bivariate 

correlation between the two variables of Perceived Student Learning and Classroom Engagement 

and Participation is significant (r=.55, p<.01, n=91).  There was evidence to conclude there is a 

significant association between Classroom Engagement and Participation and Perceived Student 

Learning.  

To evaluate differences in perceptions between individuals with high perceptions of 

learning transfer (comprised of Strongly Agree and Agree) and low perceptions (comprised of 

Disagree and Strongly Disagree), an independent sample t-test was computed using Classroom 

Participation and Engagement as the test variable and Perceived Student Learning as the 

grouping variable (Group 1=Strongly Agree and Agree; Group 2=Disagree; Note; 0 responses 

for Strongly Disagree). Results indicated the difference (MD=.52, t(9.60) -3.50, p<.001, equal 

variances assumed) between students with higher perceptions of learning transfer reported 

greater perceptions of overall engagement than students with lower perceptions of learning 

transfer (m=1.48, n=82, sd=42; m=2.00, n=9, sd=.42, respectively, where lower scores indicate 

higher levels of perceived overall engagement).  

Open-ended comments were grouped into categories where students indicated the use of 

real-time polling had an impact on their learning. The three categories identified were visible 

learning, frequent assessments, and deeper learning. Students felt that the use of real-time polling 

allowed instructors to craft questions where students’ responses help make learning visible. 

Students made comments in the first category with comments such as comments in Table 10.  

 

Table 10. Impact of real-time polling on students’ learning by making learning visible 

1) Totally engages you and you know what your level of understanding is. 
2) I really enjoy this. I think it keeps students involved while in class. It reminds me of how 

when you're in grade school and you write your answer on your white board. 

3) It lets you see how almost the whole class views a particular subject. 
4) I felt that polling allows me to see how others feel 

 

Another category that was identified from open comments was that instructors could use 

real-time polling to quickly and frequently assess students (see Table 11).  

 



Stover, S., Noel, D., McNutt, M., & Heilmann, S. G. 

52 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 4, No. 1, June 2015. 

jotlt.indiana.edu 

Table 11. Impact of real-time polling on students’ learning with frequent assessments 

1) Sometimes I can feel uncomfortable speaking in class, this definitely provides an outlet for 
people to be heard, no matter what the comfort level AND takes less time than hearing 

everyone’s opinion. 

2) I felt it was a faster way to get my point and answer across. 
3) I thought it was great, makes me feel accountable. 

 

The third category identified from open comments was that instructors could use real-

time polling to encourage deeper learning. Students reported that when results of real-time polls 

were displayed, it sparked a good class discussion (see Table 12).  

 

Table 12. Impact of real-time polling on students’ perceived learning with deeper 

learning 

1) I fell helps start good class discussion. 
2) I like seeing the results pop up on the screen and the discussions afterword. 
3) I think real time polling helps me to speak in class because it can [help me to] feel 

comfortable about what I say if I see that others would agree. 

 

Discussion 

 

Bransford et al. (2000) found that it is necessary for instructors to design classes where 

students have high levels of participation and engagement to enhance students’ learning transfer. 

Design strategies to enhance learning transfer are classes where instructors require students to 

have active participation, deep levels of understanding, frequent assessments, increased use of 

their senses, make their learning visible, and high levels of participation and engagement. This 

section discusses if the incorporation of real-time polling had an impact on these characteristics 

designed to enhance learning transfer.  

 

Active Participation.  

 

Halpern and Hakel (2003) found that learning transfer is enhanced by requiring students 

to practice at retrieving content by actively participating instead of passively listening to lectures. 

Getting students to actively participate in class may be a challenge to many instructors and 

incorporating real-time polling can give instructors tools to enable this. Some students admitted 

that they were shy and that real-time polling helped give them a voice (89%). Most students 

communicated appreciation of the anonymous nature of the polling (97%). Some of the open-

ended comments revealed that there were students who felt comfortable speaking in class and 

that for them, the real-time polling made no difference.  

 

Deeper Understanding.  

 

The incorporation of real-time polling followed by class discussion has been shown to 

deepen students’ understanding of course concepts (Mazur, 1977). The students in this study 

overpoweringly indicated that the use of real-time polling helped them to better understand the 



Stover, S., Noel, D., McNutt, M., & Heilmann, S. G. 

53 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 4, No. 1, June 2015. 

jotlt.indiana.edu 

class material with 90% agreeing with this statement. Students unanimously agreed that the use 

of real-time polling helped the quality of the discussion with 100% agreeing and 96% of them 

indicating that it enhanced controversial questions. Students felt the real-time polling encouraged 

deeper understanding because the results of the polls would be displayed and spark a good 

discussion. Some students felt more comfortable joining the discussion when they could see their 

opinions would be supported from the poll results.  

 

Frequent Assessments.  

 

Karpicke and Roediger (2006) found that when study preparation time is equal, students 

that used assessment tools in their study preparation significantly improved their long-term 

retention compared to students using review methods for studying. Incorporating assessments 

requires students to be actively involved in their learning since their brain is retrieving 

information and the effort deepens and strengthens their neural connections (Larsen, Butler, & 

Roediger, 2013). Students in this study reported the incorporation of real-time polling allowed 

instructors to quickly and frequently assess students with polling questions. Instructors that 

incorporate real-time polling requires all the students to actively engage with assessment by 

responding to the polling questions, instead of a few that might verbally answer a question 

during class. The regular incorporation of real-time polling made some students believe they 

were accountable since they were being frequently polled.  

 

Increased use of senses.  

 

Many classroom instructors can intuitively read their students’ body language to judge 

their level of alertness. The instructors noted that students’ physical demeanor would change 

when polling questions were included by moving from a relaxed posture to an attentive and 

engaged demeanor. Students use more of their senses when asked to pick up their real-time 

polling device as they are seeing the question, touching their responding device, and feeling the 

excitement as they prepare to select their response. Seitz et al. (2006) found that the more senses 

that students use while learning the better as more pathways become available for recall. There 

were 92% of the students felt the use of real-time polling required them to become more 

attentive. 

 

Visible learning.  

 

Traditional studying methods such as reading the textbook and highlighting the course 

material can cause students to have a “fluency illusion” because they understand the material and 

believe they have mastered the content (Carey, 2014). The students in these classes reported that 

the use of real-time polling allowed the instructor to make learning visible when they displayed 

the aggregate results of each poll. This allowed students to see how the other participants in class 

felt about the questions or how they stacked up against their peers. One student compared the use 

of real-time polling to the process of going to a whiteboard to make their learning visible.  

 

Increased participation and engagement.  

 

The majority of university classes last from 50 to 90 minutes, which is much longer than 



Stover, S., Noel, D., McNutt, M., & Heilmann, S. G. 

54 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 4, No. 1, June 2015. 

jotlt.indiana.edu 

the typical attention span of most college students. Bunce, Flens, and Neiles (2010) found that 

classes designed using real-time polling to enhance active learning results in fewer attention 

lapses due to the engaging of students’ attention. The student in this research study indicated that 

the use of real-time polling helped them feel higher levels of engagement with most of the 

students indicating that they wished other instructors would implement it (98%). Students felt 

that using real-time polling was fun (97%), and made them more connected to the class (90%). 

The open-ended comments supported this with almost all comments conveying that real-time 

polling helped to get their attention.  

 

Considerations for Implementing Real-Time Polling 

 

Instructors will not only face challenges in learning the technical steps of setting up real-

time polling, but also face pedagogical challenges to ensure the implementation of real-time 

polling results in learning enhancements. Many universities will offer technical training 

workshops which will help instructors learn practical applications, but few offer workshops in 

pedagogical implementation. A suggestion would be to implement real-time polling with a 

colleague and take turns conducting peer-reviews of each classroom. Another advantage of 

implementing real-time polling with a colleague is that instructors can practice together and 

brainstorm technical and pedagogical issues to develop solutions. 

Based on this study, the researchers have some suggestions for instructors who wish to 

incorporate real-time polling into their classroom. The first consideration is to ensure that most 

students have a cell-phone or device to participate in the real-time polling. The results from this 

research study showed that 98% of students had cell phones which allowed them to participate. 

Of those students who had cell phones, 100% of them indicated that they would prefer using 

their cell phone for the real-time polling instead of purchasing a “clicker device.” Since the 

majority of students had devices which allowed them to participate, instructors were quite 

pleased when they were able to quickly query the class and get a response from most students. 

While there were two students who indicated that they did not have a cell phone and could not 

participate, the researchers felt that they obtained a much larger number of students participating 

than they would have normally during class discussions without the use of real-time polling. 

Instructors may also face technical challenges when implementing Poll Everywhere. The 

Poll Everywhere technology requires that students use their own texting service to respond to 

real-time poll questions. Therefore, students’ phones need to have robust enough phone service 

to be able to text responses. Since the real-time polling required students to text their responses, 

this was sometimes a usability issue for those students who were unfamiliar with how to use their 

texting tool on their cell-phone. Additionally, students who used feature phones (non-smart 

phones) to text their answers were at a disadvantage because it took longer for them to text their 

response and doing so was a substantially more cumbersome process. 

Another challenge for instructors to be aware of is that for Poll Everywhere real-time 

polling, students are charged for each text that is sent to respond to a question. The costs incurred 

for texting would normally be far less than the $40 for the cost of a clicker device, even though 

the cost for required clicker devices may be covered by tuition assistance, where data plan costs 

normally would not. Several of the students provided open-ended comments that indicated they 

did not have issues with texting by saying, “I think everyone has unlimited texting.”  

Instructors should also be aware that the time of day may have an impact on students’ 

ability to participate using their own cell phone. For example, during evening classes students’ 



Stover, S., Noel, D., McNutt, M., & Heilmann, S. G. 

55 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 4, No. 1, June 2015. 

jotlt.indiana.edu 

cell phone batteries may begin to lose power and students may want to spare cell-phone use to 

ensure power for their ride back home.  

The classroom environment should be considered by instructors before implementing 

real-time polling that requires students to use their own cell-phones. Evening classes or lack of 

phone access may require instructors to use traditional “clicker devices.” However, if the 

environment supports students’ use of their own cell phone device, it can save students money as 

well as the additional burden of having to bring an additional “clicker device.” 

 
Significance of the Study 

 

The ultimate goal for higher education needs to be transfer of learning so that students 

can take the knowledge learned and utilize it when employed and the instructor is not there to 

help them. Instead of teaching students to successfully complete midterms, instructors need to 

design their classes to prepare students to independently use the knowledge in an unpredictable 

real world situation (Halpern & Hakel, 2003). Real-time polling can be used to help implement 

design characteristics that increase students’ levels of engagement and participation that will 

enhance learning transfer. Companies like Poll Everywhere now have real-time polling solutions 

where students no longer need to purchase “clicker devices”, but can use their existing cell-

phone to respond to real-time polls. Allowing students to use their own device to participate in 

the real-time polling not only saves them money, but eliminates the need of having to bring an 

additional device to class since most students usually have them readily available.  

 

Study Limitations 

 

This study relied on the perceptions of students who responded to a survey. The study 

also relied on three different instructors implementing real-time polling in their class, so some 

variation on instructors’ levels of expertise in conducting the polls was expected, which might 

have affected the results. This study asked for students’ perceptions if the use of real-time polling 

increased their understanding of the course content and did not measure assessment results. 

Another limitation is that the researchers were also the instructors of these courses and this 

duplicity of roles may have affected their objectivity in analyzing the student responses. 

 

Suggestions and Recommendations for Further Research 

 

Almost all the students in this study had devices to use for real-time polling with 98% of 

students owning cell phones. This allowed students to participate in real-time polling without the 

necessity of spending extra money for a “clicker” device. A suggestion for further research 

would be to compare students’ perceptions of engagement and participation in classes where 

students are required to purchase “clicker” devices to classes where students use their own cell 

phone.  

The data for this study was gathered from a survey given to students. A recommendation 

for further research would be to conduct interviews with students to elicit anecdotal information 

to gather deeper understandings of how students perceived the use of real-time polling had an 

impact on their level of understanding course material, their level of participation, and their level 

of engagement. This study was conducted in one department at one university. Another 

suggestion for research could be to conduct the study with different academic departments and/or 



Stover, S., Noel, D., McNutt, M., & Heilmann, S. G. 

56 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 4, No. 1, June 2015. 

jotlt.indiana.edu 

different universities to see if there is a difference with the results, especially if the instructor is 

not also conducting the study.  

Final recommendation for future studies would be to expand the use of real-time polling 

to teaching students how to utilize the technology. Ninety three percent of students indicated on 

the survey they felt that using real time polling could benefit their professional life and ninety-

two percent indicated that it would be a marketable skill that could be help differentiate them. In 

the classes used for this study, the instructor conducted the real-time polling and the students 

who responded to the polling questions. A recommendation for further research would be to have 

the students facilitate real-time polling in their presentations to see if their perception of the 

value of using real-time polling increases.  

 

Conclusion 

 

The purpose of higher education to ensure learning transfer is so that our students can 

take the information learned while enrolled in classes and be able to recall and implement this 

learning when employed at a later date in situations that are different than the classroom. 

“Teaching for retention during a single academic term to prepare students for an assessment that 

will be given to them in the same context in which the learning occurs is very different from 

teaching for long-term retention and transfer” (Halpern & Hakel, 2003, p. 38). Instructors can 

use real-time polling to design classes that enhance students’ learning transfer. The use of real-

time polling will allow students to “practice at retrieval” (Mayer et al., 2008) by providing 

instructors with frequent opportunities in which they can encourage their students to apply 

learning while responding to polling questions. Furthermore, real-time polling enables students 

to develop their metacognition (Halpern & Hakel, 2003) because they are able to check their own 

understanding by comparing their own responses to the correct answers. The incorporation of 

real-time polling will facilitate instructor adoption of more learner-centered strategies that allow 

students to assume more responsibility of their learning, and also ensure that students are in 

active learning environments instead of being passive recipients of knowledge (Doyle, 2011).  

The instructors involved in this study redesigned their courses using real-time polling to 

enhance their students’ learning transfer. The results of the survey showed that students reported 

perceived higher levels of participation and engagement. Students’ responses also demonstrated 

that they concluded that the use of real-time polling overwhelmingly helped them to better 

understand the content.  

Based on the statistically significant positive relationship between the variable of 

Engagement and Participation and the other variable of perceived student learning (r=.55, p<.01, 

n=91), it can be concluded that use of real-time polling does engage students. This engagement 

has been shown to have a positive impact on perceived student learning.  



Stover, S., Noel, D., McNutt, M., & Heilmann, S. G. 

57 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 4, No. 1, June 2015. 

jotlt.indiana.edu 

References 

 

Abrahamson, A. L. (1999, May). Teaching with Classroom Communication System -- What it  

involves and why it works. Paper presented at International Workshop, New Trends in Physics  

Teaching, Puebla, Mexico. Retrieved from Better Education Inc. web site:   

http://www.bedu.com/Publications/PueblaFinal2.html.  

 

Addison, S., Wright, A., & Milner, R. (2009). Using clickers to improve student engagement and  

performance in an introductory Biochemistry class. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology  

Education, 37(2), 84-91. doi: 10.1002/bmb.20264 

 

Bjork, D. R. (1994). Memory and metamemory: Considerations in the training of human beings.  

In J. Metcalfe & A. Shimamura (Eds.). Metacognition: Knowing about knowing, 185-205.  

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.  

 

Bligh, D. A. (2000). What’s the use of lectures? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  

 

Bomia, L., Beluzo, L., Demeester, D., Elander, K., Johnson, M., & Sheldon, B. (1997). The  

impact of teaching strategies on intrinsic motivation. Retrieved from ERIC database.  

(ED418925).  

 

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind,  

experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.  

 

Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J.., Vye, N. J., & Sherwood, R. D. (1989). New approaches to  

instruction: Because wisdom can’t be told. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and  

analogical reasoning (pp. 470-497). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.  

 

Bunce, D. M., Flens, E A., & Neiles, K. Y. (2010). How long can students pay attention in class?  

A study of student attention decline using clickers. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(12),  

1438-1443. 

 

Campt, D., & Freeman, M. (2010). The meetings revolution will be clickerized. Corporate  

Meetings & Incentives, 29(4), 34-35. 

 

Carey, B. (2014). How we learn: The surprising truth about when, where, and why it happens.  

New York, NY: Random House.  

 

Chabris, C. & Simons, D. (2009). The invisible gorilla: How our intuitions deceive us. New  

York, NY: Broadway Paperbacks.  

 

Crosby, A. (1981). A critical look: The philosophical foundations of experiential education.  

Journal of Experiential Education. 4(1), 9–15. doi: 10.1177/105382598100400103 

 

Dahlstrom, E. (2012). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology.  

Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Retrieved from  



Stover, S., Noel, D., McNutt, M., & Heilmann, S. G. 

58 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 4, No. 1, June 2015. 

jotlt.indiana.edu 

http://www.educause.edu/ecar  

 

deWinstanley, A. & Bork, R. A. (2002). Successful lecturing: Presenting information in ways  

that engage effective processing. In D. F. Halpern & M. D. Hakel (Eds.), Applying the science of  

learning to university teaching and beyond (19-32). New York, NY: Wiley Periodicals.  

 

Doyle, T. (2011). Learner-centered teaching: Putting the research on learning into practice.  

Sterling, VA: Stylus.  

 

Exeter, D. J., Ameratunga, S., Ratima, M., Morton, S., Dickson, M., Hsu, D., & Jackson, R.  

(2010). Student engagement in very large classes: The teachers’ perspective. Studies in Higher  

Education, 35(7), 761–775. 

 

George, D. & Mallery, P. (2011). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference  

(Eleventh Edition). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.  

 

Halpern, D. F., & Hakel, M. D. (2003). Applying the science of learning to the university and  

beyond. Change, 35(4), 36-41. doi: 10.1080/00091380309604109 

 

Kelly, K. (2011). San Francisco State University Student response systems (“Clickers”): Clicker  

standardization investigation project report. Retrieved from  

http://angieportacio2.myefolio.com/Uploads/CSI_00_Clickers_ProjectReport_v1c.doc  

 

Kim, J., & Mueller, C.W. (1978). Factor analysis: Statistical methods and practical issues.  

Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.  

 

Kirsh, D. (2005). Metacognition, distributed cognition and visual design. In P. Gardenfors & P.  

Johansson (Eds.), Cognition, education, and communication technology (pp. 147-180). Mahwah,  

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Inc.  

 

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,  

41(4), 212–218. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2.  

 

Lambert, C. (2012). Twilight of the lecture. Harvard magazine. Retrieved from  

http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/03/twilight-of-the-lecture  

 

Larsen, D. P., Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. (2013). Comparative effects of test-enhanced  

learning and self-explanation on long-term retention. Medical Education, 47(7), 674-682. doi:  

10.1111/medu.12141 

 

Leimbach, M., & Maringka, J. (2009). Learning transfer model: A research-driven approach to  

enhancing learning effectiveness. Wilson Learning. Retrieved from  

http://www.wilsonlearning.com/images/uploads/pdfs/Learning_Transfer_Approach.pdf 

 

Manke-Brady, M. (2012). Clickers and metacognition: How do electronic response devices  

(clickers) influence student metacognition? (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from USB Digital  



Stover, S., Noel, D., McNutt, M., & Heilmann, S. G. 

59 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 4, No. 1, June 2015. 

jotlt.indiana.edu 

Library http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/p15799coll3/id/35109  

 

Mayer, R. E., Stull, A., DeLeeuw, K., Almeroth, K., Bimber, B., Chun, D., Zhang, H.  

 (2009). Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large  

lecture classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34 (2009), 51–57. doi:  

10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.04.002 

 

Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

 

McCabe, M. (2006). Live assessments by questioning in an interactive classroom. In Banks, D.  

A. (2006) (ed). Audience response systems in higher education: Applications and cases.  

Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. 

 

McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P., Lin Y., & Smith, D. (1986). Teaching and learning in the college  

classroom: A review of the research literature. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, NCRIPTAL.  

 

Medina, J. (2008). Brain rules. Seattle, WA: Pear Press.  

 

Miller, K., Lasry, N., Lukoff, B., Schell, J., & Mazur, E. (2014). Conceptual question response  

times in Peer Instruction classrooms. Physical Review Special Topics- Physics Education  

Research, 10(2), 020113-1-020113-6. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.020113 

 

Milton, O., Pollio, H. R., & Eison, J. A. (1986). Cooperative earning for higher education  

faculty. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and The Oryx Press.  

 

Norris, M. & Lecavalier, L. (2010). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in  

developmental disability psychological research. Journal of Autism and Developmental  

Disorders, 40(1), 8-20. doi: 10.1007/s10803-009-0816-2. 

 

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2009). Creating effective  

teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS. Paris, France: OECD. Retrieved  

from http://www.oecd.org/education/school/creatingeffectiveteachingandlearningenvironmentsfi  

rstresultsfromtalis.htm#Video 

 

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students, Volume 2: A third  

decade of research. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.  

 

Pashler, H., Rohrer, D., Cepeda, N. J., & Carpenter, S. K. (2007). Enhancing learning and  

retarding forgetting: Choices and consequences. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14(2), 187- 

193.  

 

Patry, M. (2009). Clickers in large classes: From student perceptions towards an understanding  

of best practices. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(2).  

Retrieved from http://academics.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl/v3n2.html 

 

 



Stover, S., Noel, D., McNutt, M., & Heilmann, S. G. 

60 

Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, Vol. 4, No. 1, June 2015. 

jotlt.indiana.edu 

Penner, J. G. (1984). Why many college teachers cannot lecture: How to avoid communication  

breakdown in the classroom. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.  

 

Poll Everywhere. (n.d.). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from  

http://www.polleverywhere.com/faq  

 

Powell, S., Straub, C., Rodriguez, J., & VanHorn, B. (2011). Using clickers in large college  

psychology classes: Academic achievement and perceptions. Journal of the Scholarship of  

Teaching and Learning, 11(4), 1-11.  

 

Ratey, J. (2002). A user’s guide to the brain: Perception, attention, and the four theaters of the  

brain. New York, NY: Vintage Books.  

 

Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., Maier, U. H., & Staley, R. (2002). From example study to problem  

solving: Smooth transitions help learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 70 (4), 293–315. 

 

Roediger, H. L. & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests  

improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249-55.  

 

Rogers, C. R. (1983). As a teacher, can I be myself? In Freedom to Learn for the ‘80’s.  

Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.  

 

Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4),  

475-522. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci1604_4  

 

Seitz, A. R., Kim, R., & Shams, L. (2006). Sound facilitates visual learning. Current Biology,  

16(4), 1422- 1427.  

 

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.  

 

Wiggins, G. (2012). Transfer as the point of Education. [Web log comment]. Retrieved from  

http://grantwiggins.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/transfer-as-the-point-of-education/  

 

Willis, J. (2006). Researched-based strategies to ignite student learning. Alexandria, VA:  

ASCD. 

 

Zadina, J. (2008). Six weeks to a brain-compatible classroom. Publisher: Author. 

 


