You are here:

The Use of High and Low-Tech Teaching Tactics for Increasing Students' Active Responding in College Classrooms

, , University of Nevada, Las Vegas, United States ; , St. Cloud State University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-64-8 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA


There is a need for including active student response strategies within traditional college lecture activities. The purpose of this paper is to discuss how to transform low-tech active student response strategies into high-tech response strategies and how to embed these strategies into traditional college lecture activities. Specifically, details are provided on how to create and use interactive guided notes, personal response systems, and internet-based game show quiz reviews.


Van Norman, R., Fitzgerald, N. & Kaffar, B. (2008). The Use of High and Low-Tech Teaching Tactics for Increasing Students' Active Responding in College Classrooms. In K. McFerrin, R. Weber, R. Carlsen & D. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2008--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1550-1555). Las Vegas, Nevada, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved January 21, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. 235.Austin, J.L., Lee, M., & Carr, J.P. (2004). The effects of guided notes on undergraduate students’ recording of lecture content. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31 (4), 314-320.
  2. Austin, J.L., Leigh, M., Thibeault, M., Carr, J.E., & Bailey, J.S. (2002). Effects of guided notes on university students' responding and recall of information. Journal of Behavioral Education, 11(4), 243-254.
  3. Baker, L., & Lombardi, B.R. (1985). Students’ lecture notes and their relation to test performance. Teaching of Psychology, 12, 28 – 32.
  4. Carrier, C.A. (1983). Notetaking research: Implications for the classroom. Journal of Instructional Development, 6, 19-29.
  5. Cavanaugh, R.A., Heward, W.L., & Donelson, F. (1996). Effects of response cards during lesson closure on the academic performance of secondary students in an earth science course. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 403 – 406.
  6. Dickson, K.L, Miller, M.D., & Devoley, M. (2005). Effect of textbook study guides on student performance in introductory psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 34-39.
  7. Elliott, C. (2003). Personal response systems in economics teaching. International Review of Economics Education, 1 (1), 80 – 86.
  8. Fischer, C.W. & Berliner, D.C. (1985). Perspectives on instructional time. New York: Longman.
  9. Flora S.R. & Logan R.E. (1996). Using computerized study guides to increase performance on general psychology examinations: An experimental analysis. Psychological Reports, 79, 235– 241.
  10. Greenwood C.R., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R.V. (1984). Opportunity to respond and student academic achievement. In W.L. Heward, T.E. Heron, D.S. Hill, & J. Trap-Porter (Eds.), Focus on behavior analysis in education (pp. 58-88). Columbus, OH:
  11. Heward, W.L. (1994). Three“ low-tech” strategies for increasing the frequency of active student response during group instruction. In R. Gardner III, D.M. Sainato, J.O. Cooper, T.E. Heron, W.L. Heward, J. Eshleman, & T.A. Grossi (Eds.), 320). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole
  12. Kellum, K.K., Carr, J.E., & Dozier, C.L. (2001). Response-card instruction and student learning in a college classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 28(2), 101-104.
  13. Marmolejo, E.K., Wilder, D.A., & Bradley, L. (2004). A preliminary analysis of the effects of response cards on student performance and participation in an upper division university course. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 405-410.
  14. Martin, L.M.W. (1987). Teachers adoption of multimedia technologies for science and mathematics instruction. In R.D. Pea, & K. Sheingold (Eds.), Mirrors of minds: Patterns of experience in educational computing (pp. 35-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex
  15. Neef, N.A., Cihon, T., Kettering, T., Guld, A.E., Axe, J., Itoi, M., & Debar, R. (2007). A comparison of study session formats on attendance and quiz performance in a college course, Journal of Behavioral Education, 16 (3), 235-249.
  16. Neef, N.A., McCord, B.E., & Ferreri, S.J. (2006). Effects of using guided notes versus completed notes during lectures on college students quiz performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 123-130.
  17. Shabani, D.B., & Carr, J.E. (2004). An evaluation of response cards as an adjunct to standard instruction in university classrooms: A systematic replication and extension. North American Journal of Psychology, 6, 85-100.
  18. Sivin-Kachala, J. (1998). Report on the effectiveness of technology in schools, 1990-1997. Software Publishers Association.
  19. Stephens, T.M. (1977). Teaching skills to students with learning and behavior disorders. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
  20. Wit, E. (2003). Who wants to be… The use of personal response system in statistics teaching. MSOR Connections Newsletter, 3(2), 14 – 20.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact