Claims

Students report a far higher likelihood of answering questions in class when handsets are used than when responding by raising hands or verbally

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2008 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? 84.61% of students indicated they were likely to answer questions when handsets are used, compared with 28.67% for raising hands and 12.59% for verbal response. → Samuel O. King and Carol Robinson 2008

Evidence

Samuel O. King and Carol Robinson 2008

Samuel O. King and Carol Robinson. (2008). 'Pretty Lights' and Maths! Increasing student engagement and enhancing learning through the use of electronic voting systems. Mathematics Education Centre, Loughborough University. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.012

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Main questionnaire item asking students to compare their likelihood of responding under three solicitation methods: handsets, raising hands, and verbal response. Self-reported likelihood percentages; no standardised effect size is printed, so impact is null.

"Student submissions clearly show that the use of EVS predisposes at least three- quarters of all students (84.61%) towards answering questions in class, compared t o (28.67%) when students are asked to respond by raising their hands or (12.59%) when they are asked for a verbal response"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-29
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.