A new question methodology has been developed and used with voting machines in large physics lecture classrooms. The methodology was tested by comparing student performance in voting machine and non-voting machine lecture sections during three consecutive electricity and magnetism quarters of introductory calculus-based physics. Data from The Conceptual Survey of Electricity and Magnetism and common examination questions indicates that students using voting machines achieved a significant gain in conceptual learning, and that voting machines reduced the gap between male and female student performances on tests. Surveys indicated that students were positive about the use of voting machines and believed that they helped them learn. The surveys also suggested that grading voting machines responses and/or overusing voting machines may lower student enthusiasm.

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. Higher Educ.
7
,
3
47
(
1996
).
3.
See ⟨www.turningtechnologies.com⟩, ⟨www.iclickers.com⟩, and ⟨www.quizdom.com⟩ as examples of voting machine websites.
4.
E.
Mazur
, “
Linking teaching with learning
,” in
Science Teaching Reconsidered: A Handbook, Committee on Undergraduate Science Education
, Committee on Undergraduate Science Education, National Research Council (
National Academy Press
, Washington DC,
1997
), pp.
21
26
.
5.
C. H.
Crouch
and
E.
Mazur
, “
Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results
,”
Am. J. Phys.
69
,
970
977
(
2001
).
6.
E.
Mazur
,
Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual
(
Prentice–Hall
, Upper Saddle River, NJ,
1997
).
7.
I. D.
Beatty
,
W. J.
Gerace
,
W. J.
Leonard
, and
R. J.
Dufresne
, “
Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching
,”
Am. J. Phys.
74
,
31
39
(
2006
).
8.
D. E.
Meltzer
and
K.
Manivannan
, “
Transforming the lecture-hall environment: The fully interactive physics lecture
,”
Am. J. Phys.
70
,
639
654
(
2002
).
9.
S. W.
Draper
and
M. I.
Brown
, “
Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system
,”
J. Comput. Assisted Learning
20
,
81
94
(
2004
);
S. A. J.
Stuart
,
M. I.
Brown
, and
S. W.
Draper
, “
Using an electronic voting system in logic lectures: One practitioner’s application
,
J. Comput. Assisted Learning
20
,
95
102
(
2004
).
10.
N. W.
Reay
,
L.
Bao
,
P.
Li
,
R.
Warnakulasooriya
, and
G.
Baugh
, “
Toward the effective use of voting machines in physics lectures
,”
Am. J. Phys.
73
,
554
558
(
2005
).
11.
A.
Van Heuvelen
,
ALPS Kit: Active Learning Problem Sheets, Mechanics
(
Hayden-McNeil
, Plymouth, MI,
1990
).
12.
L.
Bao
and
E. F.
Redish
, “
Model analysis: Assessing the dynamics of student learning
,”
Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.
2
,
010103
1
(
2006
).
13.
Transfer of Learning: From a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective
, edited by
J. P.
Mestre
(
Information Age
, Greenwich, CT,
2005
).
14.
R. E.
Yager
, “
The constructivist learning model
,”
Sci. Teach.
58
,
52
57
(
1991
).
15.
D. I.
Dykstra
, Jr.
,
C. F.
Boyle
, and
I. A.
Monarch
, “
Studying conceptual change in learning physics
,”
Sci. Educ.
76
,
615
652
(
1992
).
16.
Most of the material covered in voting machine questioning was covered by lectures in the non-voting machine classroom. This statement was validated by observing both voting machine and non-voting machine lecture sections during the fall quarter. Because most of the same material was covered for an approximately equivalent amount of time, “small percentage” specifically relates to the mechanics of taking a vote, typically 10% of lecture time.
17.
D. P.
Maloney
,
T. L.
O’Kuma
,
C. J.
Hieggelke
, and
A.
Van Heuvelen
, “
Surveying students’ conceptual knowledge of electricity and magnetism
,”
Am. J. Phys.
69
,
S12
S23
(
2001
).
18.
R. R.
Hake
, “
Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses
,”
Am. J. Phys.
66
(
1
),
64
74
(
1998
).
19.
J. V.
Mallow
and
R. R.
Hake
, “
Gender issues in physics/science education (GIPSE)–Some annotated references
,” ⟨physics.indiana.edu/∼hake/GIPSE-4b.pdf⟩.
20.
C. E.
Wieman
, private communication.
21.
www.ncsu.edu/PER/SCALEUP/FailureRates.html⟩ studies failure rates of men, women and minorities in traditional versus SCALEUP classes.
22.
J.
Armarego
, “
Deconstructing students’ attitude to learning: A case study in IT education
,” in
Proceedings of the 2007 Computer Science and IT Education Conference
, the Republic of Mauritius, November 16–18, 2007, csited.org/2007/38ArmaCSITEd.pdf.
23.
J. J.
Ray
, “
Reviving the problem of acquiescent response bias
,”
J. Social Psych.
121
,
81
96
(
1983
).
24.
D.
Watson
, “
Correcting for acquiescent response bias in the absence of a balanced scale
,”
J. Theor. Probab.
21
(
1
),
52
88
(
1992
).
AAPT members receive access to the American Journal of Physics and The Physics Teacher as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.