Running head: JITT'S INFLUENCE ON ACHIEVEMENT: A LITERATURE REVIEW 1

The Influence of Just-in-Time Teaching of Student Achievement: A Literature Review

Cristina Montagna

Long Island University Post

JITT'S INFLUENCE ON ACHIEVEMENT: A LITERATURE REVIEW 2

Abstract

A current trend in higher education is the adoption of an approach, known as Just-in-Time

Teaching (JiTT), which blends technology-based formative assessment with in-class teaching. 

Current research evidence supports the effectiveness of JiTT on academic achievement in the

field of high school education, but similar research in higher education is limited.  This literature

review analyzed recent studies which have investigated the use of JiTT in higher education, in

effort to identify how it supports: (a) academic achievement, (b) student academic perceptions,

and (c) student academic engagement.  Within the review, strengths and limitations of the studies

are also discussed, as well as implications and suggestions for future research. 

Keywords: formative assessment, higher education, Just-in-Time Teaching (JiTT), technology

JITT'S INFLUENCE ON ACHIEVEMENT: A LITERATURE REVIEW 3

The Influence of Just-in-Time Teaching of Student Achievement: A Literature Review

Problem Statement

As the world is technologically advancing, institutions of higher education are looking to

transform traditional curricula to better prepare students for success in today’s global economy

(McLaughlin et al., 2014).  These institutions are seeking instructional reform that is student-

centered and promotes increased use of technology, to better meet the diverse needs of students

in higher education (Strayer, 2012).  Of current interest is an instructional and technology-based

assessment method known as Just-in-Time Teaching (JiTT), which is aligned with these needs. 

Research on JiTT in higher education is limited and has mainly been conducted with

undergraduate students in math and science fields, but the existing research shows relatively

positive results (Chantoem & Rattanavich, 2016; De, Kavitha, & Kanagasabai, 2014; Liberatore,

Morris, & Vestal, 2017; Luo, 2018; Lopez-Cupita, 2015; Marrs & Novak, 2014; Natarajan &

Bennet, 2014; Osmond & Goodnough, 2012; Riskowski, 2015; Sayer, Marshman, & Singh,

2016; Schuller, DaRosa, & Crandall, 2015; Strayer, 2012; Sun, Martinez, & Seli, 2014; Talley &

Scherer, 2013; Wanner, 2016) (see Appendix).  This literature review explored current research

on JiTT in higher education and what the findings of these studies may imply for supporting

student: (a) academic achievement, (b) academic perceptions, and (c) engagement.

Defining Just-in-Time Teaching (JiTT)

JiTT is a formative assessment, in which students answer a small set of web-based

questions, compared of various item types (e.g., multiple choice, true/false, and open ended

questions) on upcoming course material outside of class and submit their responses via an online

course management system (e.g., Blackboard), a few hours before each class begins (Riskowski,

2015).  Students' responses to JiTT exercises are reviewed by the instructor and are used to
JITT'S INFLUENCE ON ACHIEVEMENT: A LITERATURE REVIEW 4

develop classroom learning activities addressing learning gaps.  Thus, the identification and

correction of students’ erroneous beliefs occurs “just in time” for class. 

JiTT Assessment Model

JiTT is based on a feedback loop model between the web-based assessment questions

(outside the classroom) and the in-classroom learning (Figure 1) (Marrs & Novak, 2014). 

Instructors use online course management systems to post course assessment questions before

class, and students use this web-based material to prepare for each class.  In addition, student

responses to these questions allow the instructor to evaluate the students’ current understanding

of concepts or abilities, and these responses provide an opportunity for the instructor to adapt the

subsequent classroom teaching and activities to meet students’ level of understanding

(Riskowski, 2015).  Thus, the instructor uses student responses to create an interactive classroom

environment that emphasizes active learning and cooperative problem solving and decreases the

use of traditional lecture (De et al., 2014). 

Figure 1. JiTT Feedback Loop Model which depicts the relationship between web-based

assessment questions (outside the classroom) and in-classroom learning. Adapted from "Just-in-

Time Teaching in Biology: Creating an Active Learner Classroom Using the Internet" by Marrs,

& Novak, 2014.

JITT'S INFLUENCE ON ACHIEVEMENT: A LITERATURE REVIEW 5

Summary of Literature

This section explored the extant literature pertaining to the use of JiTT in higher

education.  This summary of the literature was guided by the following research question: In

what ways does utilizing JiTT, in college courses, support academic success?   Review of the

related studies suggested that JiTT improves several factors related to academic success,

including: (a) academic achievement, (b) student academic perceptions, and (c) student academic

engagement (see Appendix).  What follows is a review of studies related to each of the

aforementioned domains.

Academic Achievement

Several experimental (Chantoem & Rattanavich, 2016; Liberatore et al., 2017; Luo,

2018; Natarajan Bennet, 2014; Riskowski, 2015) and mixed-methods (Talley & Scherer, 2013)

studies have explored the relationship between JiTT and student academic success in higher

education.  These studies have been conducted primarily in science and math courses, with

results supporting the positive influence of JiTT on student performance.   

Experimental studies.  Luo (2018) designed a pretest/posttest experimental study, with

the purpose of investigating the effects of JiTT on student academic performance, across two

undergraduate Geography courses at an Illinois university.  The experimental design

incorporated a: (a) treatment group, a course which received a lecture with web-based JiTT; and

(b) control group, a course which received only a traditional lecture.  The results of the study

found that the treatment group had a significantly higher overall course grade (by one letter

grade on average) than the control group, thus demonstrating that JiTT improved students'

performance.  
JITT'S INFLUENCE ON ACHIEVEMENT: A LITERATURE REVIEW 6

A similar pretest/posttest experimental study was conducted Natarajan and Bennet

(2014), across two undergraduate Calculus courses at a Kansas university.  This study differed

with Lou’s (2018) in that Natarajan and Bennet (2014) released the JiTT web-based assessments

a few weeks before their dues dates, rather than a few days prior to when the associated topics

would be covered in a lecture, the latter of which is a traditional JiTT procedure.  The results of

their study not only indicated that JiTT improved students’ academic achievement, but also

revealed that timing of the JiTT web-based assessments was not a crucial factor when it came to

improving student achievement.  The implication of the this study is that JiTT is a flexible tool

that instructors can easily adapt to address gaps in students’ background knowledge, without

having to follow a pure just-in-time approach, as gains in learning occurred regardless of the

timing of the JiTT web-based assessments.  

  Liberatore et al. (2017) also conducted a pretest/posttest experimental study across two

undergraduate Engineering courses at a Colorado university.  Their treatment and control groups

were not unlike those developed by Lou (2018) and Natarajan and Bennet (2014).  

The results of Liberatore et al.’s (2017) study showed that student performance covering a

specific course topic, reinforced by JiTT, was found to be measurably higher (>9%) than the

control group who did not receive the JiTT assessment.  Unlike the previously discussed studies,

Liberatore et al.’s (2017) study also found higher median and 3rd quartile scores on posttests,

indicating that JiTT may be beneficial to mid-performing students.  One possible explanation is

that these mid-performing students gained more benefit from repetition of challenging material

via JiTT than the high or low performing students (p. 10).  The implication of this study for

educators is that if mid-performing students have the most to gain from JiTT, then this could
JITT'S INFLUENCE ON ACHIEVEMENT: A LITERATURE REVIEW 7

translate into higher overall course grades, again demonstrating that JiTT can improve students'

academic performance.  

The studies reviewed thus far, focus on introductory undergraduate level courses. 

Current research utilizing experimental design has rarely focused on upper-division courses

(Riskowski, 2015).  Recognizing this gap in the literature, Riskowski (2015) designed an

pretest/posttest experimental study across two Physics courses, designed for seniors, at a

university in Texas.  This study showed stronger academic achievement (e.g., 50% gain in

posttest scores) in the students who were in the JiTT course relative to the traditional lecture

course (p. 176).  The results of this study suggested that JiTT assessments were effective in

improving students' academic performance, in upper-division undergraduate courses, just as

other comparable studies have shown it to be in introductory level courses.  Caution must still be

used in generalizing these findings to other populations as participants were primarily Hispanic

males (70%).  

Similar achievement results were found in a study conducted outside of the United

States.  Chantoem and Rattanavich (2016) conducted a pretest/posttest experimental study across

two English language courses at a vocational college in Thailand.  The results of their study

found that the experimental group registered higher scores than the control group in English

reading and writing abilities, which further addresses the effectiveness of JiTT.  But, unlike the

previous studies, the present study used a randomized true control group pretest/posttest design. 

In this study, the randomized procedure was meant to ensure that marked differences between

the groups after the intervention were attributable to differences in received instruction, thus,

decreasing threats to internal validity (Heppner, Wampold, & Owen, 2016).  

JITT'S INFLUENCE ON ACHIEVEMENT: A LITERATURE REVIEW 8

The fact that the studies developed by Lou (2018), Natarajan and Bennet (2014), 

Liberatore et al. (2017), and Riskowski (2015) did not randomly assign students to either the

JiTT or traditional class, is a major limitation they all share.  Because of the lack of random

assignment, generalizations to larger population groups cannot be made.  Also, these studies, in

addition to Chantoem and Rattanavich’s (2016) research, were limited by several other factors,

including concerns that: (a) the studies were each discipline-specific (e.g., Geography, Calculus,

Engineering, Physics, or English language courses); (b) the studies were limited to

undergraduates; (c) in each study, the data was gathered from only one institution in only one

country; and (d) the researchers in each study were also the instructors in both the JiTT and

traditional classes, which made results subject to researcher bias. 

Mixed-Methods study.  The results of a mixed-methods study conducted by Talley and

Scherer (2013) support the results of the previously discussed experimental studies.  Tally and

Scherer (2013) explored the influence of JiTT on student academic achievement in an

undergraduate Psychology course at a mid-Atlantic university.  Student course grades and survey

responses were compared for two courses, one of which was JiTT-supported.  The results of the

study found student academic performance was significantly higher, in the JiTT-supported

course, than in the previous semester in which JiTT was not utilized.  Despite providing support

for the effectiveness of JiTT on student achievement, this study is limited by the participants’

demographics (i.e., all African American), and an undisclosed sample size, which make the

results harder to generalize to other student populations.

Academic Perceptions

Several qualitative (Marrs & Novak, 2014; Osmond & Goodnough, 2012; Sayer et al.,

2016) and mixed-methods (De et al., 2014; Strayer, 2012) studies have explored the relationship
JITT'S INFLUENCE ON ACHIEVEMENT: A LITERATURE REVIEW 9

between JiTT and student academic perceptions in higher education.  These studies have been

conducted in science and math courses, with results indicating that students perceive JiTT as

more supportive of their content learning and academic improvement, than traditional lecture-

only approaches.   

Qualitative studies.  Marrs and Novak (2014) designed a qualitative study, involving

750 students enrolled in undergraduate and graduate Biology courses at a university in Indiana. 

The purpose of the study was to explore the students’ perspectives (via a self-report

questionnaire) regarding the effect of JiTT on their learning (in Biology classes).  The results of

the study found that 94% of students reported that JiTT assessments were “very useful to

learning the fine points” of a concept (p. 57).  In addition, these students reported an average

normalized gain of ~60% on test questions that were reinforced by JiTT assessments (p. 57).  

A case study conducted by Osmond and Goodnough (2012) involved interviews with an

instructor, who taught two undergraduate Science courses (one that was JITT-supported and one

that was traditional lecture), at a U.S. university.  The instructor similarly reported that students

who participated in her JiTT-supported class typically performed better academically than

students in her lecture only course.  This study was important, as it explored instructor

perceptions, as opposed to student perceptions. The positive findings of both qualitative studies

are consistent with current quantitative research indicating that JiTT is effective in improving

students' academic performance.

The articles reviewed thus far, with regard to academic perceptions, focus on introductory

level undergraduate courses.  As such, the use of JiTT with students in upper-division courses

has received less attention, particularly in qualitative research.  Due to this gap in the literature,

Sayer et al. (2016) conducted a case study with the purpose of exploring the effects of JiTT on
JITT'S INFLUENCE ON ACHIEVEMENT: A LITERATURE REVIEW 10

student academic performance in an undergraduate Physics course, designed for juniors and

seniors, at a United States university.  As in Marrs and Novak’s (2014) study, Sayer et al. (2016)

found similar results when comparing students responses on self-reported questionnaires.  The

students attributed higher performance on test scores to the reinforcement provided by JiTT

assessments.  

The findings discussed within these qualitative studies suggest that JiTT assessments

were effective in improving students' academic performance, in both introductory and upper-

division undergraduate courses.  Despite this, the studies were limited by the fact that survey

data was collected, which is subject to response bias.  In addition, all three studies lacked thick

qualitative description (of participant survey responses) and data triangulation methods (as only

survey data was collected), which are both hallmark to qualitative research (Heppner et al.,

2016).

Mixed-Methods studies.  De et al. (2014) collected survey data from undergraduate

medical students at a university in Malaysia, in effort to explore their perspectives on JiTT over

traditional lecture teaching.  The results of their study highlighted that JiTT assessments were

perceived superior to traditional lecturing with statistically significant outcomes in the clarity of

the topic (p = 0.003) and knowledge gained for exams (p = 0.044) (p. 13).  Once again, these

results support the acceptability of JiTT over traditional lecture teaching.  Despite this strength,

limitations include the fact that survey data was collected, which is subject to response bias, and

the study was conducted at one university, outside of the United States, which limits the

generalizability of results.  

In a U.S.- based mixed-methods study, Strayer (2012) explored student satisfaction with

two sections of an undergraduate Statistics course (one JiTT and one traditional), at a Midwest
JITT'S INFLUENCE ON ACHIEVEMENT: A LITERATURE REVIEW 11

university.  All participants were interviewed and completed a survey.  The study’s qualitative

and quantitative results found that students in the JiTT classroom preferred learning via

technological innovation (i.e., JiTT web-based assessments) when compared to the traditional

lecture class.  A major implication of these results for educators is that students prefer blended

learning over traditional methods.

Strayer’s (2012) study was not without limitations involving the sample and potential

bias.  In this study, the researcher was also the instructor in both the JiTT and traditional classes,

which makes results subject to researcher bias.  As survey data was collected, it too is subject to

response bias.  Other limitations included the sample size and the fact that students were not

randomly assigned to either the JiTT or traditional lecture classroom.  Because of the lack of

random assignment, generalizations to a larger population group cannot be made.   

Academic Engagement

One main concern with the traditional lecture format is that students’ levels of

engagement tend to be low, which may be correlated with reduced learning levels (Wanner,

2016).  In recent years, technology has started to be applied in lecture halls and in online settings

(i.e., JiTT) to address this issue (Sun et al., 2014).  For the purposes of this literature review,

engagement is defined as the extent to which a learner is cognitively, emotionally, and

behaviorally involved in or committed to a learning activity or goal (Lopez-Cupita, 2015). 

Several quantitative (Schuller et al., 2015), qualitative (Lopez-Cupita, 2015; Wanner, 2016), and

quasi-experimental (Sun et al., 2014) studies have explored the relationship between JiTT and

student academic engagement in higher education.  These studies have been conducted primarily

in physical and social science courses, with results supporting the positive influence of JiTT on

student academic engagement.   

JITT'S INFLUENCE ON ACHIEVEMENT: A LITERATURE REVIEW 12

  Quantitative study.  The purpose of Schuller et al.’s (2015) quantitative study was to

explore the difference in learner engagement when JiTT was used in place of traditional

lectures.  Students were randomly assigned to either a JiTT or lecture-only medical course, at an

Illinois university.  Student in-class engagement was studied by video analysis conducted by two

reviewers.  Video analysis revealed that participants were engaged 34% of the time during the

JiTT classes compared with 11% of the time during lecture only classes (p. 389).  These results

indicate that students spent more time engaged in JiTT-supported classes as opposed to lecture-

only classes, thus supporting the effectiveness of JiTT at increasing student engagement levels

during in-class learning.  Random assignment and high inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.98)

employed by this study yields more convincing results, but the small sample size (N = 31) limits

the generalizability of the study (p. 390).

Qualitative study.  The results of Wanner’s (2016) qualitative study, supports Schuller et

al.’s (2015) findings.  The purpose of Wanner’s (2016) study was to investigate undergraduate

students’ perceptions of the influence of JiTT assessments on their in-class engagement levels. 

The interview-based study found that 70% of students agreed that JiTT assessments were helpful

for their understanding of the in-class lecture content, and thus, resulted in increased engagement

during in-class time (i.e., participation) (p. 160).  Yet, the generalizability of this study is limited

by several factors: (a) survey data, which is subject to response bias; (b) location of study (i.e.,

Australia); and (c) a lack of data triangulation methods (as only survey data was collected).

Lopez-Cupita (2015) conducted a related qualitative study with undergraduate

Psychology students, at a university in Columbia.  Analysis of interview data suggested that

through the JiTT strategy, students could organize their ideas before class and as a result they felt

more confident to participate actively during the in-class lecture, implying that engagement was
JITT'S INFLUENCE ON ACHIEVEMENT: A LITERATURE REVIEW 13

engendered before the lesson.  A major strength of this study was the use of data triangulation

(via interviews and journal artifacts), yet a weakness was the use of a convenience sample, which

was unlikely to be representative of the population being studied, thus limiting its

generalizability.

Quasi-Experimental study.  The aforementioned studies, as well as other existing

studies investigating JiTT have reported the benefits of increased behavioral engagement

(Schuller et al., 2015; Wanner, 2016), but current studies have rarely examined the influence of

JiTT on other types of student engagement (i.e., emotional and cognitive).  To address this gap in

the literature, Sun et al. (2014) devised a quasi-experimental study in which undergraduate

students participated in either a JiTT-supported or lecture-only Psychology course, at a

university in the southwest of the U.S.  To measure levels of student engagement, all participants

completed the School Engagement Questionnaire (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, Friedel, & Paris,

2005), for which high internal consistency reliability was reported (α = .917).  The results of the

study found that students in the JiTT-supported class had significantly higher levels of emotional

engagement, cognitive engagement, and overall engagement than those in lecture-only class (p.

240).  These results suggest that the use of JiTT creates an environment that facilitates students’

positive emotions and helps students concentrate on the classroom instruction.  Caution is

warranted in generalizing the results of this study to other populations, as participants were not

randomly assigned to either the JiTT or traditional lecture classroom.   

Discussion

The purpose of this literature review was to explore ways in which utilizing JiTT, in

college courses, supported academic success.  Review of the extant literature revealed that JiTT

supported student academic performance with regard to three domains: (a) academic
JITT'S INFLUENCE ON ACHIEVEMENT: A LITERATURE REVIEW 14

achievement, (b) academic perceptions, and (c) engagement.  Analysis of the results of the varied

methodological studies produced several findings.

To begin with, the results supported the positive influence of JiTT on student

achievement, especially for mid-performing students (Liberatore et al., 2017), regardless of the

timing of JiTT assessments (Natarajan & Bennet, 2014), and whether or not the course level was

introductory (Chantoem & Rattanavich, 2016; Liberatore et al., 2017; Luo, 2018; Natarajan &

Bennet, 2014; Talley & Scherer, 2013) or upper-division (Riskowski, 2015). Next, the results

indicated that students perceived JiTT as more supportive than traditional lecture methods of

their content learning and academic improvement, regardless of whether or not the course level

was introductory (De et al., 2014; Marrs & Novak, 2014; Osmond & Goodnough, 2012; Strayer,

2012) or upper-division (Sayer et al., 2016). Last, the results supported the positive influence of

JiTT on increased student academic behavioral engagement (e.g., participation) (Lopez-Cupita,

2015; Schuller et al., 2015; Wanner, 2016), as well as social and emotional engagement during

in-class lecture (Sun et al., 2014). 

Implications

The results of the researched studies supported JiTT’s influence on student academic

achievement, academic perceptions, and engagement, supporting it as an effective assessment

and teaching methodology in higher education.  In addition, these robust studies varied in

methodology and geographical location, yet many of them: (a) utilized small sample sizes; (b)

pertained to primarily Math and Science courses; and (c) only one of the studies included

graduate-level students (see Appendix).  Thus, as educational institutions are currently seeking

instructional reform that incorporates technology, in effort to change the method from traditional

lectures to JiTT in higher education, multi-course studies with larger and more diverse
JITT'S INFLUENCE ON ACHIEVEMENT: A LITERATURE REVIEW 15

populations need to be conducted to support it as a more feasible teaching and assessment tool

(De et al., 2014).  In addition, educational outcomes need to be compared amongst these diverse

groups.  Closely linked with this idea is the need for cross-cultural studies in effort to evaluate if

results are similar in other student populations, which will indicate whether or not such results

are more widely generalizable (Riskowski, 2015).

Of additional importance is the mention of the fact that review of the literature finds that

there is little to no research available on how JiTT influences instructor/teacher knowledge and

practice (Osmond & Goodnough, 2012).  Thus, this topic presents a major gap in the current

literature, and another potential avenue for future research.  Despite this, the nature of the JiTT

strategy lends itself to the enhancement of many areas of pedagogical content knowledge, as "the

strategy allows educators to probe students’ prior understandings, obtain feedback from students,

and foster engaging face-to-face learning" (Osmond & Goodnough, 2012, p. 78).
JITT'S INFLUENCE ON ACHIEVEMENT: A LITERATURE REVIEW 16

References

Chantoemi, R., & Rattanavich, S. (2016). Just-in-time teaching techniques through web

technologies for vocational students’ reading and writing abilities. English Language

Teaching, 9(1), 65-76. doi:10.5539/elt.v9n1p65

De, S., Kavitha, N., & Kanagasabai, S. (2014). Acceptability of just-in-time teaching amongst

medical students: A pilot study. Education in Medicine Journal, 6(1), 11-19.

doi:10.5959/eimj.v6i1.186

Heppner, P. P., Wampold, B. E., & Owen, J. (2016). Research Design. Boston, MA: Cengage.

Liberatore, M. W., Morrish, R. M., & Vestal, C. R. (2017). Effectiveness of just in time teaching

on student achievement in an introductory thermodynamics course. Advances in

Engineering Education, 6(1), 1-15.

López Cupita, L. A. (2016). Just-in-time teaching: A strategy to encourage students’

engagement. HOW, 23(2), 89-105. doi:10.19183/how.23.2.163

Luo, W. (2018). Just-in-time teaching improves students' performance in classes: Adaptation in

Four Geography Courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 56(2), 166-171.

doi:10.5408/1089-9995-56.2.166

Marrs, K. A., & Novak, G. (2014). Just-in-time teaching in biology: Creating an active learner

classroom using the internet. Cell Biology Education, 3(1), 049–061. doi:10.1187/cbe.03-

11-0022

McLaughlin, J. E., Roth, M. T., Glatt, D. M., Gharkholonarehe, N., Davidson, C. A., Griffin, L.

M., Mumper, R. J. (2014). The flipped classroom: A course redesign to foster learning

and engagement in  health professions school. Academic Medicine, 89(2), 236-243. doi:

10.1097/acm.0000000000000086 
JITT'S INFLUENCE ON ACHIEVEMENT: A LITERATURE REVIEW 17

Natarajan, R., & Bennett, A. (2014). Improving student learning of calculus topics via modified

just-in-time teaching methods. PRIMUS, 24(2), 149-159. doi:

10.1080/10511970.2013.854853

Osmond, P., & Goodnough, K. (2011). Adopting just-in-time teaching in the context of an

elementary science education methodology course. Studying Teacher Education, 7(1),

77-91. doi:10.1080/17425964.2011.558387

Riskowski, J. L. (2015). Teaching undergraduate biomechanics with Just-in-Time Teaching.

Sports Biomechanics, 14(2), 168-179. doi:10.1080/14763141.2015.1030686

Sayer, R., Marshman, E., & Singh, C. (2016). Case study evaluating just-in-time teaching and

peer instruction using clickers in a quantum mechanics course. Physical Review Physics

Education Research, 12(2), 2469-9896. doi:10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020133

Schuller, M. C., DaRosa, D. A., & Crandall, M. L. (2015). Using just-in-time teaching and peer

instruction in a residency program’s core curriculum: Enhancing satisfaction,

engagement, and retention. Academic Medicine, 90(3), 384-391.

doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000578

Strayer, J. F. (2012). How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation

and task orientation. Learning Environments Research, 15(2), 171- 193. doi:

10.1007/s10984-012-9108-4

Sun, J. C., Martinez, B., & Seli, H. (2014). Just-in-time or plenty-of-time teaching? Different

electronic feedback devices and their effect on student engagement. Educational

Technology & Society, 17(2), 234–244.

Talley, C. P., & Scherer, S. (2013). The enhanced flipped classroom: increasing academic

performance with student-recorded lectures and practice testing in a "flipped" stem

JITT'S INFLUENCE ON ACHIEVEMENT: A LITERATURE REVIEW 18

course. (2013). The Journal of Negro Education, 82(3), 339-347. doi:

10.7709/jnegroeducation.82.3.0339

Wanner, T. (2015). Enhancing student engagement and active learning through just-in-time

teaching and the use of PowerPoint. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in

Higher Education, 27(1), 154-163.

JITT'S INFLUENCE ON ACHIEVEMENT: A LITERATURE REVIEW 19

Appendix

Table 1

Comparison of Literature Review Studies

Course
Research Sample Locatio Academic
Authors School Course Managemen
Design Size n Domain
t System

Chantoemi
Illinois
et al. Experimental 40
(US)
Undergrad Engineering G-Mail Achievement
(2016)

De et al. Course
Mixed-Methods 235 Malaysia Undergrad Medicine Perceptions
(2014) Website

Liberatore
Colorado Sapling
et al. Experimental 200
(US)
Undergrad Engineering
Learning
Achievement
(2017)

Lopez-
Qualitative 23 Columbia Undergrad Psychology Padlet Engagement
Cupita
(2016)
Illinois
Experimental N/A Undergrad Geography BlackBoard Achievement
Luo (2018) (US)

Common
Marrs & Indiana
Qualitative 750 Undergrad Biology Gateway Perceptions
Novak (US)
Interface
(2014)

Natarajan Kansas
Experimental 626 Undergrad Calculus Javascript Achievement
et al. (US)
(2014)

Osmond et Course
Qualitative 1 US Undergrad Science Perceptions
al. (2012) Website

Riskowski Texas
Experimental 283 Undergrad Physics BlackBoard Achievement
(2015) (US)

Course
Sayer et al. Qualitative 20 US Undergrad Physics
Website
Perceptions
(2016)
Illinois Survey
Schuller et Quantitative 31
(US)
Graduate Medicine
Monkey
Engagement
al. (2015)

Strayer Mixed-Methods 257 US Undergrad Statistics ALEKS Perceptions

(2012)
JITT'S INFLUENCE ON ACHIEVEMENT: A LITERATURE REVIEW 20

Quasi- Polleverywher
Sun et al. Experimental
209 US Undergrad Psychology
e.com
Engagement
(2014)

Talley &
Mixed-Methods N/A US Undergrad Psychology BlackBoard Achievement
Scherer
(2013)
Course
Wanner Qualitative 94 Australia Undergrad N/A
Website
Engagement
(2015)