Many schools endeavour to provide effective, relevant and appealing alcohol education to students, using up-to-date technologies and resources. However, choosing an appropriate, evidence-based programme or approach is rarely straightforward given the plethora of options and limited evidence base. The alcohol education literature and findings from a recent Australian study indicate four key features of effective alcohol education approaches: interactivity, peer education, exploration of students’ opinions/knowledge, and addressing alcohol-related misperceptions. These four features are acknowledged strengths of audience-response devices (‘clickers’). Clickers are increasingly popular, supported by growing evidence of suitability for a variety of educational applications and have untapped potential in the delivery of alcohol education. Clickers can engage and empower students and their ability to elucidate misperceptions regarding prevalence and acceptance of risky alcohol use among peers corresponds with normative education approaches. Clickers are effective, fun, create valuable ‘teachable moments’ and provide potential to enhance delivery of evidence-based alcohol education.
McBrideN. A systematic review of school drug education. Health Education Research Theory and Practice, 2003: 18(6): 729–42.
2.
FoxcroftDRIrelandDLister-SharpDJLoweGBreenR. Longer-term primary prevention for alcohol misuse in young people: A systematic review. Addiction, 2003: 98(4): 397–411.
3.
RocheAMBywoodPHughesCFreemanTDuraisingamVTrifonoffA. The Role of Schools in Alcohol Education: Final Report. Adelaide: National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction (NCETA), Flinders University, 2010. Online. Available: http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/drugs/Documents/RoleSchoolsAlcoholEd.pdf (accessed 16 November 2011).
4.
SteadMAngusK. Literature Review into the Effectiveness of School Drug Education. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Education Department, 2004.
5.
SteadMStradlingRMacNeilMMacKintoshA-MMintySMcDermottL. Bridging the gap between evidence and practice: A multi-perspective examination of real-world drug education. Drugs Education Prevention and Policy, 2010: 17(1): 1–20.
6.
MidfordRStockwellTGrayD. Prevention of alcohol-related harm: Community-based interventions. In: Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing (ed.) National Alcohol Research Agenda: A supporting Paper to the National Alcohol Strategy A Plan for Action 2001 to 2003–4. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, 2002, 91–9.
7.
HansenWB. School-based alcohol prevention programs. Alcohol Health Research World, 1993: 17(1): 54–60.
8.
SharmaM. Making effective alcohol education interventions for high school. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 2006: 50(2): 1–4.
9.
DraperSCargillJCuttsQ. Electronically enhanced classroom interaction. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 2002: 18(1): 13–23.
10.
MartynM. Clickers in the classroom: An active learning approach. Educause Quarterly, 2007: 30(2): 71–4.
11.
MidfordRMunroGMcBrideNSnowPLadzinskiU. Principles that underpin effective school-based drug education. Journal of Drug Education, 2002: 32(4): 363–86.
12.
CahillHW. Challenges in adopting evidence-based school drug education programmes. Drug and Alcohol Review, 2007: 26(6): 673–9.
13.
BrownJH. Youth, drugs and resilience education. Journal of Drug Education, 2001: 31(1): 83–122.
14.
ToumbourouJHemphillSMcMorrisBCatalanoPPattonG. Alcohol use and related harms in school students in the USA and Australia. Health Promotion International, 2009: 24(4): 373–82.
15.
GrahamMWardBMunroGSnowPEllisJ. Rural parents, teenagers and alcohol: What are parents thinking?Rural and Remote Health, 2006: 6(383): 1–14.
16.
KingETaylorJCarrollT. Parental Opinions and Behaviour Regarding Teenage Alcohol Consumption. Sydney: Research and Marketing Group, Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, 2005.
17.
RowlingLJeffreysV. Capturing complexity: Integrating health and education research to inform health-promoting schools policy and practice. Health Education Research, 2006: 21(5): 705–18.
18.
DusenburyLBranniganRFalcoMHansenWB. A review of research on fidelity of implementation: Implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Education Research, 2003: 18(2): 237–56.
19.
BotvinGJGriffinKW. School-based programmes to prevent alcohol, tobacco and other drug use. International Review of Psychiatry, 2007: 19(6): 607–15.
20.
CuijpersP. Three decades of drug prevention research. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 2003: 10(1): 7–20.
21.
WoodEShakeshaftAGilmourSSanson-FisherR. A systematic review of school-based studies involving alcohol and the community. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 2006: 30(6): 541–9.
22.
SteadMGordonRHolmeIMoodieCHastingsGAngusK. Changing Attitudes, Knowledge and Behaviour: A Review of Successful Initiatives. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2009.
23.
SooleDWMazerolleLRomboutsS. School-based drug prevention programs: A review of what works. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 2008: 41(2): 259–86.
24.
ToblerNSRoonaMROchshornPMarshallDGStrekeAVStackpoleKM. School-based adolescent drug prevention programs: 1998 meta-analysis. Journal of Primary Prevention, 2000: 20(4): 275–336.
25.
WhiteVHaymanJ. Australian secondary school students’ use of alcohol in 2005. Monograph Series No. 58. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, 2006.
26.
BondLPattonGGloverSCarlinJBButlerHThomasL. The Gatehouse Project: Can a multilevel school intervention affect emotional wellbeing and health risk behaviours?Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2004: 58(12): 997–1003.
27.
MidfordR. Drug prevention programmes for young people: Where have we been and where should we be going?Addiction, 2009: 105: 1688–95.
28.
StradlingRMacNeilMCheyneBScottJMintyS. Delivering Drug Education in the Classroom – Lessons from the Blueprint Programme. Edinburgh: School of Education, University of Edinburgh, 2007.
29.
HughesCJulianRRichmanMMasonRLongG. Harnessing the power of perception: Exploring the potential of peer group processes to reduce alcohol-related harm among rural youth. Youth Studies Australia, 2008: 27(2): 26–35.
30.
McAlaneyJBewickBHughesC. The international development of the ‘Social Norms’ approach to drug education and prevention. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 2011: 18(2): 81–9.
31.
BruvoldW. A meta-analysis of adolescent smoking prevention programs. American Journal of Public Health, 1993: 83: 872–80.
32.
WhiteDPittsM. Educating young people about drugs: A systematic review. Addiction, 1998: 93: 1475–87.
33.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). 2007 National Drug Strategy Household Survey, First Results. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2008.
34.
WhiteVHaymanJ. A drink, a smoke, a joint: New stats on students’ use. Of Substance, 2007: 5(2): 22–4.
35.
McAlaneyJMcMahonJ. Normative beliefs, misperceptions, and heavy episodic drinking in a British student sample. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 2007: 68: 228–37.
36.
KayRKnaackL. Exploring the use of audience response systems in secondary school science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2009: 18(5): 382–92.
37.
HancockL. Audience response technology in social norms marketing: Getting students to believe with the click of a button. The Social Norms Review, 2006: 1(4). Online. Available: http://www.socialnormsresources.org/pdf/SNR4-2006.pdf (accessed 16 November 2011).
38.
PerkinsH (ed.). The Social Norms Approach to Preventing School and College Age Substance Abuse: A Handbook for Educators, Counsellors and Clinicians. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 2003.
39.
CaldwellJ. Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. Life Sciences Education, 2007: 6: 9–20.
40.
CarnaghanCWebbA. Investigating the effects of group response systems on student satisfaction, learning, and engagement in accounting education. Issues in Accounting Education, 2007: 22(3): 391–409.
41.
FaganACrouchCMazurE. Peer instruction: Results from a range of classrooms. Physics Teacher, 2002: 40(4): 206–9.
42.
KennedyGCuttsQ. The association between students’ use of electronic voting systems and their learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2005: 21(4): 260–8.
43.
SchackowTMiltonCLoyaLFriedmanM. Audience response systems: Effect on learning in family medicine residents. Family Medicine, 2004: 36: 496–504.
44.
ImmerwahrJ. Engaging the ‘thumb generation’ with clickers. Teaching Philosophy, 2009: 32(3): 233–45.
45.
DuncanD. Clickers: A new teaching aid with exceptional promise. Astronomy Education Review, 2007: 5(1): 70–88.
46.
CzajaRBlairJ. Designing Surveys: A Guide to Decisions and Procedures (2nd edition). London: Sage, 2005.
47.
EbreoAFeist-PriceSSieweYZimmermanR. Effects of peer education on the peer educators in a school-based HIV prevention program: Where should peer education research go from here?Health Education and Behavior, 2002: 29: 411–23.
48.
McDonaldJRocheADurbridgeMSkinnerN. Peer Education: From Evidence to Practice: An Alcohol and Other Drugs Primer. Adelaide: National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction (NCETA), 2003.
LaBrieJHummerJGrantSLacA. Immediate reductions in misperceived social norms among high-risk college student groups. Addictive Behaviors, 2010: 35(12): 1094–101.
51.
HancockLVatalaroKBarberJ. Using audience response technology in brief live interactive normative group (BLING) sessions to reduce high-risk drinking in first year college students. College Health in Action, 2010: 49(3). Online. Available: http://www.yourstrategy.org/closet/BLING-CollegeHealthinAction2010.pdf (accessed 16 November 2011).
52.
LaBrieJHummerJHuchtingKNeighborsC. A brief live interactive normative group intervention using wireless keypads to reduce drinking and alcohol consequences in college student athletes. Drug and Alcohol Review, 2009: 28: 40–7.
53.
LaBrieJHummerJNeighborsCPedersenE. Live interactive group-specific normative feedback reduces misperceptions and drinking in college students: A randomized cluster trial. Psychology of Addictive Behaviours, 2008: 22(1): 141–8.
54.
WoodW. Clickers: A teaching gimmick that works. Developmental Cell, 2004: 7: 796–8.
