The purpose of this study was to examine whether electronic response systems influence student metacognitions in large lecture settings, and how metacognitive processes are influenced. Moreover, this study compared electronic response systems with a low technology system and sought to establish whether differences exist in how the two response systems influence metacognition. The design of the study was quasi-experimental, and employed both quantitative and qualitative measures with multiple groups and multiple points of data collection. A context was selected that utilized electronic response systems as a part of the instructional design of the course and in conjunction with instructional strategies (e.g., questioning, and Peer Instruction). Three sections of the same undergraduate educational psychology course with the same instructor and instructional design were utilized in the study. There were a total of 198 participants, 33 in the Summer Group, 87 in the Fall experimental ("clickers") group and 78 in the Fall (paddles) comparison group. The study found that metacognitions are influenced more by the low technology response systems than by "clickers," but performance outcomes were significantly higher with "clicker" use (p < .01). Results from the study indicate that metacognitive processes are influenced by response systems and there are similarities and difference in the influence of the two response systems. This study found that the low technology response system resulted in negative feelings because answers were visible to peers before the correct response was indicated. This resulted in students changing responses based on perceived pressure from the group. While this resulted in more metacognition than "clickers," the visible nature of the low technology device generated negative feelings which may indicate that this method of response may have been an impediment to learning goals and creating a learner-centered environment. The use of "clickers" seems to influence honesty and reduce the conformity effects to which students are prone. Results indicate that it may be useful to view metacognitions as productive or unproductive, and in the case of response systems, as having a self-reflective or group reflective quality. In addition the respondents who experienced enhanced learning outcomes with "clickers" were the participants who had low to average performance outcomes as compared to participants who tended to have higher performance outcomes. Participants who had higher outcomes experienced the least benefits and may have had consistent performance outcomes regardless of the response device in use.