The Response Systems in the Student’s Learning/Teaching Process
A Case Study in a Portuguese School
Paula Azevedo and Maria João Ferreira
Universidade Portucalense, Porto, Portugal
Keywords: Response System, Student, Teaching/Learning Process, Teaching, Education.
Abstract: Over the past few years there has been a large investment in information and communication technologies
applied in the teaching/learning process. In this context the response systems appear as an innovative tool
associated with different methods and strategies. Response systems are technological products designed to
support communication and interactivity, generating enormous potential when applied in the
teaching/learning process. The student motivation increases when this technology is used leading to a
greater participation and consequently to a better and faster acquisition of concepts. Collaborative and
cooperative attitudes between student/student, student/teacher and student/class are increased when response
system are used in the context of the classroom. The use of response systems and their implications for the
teaching/learning process are some of the challenges that teachers are facing nowadays as a driving agent in
the implementation of this technology at school. This article examines the use of response systems in the
student’s learning/teaching process, exploring their use in a Portuguese school.
1 INTRODUCTION
The information and communication technologies,
integrated in the teaching/learning process are a
fundamental means of building the student's
knowledge (Costello, 2010; Liu, 2010). Making use
of these technologies, learning and interest are
encouraged in the contents they are taught,
becoming a promoting factor of learning that leads
to the formation of competent students with open
horizons and predisposed to invest in innovation
(Arends, 2008; Costello, 2010).
Over the past decades, teachers have recognized
the value of the use of technological tools in the
classroom, and since that time they have been
making efforts to adapt to this reality in order to
improve the teaching/learning process (Liu, 2010).
With the numerous technologies that are available,
teachers and students can access a great variety of
information and make use of them, exploring their
potential. The use of technology in classroom
provides a better relationship between teachers and
students, it provides the interaction between them
and leads to closer and more dynamic learning. The
daily contact with them, creates challenges to the
student to learn more and look for new ways to
adquire new knowledge (Costello, 2010).
Regarding response systems, in the literature
dedicated to this technology, are used different
names such as: audience response system, personal
response system, student response system, electronic
response system, voting system, "clicker" or
"zappers" (Fies et al., 2006; Kay and Knaack, 2009;
Kolikant et al., 2010). So, the name given to this
technology has no consensus and, in this article, the
term chosen was response system, because it is
simple and it creates, at the same time, its own
concept.
Response systems are defined in the literature, as
technological products based on combinations of
hardware and software designed to support
communication and interactivity in the
teaching/learning process (Beatty, 2004). These
systems are considered an innovative technology
and are characterized as systems that include
portable electronic devices that allow students to
select the answers to the questions asked by the
teacher during lessons, enabling the teacher to
control these answers (Lowery, 2005; Barber and
Njus, 2007).
The key objective of the response systems is to
allow the interactivity between student/student,
student/class and student/teacher (Costello, 2010).
The fact is that the teacher is always looking for
79
Azevedo P. and Ferreira M..
The Response Systems in the Student’s Learning/Teaching Process - A Case Study in a Portuguese School.
DOI: 10.5220/0004874700790086
In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS-2014), pages 79-86
ISBN: 978-989-758-029-1
Copyright
c
2014 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
ways to keep students` attention by involving them
in the learning process; it makes this technology an
important tool to promote their participation in class,
improving students' attitudes and their satisfaction
(Siau et al, 2006; Morgan, 2008; Eastman et al,
2011).
In the literature there was not found similar
studies
in the context of Portuguese school
(Azevedo, 2012). The literature presents several
cases about the influence of the response systems in
the learning/teaching process but it does not present
studies with the focus of the assessed paper.
For this investigation the main question was
defined as: "What is the use of response systems in
the students’ learning/teaching process?" based on
two general questions: (1) What is the knowledge
and the use of response systems in a Portuguese
school? (2) What is the contribution of response
systems in the student’s learning/teaching process?
The article is organized in this way. In section
number two the state of the art response systems are
presented, in section three, the applicability of this
technology in the teaching/learning process is
discussed; in section four the research methodology
and the data analysis of the study are presented and
it ends with a final reflection of the implications of
the use of response systems in the student’s
learning/teaching process in a Portuguese school.
2 RESPONSE SYSTEMS
The use of response systems began around the late
60s, with their application in the business and
governmental areas and in meetings. In terms of
playfulness their application was used in television
quiz shows. Subsequently, this technology was
applied in educational institutions, universities first
and later in secondary and basic schools (Judson and
Sawada, 2006; Kay and LeSage, 2009).
At the beginning, systems needed physical
connections and they were considered as a very
costly, ineffective and non-functional technology
(Judson and Sawada, 2006; Kay and LeSage, 2009).
By the 90s, there were systems that incorporated
infrared technology and later radio frequency,
bringing the advantage of low cost, a factor which
led to the expansion of the use of response systems
in academic areas (Barber and Njus, 2007; Zhu,
2007). In recent years, the technology of the
response systems was begun to rely on the web,
allowing the adaptation to online courses and the
use of the tablet, smartphone, WebCT, Blackboard,
etc. (Lowery, 2005).
The goal that is behind the use of response
systems - realize the level of understanding and
learning of each student and make adjustments to the
teaching/learning process - is not new. For many
years teachers have used interactive and cooperative
teaching to encourage participation of all students in
discussions (Arends, 2008; Lebrun, 2008).
The introduction of response systems as an
innovative technology in the teaching/learning
process needs to consider all aspects, only looking at
one aspect is missing opportunities. The impact of
its implementation is beyond the development of
skills, because it affects the whole method of
teaching and curriculum management in general
(Zhu, 2007; Kenwright, 2009).
The incorporation of response systems in the
teaching/learning process allows students to
participate more in class, answer questions and
receive feedback from the teacher about what the
acquisition of the contents that were taught is related
to. On the other hand, the teacher can assess whether
the student is following his exposure and set the
level of understanding that each student has been
achieving in relation to classmates. As a result,
students show more commitment, more attention,
more involvement with the class, realizing that the
response system is easy to use and useful for their
learning (Eastman, 2007; Beatty and Gerace, 2009).
The increase of participation is directly related
with the anonymity that the response systems allow,
leading the student not to be judged by his peers and
be able to interact without recrimination (Caldwell,
2007; Simpson and Oliver, 2007). The anonymity
encourages students to participate and believe in
their abilities, allowing the teacher to know which
concepts were understood and which ones need to be
strengthened. The student can identify his own gaps
and work on them out (Barrett et al, 2005).
Response systems are not a magic solution to the
problems that exist in the teaching/learning process,
they are firstly a tool that can be used in different
ways to achieve specific goals. The research and
professional development should focus on teaching
specific practices considering the individual
differences of each student (Barrett et al, 2005;
Edens, 2006).
3 APPLICABILITY IN
TEACHING/ /LEARNING
PROCESS
Response systems are a technological tool that
ICEIS2014-16thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
80
cannot function on its own. The teacher has to adapt
his teaching methods and approach strategies in
order to properly implement the use of this tool
(Beatty, 2004; Njus and Barber, 2007; Eastman,
2007). The teacher should start using response
systems in a very slow way and can encourage
student participation in a topic that was considered
problematic. According to Beatty et al (2005), the
teacher cannot tell the students what to think but
rather, stimulate their thinking, comparing it with
alternatives and looking for the solution that best
works and is adapted to each context. The student
becomes more involved in the teaching/learning
process, demonstrating a sense of ownership about
his personal contribution to the learning of the class
(Liu, 2010). The teacher should request training for
the responsible people for the installed system and to
exercise the material that will demonstrate in class
how to feel comfortable and to convey to students
the use of technology (Barber and Njus, 2007;
Eastman, 2007).
The response system is a useful pedagogic tool in
the classroom, especially when combined with an
implementation strategy as "peer instruction" or
"class-wide discussion" (Beatty, 2004; Kennedy and
Cutts, 2005). This technology can be used for a
variety of purposes, including evaluation, research
and consensus building (Barrett et al, 2005). The
impact of the application of the response system
largely depends on how the questions are prepared,
their suitability for the intended results and how
effectively they are used to set the rhythm of the
lesson (Beatty et al, 2005).
The questions that are asked in classroom allow
teacher to determine quickly if the student is
assimilating the presented concepts, giving the
student that cannot understand, a second opportunity
to inform the teacher of his situation, without having
to face the embarrassment of asking questions in
front of the whole class (Barrett et al, 2005).The
well-designed questions are just a tool, an
approached component oriented towards a learning
content, but the way that the teacher uses questions
to interact with students in classroom is the most
important aspect. However, the lack of effective
questions to use with response systems can be a
serious barrier and frustrating to the teacher who
wishes to learn and practice the use of targeted
questions. The feedback given to the teacher on
students’ acquisitions can, if carefully studied,
reveal problems of implementation (Penuel et al,
2007; Kenwright, 2009).
Response systems can lead to the realization of a
formative and summative assessment, merged with
coherent process, clearly integrated in each class
(Hancock, 2010). The formative evaluation is used
to determine the level of understanding achieved by
the student about concepts, but without quantifying.
It wants to identify misconceptions and allows to
adjust the development of the lesson. The regular
use of a response system can provide real-time
feedback, both for the teacher and for the students,
about how the concepts are being understood
(Beatty, 2004; Beatty et al, 2005; Caldwell, 2007;
Simpson and Oliver, 2007).
The feedback system also allows the realization
of the summative evaluation, because almost all
kinds of evaluation that test structure can be easily
adapted to the use of this technology. The system
records and classifies the answers from each student
for each question and the software has the
functionality to export the results to an external file
in order to be treated by a specific software. The
results will then be used by the teacher, and treated
according to the objectives (Barrett et al, 2005). In
this context, the learning that was already
undertaken leads to positive frequent interaction,
allowing greater articulation of the student’s thought
and a greater focus on his misunderstandings with
discussions between peers, which leads to more
active learning (Beatty, 2004; Caldwell, 2007). In
essence, by using a response system it is possible to
transform a unilateral transmission of information,
relatively static, into a dynamic transmission and
interactive transmission by the student (Kennedy
and Cutts, 2005, Morgan, 2008).
4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.1 Context
As a research methodology the quantitative research
approach was selected in order to understand, on the
one hand which technologies teachers regularly use
in classroom and, on the other hand, in what context
the response systems are used in classroom and,
consequently, the implications in the student’s
learning/teaching process.
The process of data collection was based on the
use of questionnaire surveys, opting to include, in
general, closed questions. The questionnaire, being
the data collection selected instrument, aimed to
collect information through the examination of a
representative group of the studying population. The
investigation by survey, being widely used in
education, allows the identification and enumeration
of the studied situations without requiring major
TheResponseSystemsintheStudent'sLearning/TeachingProcess-ACaseStudyinaPortugueseSchool
81
concern in determining, systematically, the
relationship between all the variables involved in the
process, because sometimes it is not possible to
collect data in an appropriate way (Tuckman, 2000).
The questionnaire is a tool for collecting data well
adapted to quantitative researches, because it makes
possible the work with large samples in a relatively
short time enabling the establishment of statistical
relationships for the generalization. It allows a series
of questions with no interaction between the
respondents and the researcher (Hill and Hill, 2005).
The questionnaire was applied to a school with
the second and third cycles of basic education and
secondary education, in order to cover the various
levels of education. The purpose of it was to
measure the experiences of that school´s use of
technological response systems. Therefore, it was
decided to apply the questionnaire to two groups,
teachers and students, with the intention to compare
the perspectives of the two agents involved in the
teaching/learning process, concerning the use of this
technology in the context of the classroom
4.2 The Planning and the Designing of
the Questionnaire
In the definition of the objectives of this survey the
type of information required and the desired goal
were presented. As the technology of response
systems, studied here, is quite recent, the option was
only related to the use of response systems. The risk
of receiving more questionnaires with no answers
was very high, so, after analyzing the school context,
it was decided to include a section related to the
technologies already used in classroom. In this
context, the investigation led to the perception of
what technologies were used in classroom and how
they influence the student’s teaching/learning
process, realizing how the technology of response
systems is used in classroom.
The questionnaire included a set of general
questions followed by specific ones. The questions
were designed in order to allow diverse kinds of
answers, avoiding the respondent's demotivation to
answer. On one hand, listing items were used for
where the respondent answers by selecting one of
the possible options presented. On the other hand,
some answers were selected using Likert’s scale of
values, which measures the respondent’s opinion,
that is given by the average of his position against
the set of proposals propositions (Gable and Wolf,
1986). The respondent’s answers are directly located
in terms of attitude, positioning himself in an
affective gradation according to their agreement or
disagreement on the issue. According Gable & Wolf
(1986), Likert’s scales are often used because they
are valid, they are easy to construct and easy to
adapt to measure various characteristics of the
emotional component.
All the questions included in the questionnaire
needed to be answered since all the respondents had
worked together during the school year 2011/2012,
being the active agents in the classroom. Some
issues include the option "Other", allowing the
respondent to specify a different option from those
shown. As a methodological option two
questionnaires were produced one directed to
teachers and one to students, although both with the
same structure
4.3 Collection of Data
The school that was studied is the seat of a grouping
of schools, being placed in an urban, industrial and
commercial area, having local residence, but also
others from the surroundings. For reasons of
confidentiality the school cannot be identified. The
school offers the second and third cycles of basic
education and the secondary education, it has 118
teachers, divided into five departments. According
to the studying population this one consists of 1334
students, distributed among the different levels of
education. The questionnaire was administered to
teachers and students, in order to compare the
perspectives of the two agents involved in this
educational process about the use of the technology
in the classroom.
Concerning the teacher’s population in the
studied school, it was concluded that there was a
broad implementation of information exchange
through institutional email. According to this factor,
it was decided to send the questionnaire to all
teachers, trying to get a larger number of answers.
Therefore, the questionnaire was sent to all teachers
by email, via institutional email, having as the
sender a member of the school leadership in order to
induce greater attention to the content of it, leading
to a greater number of answers. In this email it was
requested that the cooperation of all teachers,
assuming complete anonymity, appealing to the
completing of the questionnaire in order to know
which technologies are more used in the classroom,
and to what extent they contribute to improve the
student’s teaching/learning process.
Applying this process to the entire student
population became impractical because teachers do
not have the emails of all students. This way, the
approach was looked at from two perspectives, and
ICEIS2014-16thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
82
the defined sampling was laminated to cover a
sampling rate identical in every teaching level.
Students who used the computing labs weekly
answered during the lesson and other students were
randomly selected from amongst the missing
teaching cycles. They were invited to attend a
computer lab and answer the questionnaire, properly
guided by a teacher. The perspectives used enabled
that the questionnaire could cover the same sampling
rate at different levels of education.
The sample included 60 teachers and 291
students, representing 51 % of the teaching
population and 22 % of students, each one having
particular features but with a common characteristic
- the same educational context during the school
year. These elements were the units of analysis on
which the information was collected, considering
that this sample is representative of the population
and provides accurate information.
4.5 Data Analysis
From the analysis of the use of technologies in the
school studied it´s easy to conclude that these are
used in a cross context being worked and explored in
all subject areas. It is important to know that this
factor is as a promoter of meaningful learning which
leads to the formation of competent students with
open horizons and predisposed to invest in
innovation.
Following this, and in order to be possible to
compare teachers’ and students’ perspectives, the
issues equally applied to the two samples were
analyzed in contrast, assessing the points of contact
and withdrawal.
The first part of the questionnaire is related to
technologies used in classroom and it is possible to
conclude that, in general, information and
communication technologies are implemented in the
classroom, with predominance in the use of the
projector. This result is directly related to the fact
that all the school rooms are equipped with this
technology, which allows the teacher to use them
every day without needing to request equipment,
internet connection, etc. In contrast, the technology
less used is the response system with a residual
number of answers to indicate its use (see graphics 1
and 2).
About the software that is used for the creation
and presentation of the syllabus contents, the
answers are focused on electronic submission and
word processor, but while teachers firstly prefer the
word processor and secondly the electronic
submission, students do it in reverse
Technologies are generally used with a very high
frequency and most of the answers are in the
category of between once to three times a week,
followed by the option in all classes. It demonstrates
the importance teachers give to the use of
technology as a tool to support the student’s
teaching/learning process. The two objectives
chosen as the most important ones and that are
closely related to the use of technologies in
classroom, not only by teachers but also by students,
are:
• Promoting more creative, dynamic and motivating
lessons;
• Using different strategies and resources to improve
the quality of teaching and learning.
Graphic 1: Technology used in classroom.
Graphic 2: Technology used in classroom.
Both teachers and students converge on the
objectives, realizing that they can reach and realize
the justification of using technology in classroom.
Teachers apply and use technologies when
2%
10%
25%
10%
9%
8%
20%
12%
4%
Teachers
Response systems
Interactive
whiteboard
Projectors
eBook
Platform provided
by publishers
Platform Moodle
Viewing material
on specific sites
Viewing material
in generic sites
Others
2%
20%
34%
6%
9%
13%
12%
4%
0%
Students
Response systems
Interactive
whiteboard
Projectors
eBook
Platform provided by
publishers
Platform Moodle
Viewing material on
specific sites
Viewing material in
generic sites
Others
TheResponseSystemsintheStudent'sLearning/TeachingProcess-ACaseStudyinaPortugueseSchool
83
presenting the content, and students realize their
usefulness and incorporate them into their learning,
leading to more collaborative classes.
Concerning students' attitudes towards the use of
technologies in classroom, the data points to the
existence of agreements between teachers and
students, because both mention that the interest and
the involvement increase. Both groups refer to the
assiduity as an attitude that is kept or that is not
observable.
From this analysis, in what concerns the use of
technologies in classroom, it is possible to conclude
that these are being widely used, being noticeable
that both educational agents, teachers and students,
understand the importance of their use, being
evident the confluence of the answers, illustrative of
the daily work that involves the use of technology as
a crucial pedagogical tool in the student’s
teaching/learning process.
About what the response system is related to, it is
evident the limited use of this technology, realizing
that the vast majority of teachers and students have
never used it before and they don’t even know their
functionalities and applicabilities.
Graphic 3: Frequency of the use of response system.
After analyzing the answers we easily understand
that the frequency of using the response systems is
negligible; teachers use it three times per month,
followed by one or three times a year, while the
majority of students converges on one to three times
a year (see graphics 3 and 4).
Response systems are not frequently used in
school and their use is quite limited, however their
impact on the teaching/learning process could be
distinctly different if it was regularly used. Both
teachers and students felt that the response systems
were mainly used in activities where the purpose is
to assess knowledge in a specific subject. The
activities are less referenced in a summative
assessment and in the registration of assiduity.
Graphic 4: Frequency of the use of response systems.
Response systems are not frequently used in school
and their use is quite limited, however their impact
on the teaching/learning process could be distinctly
different if it was regularly used. Both teachers and
students felt that the response systems were mainly
used in activities where the purpose is to assess
knowledge in a specific subject. The activities are
less referenced in a summative assessment and in the
registration of assiduity.
Regarding students' attitudes, those which
increase when this technology is used in the
classroom are interaction, involvement, participation
and interest. The attitude that mostly remains
unchanged or is not observable is the assiduity.
Turning to the operationalization of the response
systems, teachers consider that the time spent on the
creation of questions is low or reasonable and it is
not an inhibiting factor of their weak usefulness.
When they are formulating questions, the most
common type that is used is multiple
choice.Compared with other technologies, teachers
identify as an added value the fact that response
systems allow us to check how the learning is being
performed, monitoring the answers and identifying
which students need strengthening. This technology
leads to reduced paper usage and copying on a large
scale, enabling a reduction of the costs of the school
(see graphics 5).
The collected data show in an interesting and
motivating way that most teachers surveyed
demonstrate willingness to learn the technology of
the response systems, revealing an interest in their
applicability, strengths and characteristics in order to
implement in the near future this technology in
classroom but, above all, able to articulate the
response systems with methods of teaching that help
the learning process.
0%
18%
46%
9%
27%
Teachers
All classes
1-3 lessons per
week
1-3 classes per
month
1-3 classes per
period
1 to 3 classes
per year
14%
10%
6%
4%
66%
Students
All classes
1-3 lessons per
week
1-3 classes per
month
1-3 classes per
period
1 to 3 classes
per year
ICEIS2014-16thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
84
Graphic 5: Activity using the response system.
5 CONCLUSIONS
In this study, the use of technology in the response
systems itself doesn’t guarantee success in the
learning/ teaching process, however, when it is used
as an element of an effort to support engagement in
active learning, there is great evidence that they can
support higher motivation, at least as a result of their
ability to provide fast feedback on the learning
process. This technology favors the use of very
motivating teaching methods for students. These
factors associated with the playful aspect, portability
and even a little to the novelty factor, mean that this
technology has a good educational impact. The use
of response systems is a solution that achieves good
results in increasing student participation and no
high cost, since it can be shared.
In general, it is accepted that the response
systems represent an opportunity to enrich lessons.
The emphasis in the involvement and interaction can
induce teachers to rethink their conception of
teaching and reviewing strategies and teaching
methodologies. The integration of response systems
in the teaching/learning process can facilitate a
variety of teaching practices that promote
collaborative and cooperative work of students. The
use of a response system increases the quantity and
quality of the discussions in the classroom,
especially when combined with different strategy
(Beatty, 2004; Kennedy and Cutts, 2005).
It is clear that the response systems appear as a
technological tool with educational interest, both for
students and teachers. The studies tend to drive the
analysis of students’ perception and investigate the
impact on learning and their achievement. The
benefits of using response systems will only be
achieved as soon as the teacher carefully thinks
about the learning objectives and how the
discussions created from the questions used with this
technology can help to achieve these goals.
Sometimes, the promotion of useful discussions and
the enrichment of learning and feedback are more
important than providing a correct answer. This
technology encourages students to articulate thought
regardless the level of knowledge that each one has
at the moment. To use response systems successfully
it is essential that teachers know their potential and
applicability in the context of the classroom as a
possible promoter of educational success.
The use of this technology enables an increase in
interaction, participation, involvement and student’s
interest. Crossing the obtainable results of this study
with Shaffer & Collura (2009)’s study in which they
compared students’ attitudes to the use and non-use
of response systems we conclude that the reactions
of students towards the use of response system was
overwhelmingly positive. Students classified the
class as more interactive, funnier, more interesting
and helpful in understanding the contents. These
results are directly related to the fact that the teacher
has used response systems as a catalyst for the
student’s participation, leading them to compare
their answers with their classmates. It is much easier
when a teacher can show the whole class the results
and explain how and why, to make a transition to
important contents.
Compared with other technologies, the surveyed
teachers identify as a surplus value fact that the
response systems allow them to check how learning
is being performed, by monitoring the given answers
and identifying which students need strengthening. It
allows to investigate the assimilation of knowledge
in real time, enabling the teacher to change his
presentation, directing his speech to the areas that
show more difficulties in most students’
understanding. The teacher has the possibility of
testing before, during and after the presentation of
the contents, getting instant feedback of results
(Roberson, 2009).
The collected data shows in an interesting and
motivating way that most teachers demonstrate
willingness to learn the technology of the response
systems, revealing an interest in knowing its
applicability, strengths and characteristics in order to
implement in the near future this technology in the
classroom but, above all, being able to articulate
response systems with teaching methods able to
make learning easy. In the Fies & Marshall (2006 )’
study it is reported that the response systems
promote learning when combined with teaching
appropriated methodologies and supported in
23%
23%
15%
9%
3%
3%
6%
15%
3%
Teachers
Check how learning is being
performed
Monitor the responses
Identify students who need
reinforcement
Increase motivation to use new
learning technologies
Develop competence to use new
learning technologies
Enable qualitative and quantitative
assessment
Expedite the work associated with
the development of tests
Reduce the use of paper and large-
scale reproductions
Decreasing the use of cheat sheet
during evaluation
TheResponseSystemsintheStudent'sLearning/TeachingProcess-ACaseStudyinaPortugueseSchool
85
environments that led to higher learning gains.
To answer the research question, it is clear that
the use of response systems in the student’s
teaching/ learning process, it is not possible to
conclude that learning gains have been achieved.
Nevertheless the results show that the response
system technology could be more effective if applied
in a more widely way
REFERENCES
Arends, R., 2008. Aprender a ensinar. Mcgrawhill.
Azevedo, P., 2012. Os sistemas de resposta no processo
ensino/aprendizagem do estudante. Dissertação de
mestrado. Porto: Universidade Portucalense.
Barber, M., Njus, D., 2007. Special feature: clicker
reviews. Clicker evolution: seeking intelligent design.
Life sciences education.
Barrett, M., Bornsen, S., Erickson, S., Markey, V.,
Spiering, K., 2005. The personal response system as a
teaching aid. Routledge.
Beatty, I., 2004. Transforming student learning with
classroom communication systems. Educause center
for applied research (ECAR).
Beatty, I., Gerace, W., Leonard, W., Dufresne, R., 2005.
Designing effective questions for classroom response
system teaching. American journal of physics.
Beatty, I., Gerace, W., 2009. Technology-enhanced
formative assessment: a research-based pedagogy for
teaching science with classroom response technology.
Journal of science education and technology.
Caldwell, J., 2007. Clickers in the large classroom:
current research and best-practice. Life sciences
education.
Costello, P., 2010. A cost-effective classroom response
system. British journal of educational technology.
Coutinho, C., 2005. Metodologia de investigação em
ciências sociais e humanas: teoria e prática. Edições
almedina.
Eastman, J., 2007. Enhancing classroom communication
with interactive technology: how faculty can get
started. College teaching, methods & styles journal.
Eastman, J., Iyer, R., Eastman, K., 2011. Business
students’ perceptions, attitudes, and satisfaction with
interactive technology: an exploratory study. Journal
of education for business.
Edens, K., 2006. The interaction of pedagogical and goal
orientation using student response system technology.
Journal of research on technology in education.
Fies, C., Marshall, J., 2006. Classroom response systems:
a review of the literature. Journal of science education
and technology.
Gable, R., Wolf, M. 1986. Instrument development in the
affective domain: measuring attitudes and values in
corporate and school settings. Boston: Kluwer
academic publishers.
Hancock, T., 2010. Use of audience response system for
summative assessment in large classes. Australasian
journal of educational technology.
Hill, M., Hill, A., 2005. Investigação por questionário.
Lisboa: sílabo.
Judson, E., Sawada, D., 2006. Audience response systems:
insipid contrivances or inspiring tools? In audience
response systems in higher education: applications
and cases. Hershey: information science publishing.
Kay, R., Knaack, L., 2009. Exploring the use of audience
response systems in secondary school science
classrooms. Journal of science education and
technology.
Kay, R., Lesage, A., 2009. Examining the benefits and
challenges of using audience response system: a
review of the literature. Computers & education.
Kennedy, G., Cutts, Q., 2005.The association between
students’ use of an electronic voting system and their
learning outcomes. Journal of computer assisted
learning.
Kenwright, K., 2009. Clickers in the classroom. Tech
trends journal.
Kolikant, Y., Drane, D., Calkins, S., 2010. “Clickers” as
catalysts for transformation of teachers. College
teaching.
Lebrun, M., 2008. Teorias e métodos pedagógicos para
ensinar e aprender. Instituto piaget.
Liu, N., 2010. How to effectively use SRS in the
elementary classroom. In: 14
th
annual technology
colleges and community worldwide online conference.
Lowery, R., 2005. Teaching and learning with interactive
student response systems: a comparison of
commercial products in the higher-education market.
In: Annual meeting of the Southwestern Social
Science Association and its affiliates, New Orleans.
Morgan, J., 2008. Click or clack: what is all the noise
about SRSs?. Edu 6606.
Penuel, W., Boscardin, C. Masyn, K., Crawford, V.,
2007. Teaching with student response systems in
elementary and secondary education settings: a survey
study. Educational technology research and
development.
Roberson, P., 2009. Testing student response systems.
Education today.
Shaffer, D., Collura, M., 2009. Evaluating the
effectiveness of a personal response system in the
classroom. Teaching of psychology.
Siau, K. Sheng, H., Nah, F., 2006. Use of a classroom
response system to enhance classroom interactivity.
IEEE transactions on education.
Simpson, V., Oliver, M., 2007. Electronic voting system
for lectures then and now: a comparison of research
and practice. Australian journal of education
technology.
Tuckman, B., 2000. Manual de investigação em educação.
Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian.
Zhu, E., 2007. Teaching with clickers. Center for research
on learning and teaching.
ICEIS2014-16thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
86