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

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

 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

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

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

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

10%

25%

10%

20%

12%

Teachers

Response systems

Interactive

whiteboard

Projectors

eBook

Platform provided

by publishers

Platform Moodle

Viewing material

on specific sites

Viewing material

in generic sites

Others

20%

34%

13%

12%

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

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.

18%

46%

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%

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

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%

15%

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

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

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