The Efficacy of Clickers in Second Language Classroom
Promoting Interaction in Korean as a Foreign Language
Ryoo Hye Jin Agnes
Nanyang Technological University, 14 Nanyang Avenue, Nanyang, Singapore
School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Centre for Modern Languages, Nanyang, Singapore
Keywords: Second Language Acquisition, Learner Response System, Clickers, Interaction, Korean as a Foreign
Language.
Abstract: In second language acquisition active interaction in classroom plays an important role. In light of this, L2
classroom would benefit with the help of learning tools which helps learners to express their level of
understanding during the process of learning itself. This study introduced LRSs as an effective tool in
prompting learners’ output during classroom interactions and ultimately promoting foreign language
learning. This is because the anonymity of Clickers allows learners to express their needs without the social
risks associated with speaking up in the class. Eventually this tool promotes participation from learners,
This is in turn, believed to be effective in fostering classroom interaction. This study is finalized by
presenting the result of an experiment conducted to verify the effectiveness of this approach when teaching
pragmatic aspect of the Korean expressions with similar semantic functions. The learning achievement of
learners in the experimental group was found higher than the learners’ in a control group. This study also
explores the adult Korean language learners’ perceptions of the use of LRSs in learning languages using a
combination of quantitative and qualitative research instrument.
1 INTRODUCTION
This study introduced Learner Response System
(LRSs, otherwise known as Clickers) as an effective
tool for foreign language teaching and learning.
LRSs is being widely used as an educational tool to
facilitate communication in various discipline areas,
particularly in large classrooms. The reviewed
literature suggests many pedagogical benefits from
introducing LRSs in lectures. However its usefulness
in promoting learning language and potential
benefits that it could bring to learning outcome have
yet to be verified.
In order to explore how LRSs can help to
accelerate language learning, firstly we need to look
into L2 learners’ cognitive process. According to
Richards (2002), learners’ cognitive process in L2
classrooms follows four steps as follows:
Noticing: Learners recognize differences
between forms they are using and target-like
forms.
Discovering rules: Learners identify the
grammatical variables that operate in the target
language and account for the specific linguistic
characteristics of that language.
Accommodation and Restructuring: Learners
reorganize their own underlying and developing
language system, to frame and try out new
hypotheses and to act upon the feedback
received.
Experimentation: Learners forms hypotheses
about the target language and use it tentatively
and in an uncertain way.
Learners develop and try out new hypotheses to
reorganize their own developing language system in
the stages of discovering and restructuring rules. In
this process, learners test their hypotheses through
feedback gained from their peers or teacher during
interactions. These stages of 'verification' are where
actual learning takes place.
Learners’ outputs made in the interaction with
other members in the classroom play a very
important role in language learning. Learners’
outputs include not only sentences generated during
interaction such as class activities, performing tasks
given by the teacher but also all forms of outputs
generated during the process of learning: hypotheses
in the process of being developed, discussions
conducted in L1 or L2 between peers. As long as
323
Hye Jin Agnes R..
The Efficacy of Clickers in Second Language Classroom - Promoting Interaction in Korean as a Foreign Language.
DOI: 10.5220/0005448103230327
In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2015), pages 323-327
ISBN: 978-989-758-107-6
Copyright
c
 2015 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

interaction in L2 classrooms remains a key factor for
learning, any increase in learners’ output will lead to
active interaction in the classroom and result in
improvements for language acquisition
This study introduced LRSs as an effective tool
in prompting learners’ output during interactions and
ultimately promoting foreign language learning. The
aim of this study is to explore the adult Korean
language learners’ perceptions of the use of LRSs in
learning languages using a combination of
quantitative and qualitative research instrument.
2 WHY CLICKERS?
Learner Response Systems, called Clickers, is
composed of three components: keypad, receiver
and software. A keypad allows learners to choose
answers for the question and transmit them to the
receiver. The receiver in turn transmits the
information to the voting software on a computer in
the class. Once the software has collated the data
from learners, it displays a bar chart of the results
using a data projector.
Figure 1: Operation of Clickers.
There are two supporting theories for the
introduction of Clickers to promote L2 interaction:
According to Vygotsky’s Interaction Theory,
learners moves from actual development level to
potential development level by scaffolding tutor’s
questions and interaction with peers. The area
between two levels, the proximity development
zone, is where learners develop, verify and
restructure hypothesis by interacting with peers or
teacher. Interaction takes place in various ways
though learners’ outputs in any forms, i.e. during
discussion using their first or second language or
expressing their opinions and receiving the feedback
from others.
But in L2 classroom, where not everybody
participates in interaction eagerly, there is always
some needs to promote learners’ outputs during the
classroom activities. This is because of social risks
most of language learners experience during the
interaction in the classroom. L2 learners must
express themselves verbally in their non-native
language and they experiences anxiety of
embarrassment. Krashen(1981) referred this
psychological state as Affective Filter. According to
his hypothesis, learners’ apprehension, especially
that of personnel with shyness, quietness, and
reticence, inhibits verbalization and production of
outputs, which comes to block acquisition.
Considering learners’ psychological state of
anxiety and needs to promote learners’ outputs and
interaction, we can introduce a tool called Clickers
which allow learners express their ideas and
opinions anonymously in the classroom interaction.
Based on many of recurring themes observed in
previous LRSs literature, Cardoso (2012)
summarized the benefits of Clickers as follows:
1) Motivation: Increase learners’ motivation and
the general interest in the class
2) Involvement: Increase involvement and
participation in the classroom
3) Self-Assessment: Allows learners to self-assess
4) Comparison: Allows learners to compare their
performance in relation to that of their peers
5) Interaction: Forster interaction in the classroom
6) Learning: Enhance the quality of learning and
teaching
It was hypothesized that the use of Clickers in L2
classrooms would reflect those benefits described.
The following experiment was conducted in a
Korean language classroom where Clickers were
introduced to adult learners, testing the efficacy of
using such a learning system in context of teaching a
foreign language.
3 EXPERIMENT
3.1 Method
As for the methodology, Q-methodology was
adopted to convert the qualitative to the quantative
and Quasi-Experiment method that divide learners
group into two: Control Group which does not use
Clickers in learning and Experimental Group which
use Clickers.
3.1.1 Participants
Twenty-Eight English speaking Singaporean
students participated in this study. All students had
CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
324

undergone 100 hours of elementary Korean course
as one of the electives of undergraduate program.
Students were divided into two groups of fourteen
students under the same tutor.
3.1.2 Target of Activities
Students were asked to distinguish pragmatic
differences between two Korean expressions with
similar semantic functions: ‘-gett-’ and ‘-eulgeott-’.
Students had previously completed learning
syntactic or morphological variations of target
grammar and making errors in actual use of the
grammar by failing in distinctions of pragmatic
variations between two similar expressions.
3.1.3 Materials
1) Clickers: Each student in experimental group
was given a keypad.
2) Experiment Slides: 10 slides of PPTs with a
question and a set of choices were prepared to
be used in the stage of verifying hypothesis for
the students in Control Group. Another 10
PPTs with same content were prepared using
Turningpoint software for the students in
Experimental Group.
Figure 2: Sample Slide for Control Group (Left) and
Experimental Group (Right).
3) Post Experiment Test with 30 questions about
target grammar to compare performance of
each group after experiment. To verify the
validity of result of performance test, SPSS 21
was used.
4) Survey questions for Learners’ perceptions
about the use of Clickers in the classroom were
prepared.
3.2 Research Design
The experiment was conducted in the following
process.
Earlier to the experiment, learners from both
control group and experimental group had
undergone grammar performance test to make sure
Experimental group Control group
Grammar Performance Test
PPT with Clickers PPT only
Post Experiment Test
Survey
Figure 3: Design of the Experiment.
that both groups are in similar standards in
understanding target grammars. The verification
process showed p-value as greater than 0.5 which is
considered as same standards for both groups.
In the control group, teacher presented questions
using PPTs and checked students’ answers by
raising hands. Students discussed about their
answers using their L1 or L2 and correct answers
and explanation were given by teacher.
In the experimental Group, teacher presented
questions using Turning point PPTs. Students
selected what they believed was the correct answer
by clicking on the corresponding option on the
keypad within a pre-specified amount of time.
Results of the voting process were then displayed on
the slide via a chart indicating the correct answer
and the distribution of the responses. Students
discussed about the answer using their L1 or L2 and
correct answers and further explanation and
feedback were provided by teacher when needed.
At the end of experiment, students were invited
to answer to the survey questionnaire regarding
efficiency of Clickers in their learning as well as
their perceptions on these categories: Motivation,
Involvement, Comparison, Self-Assessment,
Interaction, and Quality of Learning.
Details of questionnaire are as follows:
 Motivation
• The class was interesting.
• I can confidently apply the contents of lesson
to real life context.
 Involvement
• I felt apprehensive about speaking up in class
or expressing your opinions in class.
• I made an effort to answer all questions that
were open to the class.
• I usually participate in class actively.
 Comparison
• My peers’ answers to questions affect my own
answers
TheEfficacyofClickersinSecondLanguageClassroom-PromotingInteractioninKoreanasaForeignLanguage
325

 Self-Assessment
• I was able to evaluate my own progress during
the course of the lesson.
 Interaction
• The classroom interactions was dynamic
 Learning quality
• In general I had a quality learning experience.
3.3 Results and Discussion
The result of Pre / Post Test showed that Experiment
group performed better than Control group.
Table 1: The Analysis Results of the Experimental and
Control Group.
average N
Standard
deviation
Average
difference
t
p-value
-both
Control
group
Pre 52.4542 14 11.64930
18.8933 2.0739 .0002
Post 71.3475 14 10.84924
Experimen
tal group
Pre 54.2302 14 10.84924
23.8304 2.0738 .0000
Post 78.0606 14 8.41123
In the post-test, both experimental group and
control group showed improvement in marks 23.83
and 18.89 respectively when compared to that of
pre-test. Slight decrease in standard deviation was
shown in both groups but experimental group
showed greater reduction in deviation of test scores.
The data compiled via the survey questionnaire
showed learners’ perceptions to the use of Clickers
as follows:
Motivation: the interest level for both group was
considered high. 70% of Experimental group
responded that using Clickers was fun
Involvement: Learners involved themselves
more actively in answering to the question,
discussing with peers, expressing their ideas without
social risks when they use Clickers. The survey
showed that there exists a certain level of
apprehensiveness when speaking up in class. Hence,
there is a demand to minimize this classroom
anxiety, which is in turn addressed through mediums
like Clickers that help learners express their ideas
anonymously.
Comparison: Learners faces difficulties when
they have answers which are different from the ones
accepted by the majority. While control group
responded that they are affected by other people’s
answer, experimental group responded that they
were not affected by answers from others.
Self-Assessment: While answering the question
by participating in poll, Clicker users could receive
the feedback promptly and used the feedback as a
resource for peer discussion and self assessment.
Learners could have more chances to reorganize
their own underlying and developing language
system, to frame and try out new hypotheses and to
act upon the feedback received
Interaction: Learners in experimental group
responded that their interaction between teacher to
learners and learner to learner was active and
dynamic at the stage of verifying hypothesis
Quality of Learning: Overall quality of learning
was satisfactory and learners have built up the
confidence in differentiate the usage of two korean
expressions with similar semantic function
4 CONCLUSIONS
For Learners’ perspective, anonymity of Clickers
enables learners to express their ideas without the
social risks associated with speaking up in the class.
For Teachers perspective, it enables teachers to
judge the degree of understanding of learners by
showing the number of learners who have selected
the correct answers.
By accommodating learners’ social and
emotional needs in the classroom, Clickers led to a
greater enhancement in the cognitive aspect of
language acquisition. And the experiment showed
that Clicker is a useful tool for promoting learners’
participation and fostering interaction in the
classroom.
REFERENCES
Agbatogun, A. O. (2012), “Exploring the efficacy of
student response system: A Socio cultural
perspective”, Journal of Information Technology
Education, 11, 249-267.
Brown, H.D. (1994), Principles of Language Learning
and Teaching, Pearson Hall Regents.
Brown, H.D. (2001), Teaching by Principles: An
Interactive Approach to language Pedagogy
(SecondEdition). Essex: Longman.
Cardoso, W. (2012), “Learning a foreign language with a
learner response system: the students’ perspective”,
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24:5, 393-
417.
Cutrim Schmid, E.(2007), “Enhancing perfomance
knowledge and self-esteem in classroom language
learning: The potential of the ACTIVote component of
interactie whiteboard technology”, System, Vol 35,
338-356.
Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (1998), Focus on Form in
Classroom Second Language Acquisition. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation
326

Doughty, C. & Long, M.H. (2003), The Handbook of
Second Language Acquisition, Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (1995), Understanding Second Language
Acquisition, Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2012), Language Teaching Research &
Language Pedagogy, Wiley-Blackwell.
Gok, T. (2011), “Using the Classroom response system to
enhance students’ learning and classroom
interactivity”, Eurasian Journal of Educational
Research, 45, 49-68.
Hinkel, E. & Fotos, S. (2002), (Eds.) New Perspectives on
Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classroom,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Krashen, S.D. (1981), Second Language Acquisition and
Sedong Language Learning, Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S.D. (1985), Inquiries and Insights. Hayward,
CA: Alemany Press.
Larsen-Freeman (2002), The Grammar of Choice, In
Hinkel, E. & Fotos, S. (Eds), New Perspectives on
Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classroom,
LEA Inc.
Larsen-Freeman (2003), Teaching Language: From
Grammar to Grammaring, Heinle.
Richards, J.C. (2002), Accuracy and Fluency Revisited, In
Hinkel, E. & Fotos, S. (Eds), New Perspectives on
Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrom,
LEA Inc.
Rodriguez, L.A. (2013), “Adult English Language
learners’perceptions of Audience response systems as
communication aides”, TESOL Journal, 4.1, 182-293.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some
roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible
output in its development, In S. Gass & C. Madden
(Eds.), Input in second language acquisition, Newbury
House Publishers.
Swain, M. (1993), “The output hypothesis: Just speaking
and writing aren’t enough”, The Canadian Modern
Language Review 50, 158-164.
Swain, M. (2005). Output Hypothesis Theory and
Research. In E. Hinkel (2005), (Eds,) Handbook of
Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Thornbury, S. (1999), How to Teach Grammar,
LongmanPress.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978), Mind in Society: The
development of higher psychological processes,
Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
TheEfficacyofClickersinSecondLanguageClassroom-PromotingInteractioninKoreanasaForeignLanguage
327