Students Vote: A Comparative Study of Student Perceptions of Three Popular Web-Based Student Response Systems

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 557-567
Author(s):  
Victoria Ingalls
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Student Perceptions ◽  
Student Response ◽  
Student Response Systems ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Response Systems

Considerations for using personal Wi-Fi enabled devices as “clickers” in a large university class

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry Katz ◽  
Megan C Hallam ◽  
Michael M Duvall ◽  
Zoe Polsky
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Student Perceptions ◽  
Student Response ◽  
Handheld Devices ◽  
Student Response Systems ◽  
Handheld Device ◽  
Class Time ◽  
Response Systems ◽  
Radio Frequency Receiver ◽  
Personal Devices

Interactive student response systems, commonly referred to as clickers, have increased in popularity in higher education classrooms as a means to improve engagement and enhance learning. Clicker systems come with handheld devices as well as a radio frequency receiver. A Wi-Fi connection to the receiver is possible, enabling students to use their personal smartphones, tablets, or laptops instead of the handheld device. The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of students using their personal Wi-Fi enabled devices as clickers in a large university class. In addition, we sought to elicit student perceptions of clicker use in general. Overall, the majority of students preferred using their personal devices, thus saving several minutes of class time in distribution and collection. Students gave very positive feedback on the use of clickers; however, they did not like that clickers could be used to track attendance and participation.

Student Perceptions of Classic and Game-Based Online Student Response Systems

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. E6-E9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Weiwen Wang ◽  
Ran Sun ◽  
Linda Huang ◽  
Valerie Swigart
Keyword(s):  
Student Perceptions ◽  
Student Response ◽  
Student Response Systems ◽  
Online Student ◽  
Response Systems

scholarly journals Student Response Systems: a rationale for their use and a comparison of some cloud based tools

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Compton ◽  
Jason Allen
Keyword(s):  
Student Response ◽  
Student Response Systems ◽  
Score Analysis ◽  
Response Systems ◽  
Analysis System

Student Response Systems (SRS) take many forms but we argue that there are compelling reasons to use some form of SRS in lectures and seminars at some points in the year, irrespective of subject taught and setting. Deciding which tool to use can be a challenge which is why we have selected a range of cloud based SRS types with varying functions and levels of difficulty and offer reviews of each here using the 'SCORE' analysis system enabling the reader to compare the perspectives of experienced users of each tool before trialling one or more of them. The tools we review here are:  Todaysmeet, Slido, Polleverywhere, Mentimeter, Socrative, Kahoot and Zeetings.** Note from Authors 17th May 2018: Since publication we have received notice that Todaysmeet will cease operating in June 2018

scholarly journals Clickers, Best Uses and Benefits

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Renato Herrera Hernández
Keyword(s):  
First Trimester ◽  
Student Response ◽  
Student Response System ◽  
Student Response Systems ◽  
Response System ◽  
Large Size ◽  
Quality Of Teaching ◽  
Response Systems ◽  
Engaging Student

<p>This study provides an analysis of the use student response systems in undergraduate and postgraduate classrooms. Research was conducted utilising a qualitative analysis approach, grounding theories by reviewing related literature, interviewing lecturers and conducting class observation. The study was carried out over two consecutive trimesters, summer 2010 and first trimester of 2011, at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. By conducting this research it is hoped to help improving the quality of teaching. Within this study, it was determined that student response systems are useful for both engaging student and increasing their overall enjoyment of the class. The benefit of using student response systems in the classroom was also found to be dependent on preserving the novelty of the technology and keeping students’ responses anonymous, by redesigning lecturers to have proper student response system questions in order to make the most out of the technology. Overall, this study determined that the decision whether or not to utilise student response systems in the classroom should be made based on the level of education of the class and its objectives, whether it is a lecture, tutorial or seminar, with clickers working best in large size, undergraduate classrooms.</p>

Attitudes Toward the Use of Student Response Systems Survey

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terri Friedline ◽  
Aaron R. Mann ◽  
Alice Lieberman
Keyword(s):  
Student Response ◽  
Student Response Systems ◽  
Response Systems

Student Response Systems for Active Learning

2011 ◽  
pp. 803-807
Author(s):  
Lisa Byrnes ◽  
Stephanie J. Etter
Keyword(s):  
Active Learning ◽  
Subject Matter Expert ◽  
Student Response ◽  
Cognitive Resources ◽  
Student Response Systems ◽  
Wrong Answer ◽  
Male And Female ◽  
Passive Learning ◽  
Learner Centered ◽  
Response Systems

The importance of a student’s involvement in learning is well documented and well known. It is easy to sum up research related to active learning by simply saying, “students who participate in the learning process learn more than those who do not” (Weaver & Qi, 2005, p. 570). Active learning seeks to create a learner-centered environment and engage students as active participants in their education. The opposite of this is passive learning, which is thought of as the traditional way of teaching where the professor is a subject matter expert whose role is to convey the knowledge to an audience of students (Barr & Tagg, 1995). While the success of active learning is well documented, some instructors may find it difficult to fully engage students as active learners in the classroom. Active learning requires student participation, which is easier for some students than it is for others. Larkin and Pines (2003) found theF common practice of calling on students to promote active learning in the classroom resulted in a “clear and unmistakable pattern of avoidance behavior as reported by both male and female students” because many students seek ways to avoid the psychologically unpleasant situation of providing the wrong answer and looking foolish. Larkin and Pines (2003) argue that if a student’s emotional and cognitive resources become directed towards avoiding the immediate threat of being called on, then arguably the practice of calling on students may reduce active learning, which was the intended goal of calling on the student in the first place. Fortunately, educational technologies are able to assist in this challenge.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document