iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.
iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.



Link to original content: https://unpaywall.org/10.1007/S10758-018-9365-0
Students Vote: A Comparative Study of Student Perceptions of Three Popular Web-Based Student Response Systems | Technology, Knowledge and Learning Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

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

  • Original research
  • Published:
Technology, Knowledge and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One way to use formative feedback to increase student engagement is through a student response system (SRS). Originally appearing as classroom “clickers,” very little literature exists concerning the ease of use, usefulness and integration, and overall satisfaction of current SRS software smartphone applications. Using the technology acceptance model as a guide, this study uses a mixed methods approach concerning student perceptions of three distinct SRS used in multiple sections of a university undergraduate statistics course. The quantitative results demonstrated significant differences between SRS, while follow-up qualitative questions clarified the Likert-scale data. “All else being equal, the easier system is to interact with, the less effort needed to operate it, the more effort one can allocate the other activities” (Davis 1989, p. 334). With all data considered, students preferred the Socrative app over both TopHat and Learning Catalytics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Awedh, M., Mueen, A., Zafar, B., & Manzoor, U. (2014). Using Socrative and Smartphones for the support of collaborative learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1501.01276.

  • Barnett, J. (2006). Implementation of personal response units in very large lecture classes: Student perceptions. Australian Journal of Educational Technology,22(4), 474–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, I., Gerace, W., Leonard, W., & Dufresne, R. (2008). Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching. American Journal of Physics, 74(1), 2–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bethke, R. (2014). Harvard’s ‘active’ system helping other universities improve outcomes. Retrieved from https://www.ecampusnews.com/technologies/active-learning-harvard-693/.

  • Bruff, D. (2007). Clickers: A classroom innovation. National Education Association,25(1), 5–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruff, D. (2009). Teaching with classroom response systems. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly,13(3), 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deichman, J. (2014). Socrative 2.0 for a school librarian. Knowledge Quest,43(2), 72–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dervan, P. (2014). Enhancing in-class student engagement using Socrative (an online student response system): A report. The All-Ireland Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education,6(3), 1801–18013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Draper, S. W., & Brown, M. I. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,20, 81–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emmen, J. (2015). Top 5 student response systems that work on multiple platforms. Retrieved from http://www.emergingedtech.com/2015/09/top-5-multi-platform-student-response-systems/.

  • Felton, P., & Wymer, K. (2007). Questions about teaching with clickers. National Education Association,25(1), 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrandiz, E., Puentes, C., Moreno, P. J., & Flores, E. (2016). Engaging and assessing students through their electronic devices and real time quizzes. Multidisciplinary Journal for Education, Social, and Technological Sciences,3(2), 173–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/docs/classroom-response-system-clickers-bibliography/#reviews.

  • https://tophat.com.

  • https://www.socrative.com/.

  • Kaleta, R., & Joosten, T. (2007). Student response systems: A University of Wisconsin system study of clickers. Educause Center for Applied Research,10, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, R., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers in Education,53, 819–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, G. E., & Cutts, Q. I. (2005). The association between students’ use of electronic systems and their learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(4), 260–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larcker, D., & Lessig, V. (1980). Perceived usefulness of information: A psychometric examination. Decision Sciences,11(1), 121–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manning, R., Keiper, M., & Jenny, S. (2017). Pedagogical innovations for the millennial sport management student: Socrative and Twitter. Sport Management Education Journal,11, 45–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matheson, R. (2014). Tracking what students grasp. MIT News. Retrieved from http://news.mit.edu/2014/socrative-app-real-time-data-student-comprehension-1211.

  • McCrea, B. (2012). Making big data actionable in class. Retrieved from https://campustechnology.com/articles/2012/10/24/making-big-data-actionable-in-class.aspx.

  • Mendez-Coca, D., & Slisko, J. (2013). Using Socrative and Smartphones for the support of collaborative learning. European Journal of Physics Education, 4(2), 17–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, T. (2008). In Proceedings of the 36th annual ACM SIGUCCS fall conference: Moving mountains, blazing trails.

  • Nagy-Shadman, E., & Des Rocher, C. (2008). Student response technology: Empirically grounded or just a gimmick? International Journal of Science Education,30(15), 2023–2066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nawalaniec, N. (2015). Socrative (Snowy release). Journal of the Medical Library Association,103(4), 236–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neilson, M., Mafi, G., Pfieffer, K., VanOverbecke, D., & Ramanathan, R. (2016). Students’ perceptions regarding the use of tophat as an interactive tool in meat science class [Abstract]. Meat Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.08.043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parry, M. (2011). Colleges mine data to tailor students’ experience. Chronicle of Higher Education,58(7), A1–A4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prensky, M. (2011). A huge leap for the classroom. Educational Technology, Nov–Dec. Retrieved from http://marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky-EDTECH-LearningCatalyticsNov-Dec-2011-FINAL.pdf.

  • Robey, D. (1979). User attitudes and management information system use. Academy of Management Journal,22(3), 527–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E., & Shoemaker, F. (1971). Communication of innovations: A cross-cultural approach. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, R., & Slevin, D. (1975). Implementation and organizational validity: An empirical investigation.. West Lafayette: Institute for Research in the Behavioral, Economic, and Management Sciences, Purdue University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scornavacca, E., & Marshall, S. (2007). TXT-2_LRN: Improving students’ learning experience in the classroom through interactive SMS. In Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp. 1–8).

  • Shea, K. (2016). Beyond clickers, next generation classroom response systems for organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education,93(5), 971–974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stowell, J., & Nelson, J. (2007). Benefits of electronic audience response systems on student participation, learning, and emotion. Teaching of Psychology,34(4), 253–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talbert, R. (2012). Doing linear algebra with peer instruction and Learning Catalytics. The Chronicle of Higher Education,58(17), A1–A4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M. (2016). Beyond clickers: Student response systems evolve, Retrieved from http://web.madstudio.northwestern.edu/beyond-clickers-student-response-systems-evolve/.

  • Terrion, J., & Aceti, V. (2012). Perceptions of the effects of clicker technology on student learning and engagement: A study of freshmen chemistry students. Research in Learning Technology,20, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trees, A., & Jackson, M. (2007). The learning environment in clicker classrooms: Student processes of learning and involvement in large university-level courses using student response systems. Learning Media and Technology,32(1), 21–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wan, T. (2014). Harvard professor wins $500 K Minerva prize. Retrieved from https://www.edsurge.com/news/2014-05-20-harvard-professor-wins-500k-minerva-prize.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mathematics Department, Tiffin University, 155 Miami Street, Tiffin, OH, 44883, USA

    Victoria Ingalls

Authors
  1. Victoria Ingalls
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Victoria Ingalls.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ingalls, V. Students Vote: A Comparative Study of Student Perceptions of Three Popular Web-Based Student Response Systems. Tech Know Learn 25, 557–567 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9365-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9365-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation