Learning a foreign language with a learner response system: the students' perspective

Abstract

This paper reports the results of a study on the use of a learner response system (LRS) by a group of students of English as a foreign language (L2). Via a methodology that included the analysis of survey questionnaires and open-ended oral interviews, the study examined learners' perceptions of the use of an LRS by a group of 30 Brazilians learning English in a communicative classroom environment. Overall, the results are consistent with the consensus that students perceive the response system as a positive addition to their classes, as its use increases participation and the general enjoyment of classes, contributes to learning, fosters interactions, and allows learners to self-assess and compare their performance with that of their peers. Because research on LRS in L2 settings is still in its infancy, this paper contributes data and analysis that highlight the pedagogical benefits of the implementation of a response system in L2 pedagogy.

Keywords:

• learner response systems
• clickers
• computer-assisted language learning
• learners' perceptions
• mobile-assisted language learning

Acknowledgments

This paper has benefited from the insightful comments, critiques, and suggestions by three anonymous reviewers. I am also grateful to the feedback I received from Carol Chapelle and the audience of the 2009 TESL Ontario Conference, where a preliminary version of this study was presented as part of an invited research symposium, “Technology: Trends and Issues.” A preliminary, teacher-friendly version of this study has also appeared in the proceedings of the 2009 TESL Ontario Conference. I would like to recognize the research assistance of Cristina Monteiro and Isabela Martins for their active involvement in the collection and coding of the data analyzed here. I am also very grateful to the generosity of Turning Technologies for loaning me the set of clickers utilized in the study. Finally, muito obrigado to the teachers and participants for agreeing to share their “clicking” experiences with me. I hope their views are well represented here. This research was partially funded by a grant from the Social Sciences and the Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

Notes

1. Because LRSs are used in a variety of disciplines, the technology appears in the literature under more than 35 different names (along with their language-specific variations), some reflecting the theoretical and pedagogical concerns of the field. Here is a selection of 16 names that have been adopted in the LRS literature to refer to the same technology: audience-paced feedback system, audience response system, classroom communication system, classroom feedback system, classroom response system, clickers, electronic voting machine, interactive response system, peer response system, personal response system, student response technology, voting machine, wireless classroom communication system, wireless course feedback system, wireless keypad, and zappers.

2. Note that some of the LRS uses resemble the stimulus–response patterns that characterize behaviorist theories (e.g. Skinner, 1968), which assume that learning is best facilitated via the reinforcement of an association between a stimulus and a response. For example, in many LRS-based activities, the presentation of a stimulus (e.g. a given language-related problem) is followed by the learner's response, which is then reinforced by the feedback provided by the system. Nevertheless, activities that elicit discussions or demand peer instruction deviate from the stimulus–response paradigm, falling more closely into the realms of collaborative or active learning.

3. Due to the cumbersome nature of the Portuguese translation for “LRS” and some of its variants illustrated earlier, the simpler and more neutral English term “clicker/s” (pronounced [kli-keh]) was used in classroom interactions and discussions with the participants, as well as in the Portuguese versions of the written surveys and oral interviews.

4. The partial results of the larger study of which this investigation is a part (described earlier in the methodology section) reveal that the LRS Group (Mean: 24.63) outperformed the non-LRS Group (Mean: 20.5) in the retention of off-list vocabulary in the posttest (p < .001). These preliminary results (which exclude the analysis of the control group and the learners' performance in the delayed posttest) suggest that the perceived benefits oflearning gains reflect an actual improvement in vocabulary acquisition.