Promoting Classroom Engagement Through the Use of an Online Student Response System: A Mixed Methods Analysis

References

• Aljaloud, A., Gromik, N., Billingsley, W., and Kwan, P. (2015), “Research Trends in Student Response Systems: A Literature Review,” International Journal of Learning Technology, 10, 313–325. DOI: 10.1504/IJLT.2015.074073.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Awedh, M., Mueen, A., Zafar, B., and Manzoor, U. (2014), “Using Socrative and Smartphones for the Support of Collaborative Learning,” International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education, 3, 17–24, DOI: 10.5121/ijite.2014.3402.
   Google Scholar
• Axelson, R., and Flick, A. (2010), “Defining Student Engagement,” Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 43, 38–43. DOI: 10.1080/00091383.2011.533096.
   Google Scholar
• Balducci, C., Fraccaroli, F., and Schaufeli, W. B. (2010), “Psychometric Properties of the Italian Version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9): A Cross-Cultural Analysis,” European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26, 143–149, DOI: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balta, N., and Guvercin, S. (2016), “Increasing Undergraduate Students’ Exam Performances in Statistics Course Using Software Socrative,” The Turkish Journal of Educational Technology, 2016, 314–321.
   Google Scholar
• Berger, J. B., and Milem, J. F. (1999), “The Role of Student Involvement and Perceptions of Integration in a Causal Model of Student Persistence,” Research in Higher Education, 40, 641–664, DOI: 10.1023/A:1018708813711.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blasco-Arcas, L., Buil, I., Hernández-Ortega, B., and Sese, F. J. (2013), “Using Clickers in Class. The Role of Interactivity, Active Collaborative Learning and Engagement in Learning Performance,” Computers & Education, 62, 102–110, DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006), “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology,” Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. DOI: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
   Google Scholar
• Brooks, D. C. (2016), “ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2016,” Research Report, ECAR, Louisville, CO.
   Google Scholar
• Caldwell, J. E. (2007), “Clickers in the Large Classroom: Current Research and Best-Practice Tips,” CBE—Life Sciences Education, 6, 9–20, DOI: 10.1187/cbe.06.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., and Klein, S. P. (2006), “Student Engagement and Student Learning: Testing the Linkages,” Research in Higher Education, 47, 1–32, DOI: 10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coca, D. M., and Slisko, J. (2013), “Software Socrative and Smartphones as Tools for Implementation of Basic Processes of Active Physics Learning in Classroom: An Initial Feasibility Study With Prospective Teachers,” European Journal of Physics Education, 4, 17–24.
   Google Scholar
• D’Inverno, R. A., Davis, H. C., and White, S. (2003), “Using a Personal Response System for Promoting Student Interaction,” Teaching Mathematics and Its Application, 22, 163–169, DOI: 10.1093/teamat/22.4.163.
   Google Scholar
• Dabbour, E. (2016), “Quantifying the Effects of Using Online Student Response Systems in an Engineering Ethics Course,” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 142, 04015010, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000260.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlstrom, E., and Bichsel, J. (2014), “ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2014,” Research Report, ECAR, Lousivlle, CO.
   Google Scholar
• Dervan, P. (2014), “Increasing in-class student engagement using Socrative (an online student response system),” The All Ireland Journal of Teaching & Learning in Higher Education, 6, 1801–1813.
   Google Scholar
• Fies, C., and Marshall, J. (2006), “Classroom Response Systems: A Review of the Literature,” Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15, 101–109. DOI: 10.1007/s10956-006-0360-1.
   Google Scholar
• Freeman, M., Blayney, P., and Ginns, P. (2006), “Anonymity and in Class Learning: The Case for Electronic Response Systems,” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22, 568–580. DOI: 10.14742/ajet.1286.
   Google Scholar
• Gal, I., and Ginsburg, L. (1994), “The Role of Beliefs and Attitudes in Learning Statistics: Towards an Assessment Framework,” Journal of Statistics Education, 2, 1–15. DOI: 10.1080/10691898.1994.11910471.
   Google Scholar
• Gladys, S., Nicholas, Z., and Crispen, B. (2012), “Undergraduate Students’ Views on Their Learning of Research Methods and Statistics 5RMS) Course: Challenges and Alternative Strategies,” International Journal of Social Science Tomorrow, 1, 1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, R. H., Thomas, M. L., Collier, H. L., and Hilgers, M. G. (2005), “A Student Response System for Increasing Engagement, Motivation, and Learning in High Enrollment Lectures,” in AMCIS 2005 Proceedings, p. 255.
   Google Scholar
• Kaleta, R., and Joosten, T. (2007), “Student Response Systems: A University of Wisconsin System Study of Clickers,” Educause Center for Applied Research Bulletin, 2007, 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Kay, R. H., and LeSage, A. (2009), “Examining the Benefits and Challenges of Using Audience Response Systems: A Review of the Literature,” Computers & Education, 53, 819–827. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaya, A., and Balta, N. (2016), “Taking Advantage of Technologies: Using the Socrative in English Teaching Classes,” International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, 2, 4–12.
   Google Scholar
• Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., and Gonyea, R. M. (2008), “Unmasking the Effects of Student Engagement on First-Year College Grades and Persistence,” The Journal of Higher Education, 79, 540–563. DOI: 10.1080/00221546.2008.11772116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maina, F. W. (2004), “Authentic Learning: Perspectives From Contemporary Educators,” Journal of Authentic Learning, 1, 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Mork, C.-M. (2014), “Benefits of Using Online Student Response Systems in Japanese EFL Classrooms,” JALT CALL Journal, 10, 127–137.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J., Simon, S., and Collins, S. (2003), “Attitudes Towards Science: A Review of the Literature and Its Implications,” International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1049–1079, DOI: 10.1080/0950069032000032199.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perney, J., and Ravid, R. (1991). “The Relationship Between Attitudes Towards Statistics, Math Self-Efficacy Concept, Test Anxiety and Graduate Students’ Achievement in an Introductory Statistics Course,” unpublished manuscript, National College of Education, Evanston, IL.
   Google Scholar
• Piatek, R. (2014), “Student Response System: Student Activation Towards Better Learning in Large Classes. A Practical Guide,” available at https://samf.ku.dk/pcs/english/forteachers/tlhe/projects/Remi_Piatek_TLHE_Project.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Poirier, C. R., and Feldman, R. S. (2007), “Promoting Active Learning Using Individual Response Technology in Large Introductory Psychology Classes,” Teaching of Psychology, 34, 194–196. DOI: 10.1080/00986280701498665.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rae, M. G., and O’Malley, D. (2017), “Using an Online Student Response System, Socrative, to Facilitate Active Learning of Physiology by First Year Graduate Entry to Medicine Students: A Feasibility Study,” MedEdPublish, 6, 1–17. DOI: 10.15694/mep.2017.000004.
   Google Scholar
• Salmela-Aro, K., Kiuru, N., Leskinen, E., and Nurmi, J. E. (2009), “School Burnout Inventory (SBI) Reliability and Validity,” European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25, 48–57, DOI: 10.1027/1015-5759.25.1.48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., and Salanova, M. (2006), “The Measurement of Work Wngagement With a Short Questionnaire: A Cross-National Study,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716, DOI: 10.1177/0013164405282471.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart, M., Stott, T., and Nuttall, A.-M. (2011), “Student Engagement Patterns Over the Duration of Level 1 and Level 3 Geography Modules: Influences on Student Attendance, Performance and Use of Online Resources,” Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 35, 47–65. DOI: 10.1080/03098265.2010.498880.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swan, K. (2001), “Virtual Interaction: Design Factors Affecting Student Satisfaction and Perceived Learning in Asynchronous Online Course,” Distance Education, 22, 306–331. DOI: 10.1080/0158791010220208.
   Google Scholar
• Trees, A. R., and Jackson, M. H. (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, 21–40, DOI: 10.1080/17439880601141179.
   Google Scholar
• Wash, P. D. (2014), “Taking Advantage of Mobile Devices: Using Socrative in the Classroom,” Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 3, 99–101, DOI: 10.14434/jotlt.v3n1.5016.
   Google Scholar
• Wefald, A. J., and Downey, R. G. (2009), “Construct Dimensionality of Engagement and Its Relation With Satisfaction,” The Journal of Psychology, 143, 91–112. DOI: 10.3200/JRLP.143.1.91-112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar