Student Response Systems for Formative Assessment: Literature-based Strategies and Findings from a Middle School Implementation

Year 2017, Volume: 8 Issue: 4, 370 - 389, 18.10.2017

Julia S. Fuller Kara M. Dawson

Abstract

In this article we share how a district-level technology integration specialist used literature on implementing student response systems (SRS) for formative assessment, based on Desimone’s (2009) core features of professional development design, Guskey’s Levels of Professional Development Evaluation (1998, 2000, 2002), and Danielson’s Observation Cycle (2007), to support 12 middle school teachers in using SRS in their classrooms. The work reported here provides an example of incorporating literature-based best practices to support teachers in effectively using technology in the classroom. The findings of this study indicate that the teachers learned to use the SRS technology and associated strategies to collect formative data and appropriately adjust instruction to meet learners’ needs. This work has implications for SRS in K-12 classrooms, technology integration professional development, and for preservice teacher education.

Keywords

Student response systems, Professional development

References

• Ball, D. L. (1996). Teacher learning and the mathematics reforms: What we think we know and what we need to learn. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(7), 500-508.
• Beatty, I., Gerace, W., Leonard, W., & Dufresne, R. (2006). Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching. American Journal of Physics, 74(1), 31-39.
• Beatty, I. D. & Gerace, W. J. (2009). Technology-enhanced formative assessment: A research-based pedagogy for teaching science with classroom response technology. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 18(2), 146-162.
• Bradshaw, L. (2002). Technology for teaching and learning: Strategies for staff development and follow-up support. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(1), 131-150.
• Braun, V. & Clark, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
• Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and practice (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education Group.
• Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.
• Bruff, D. (2009a). Teaching with classroom response systems: Creating active learning environments. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Bruff, D. (2009b). Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Retrieved on 6 February 2017 from http://www.vanderbilt.edu/cft/resources/teaching_resources/technology/crs.htm.
• Cody, C. B. & Guskey, T. R. (1997). Professional development. In J. C. Lindle, J. M. Petrosko, & R. S. Pankratz (Eds.), 1996 Review of research on the Kentucky Education Reform Act (pp. 191-209). Frankfort, KY: The Kentucky Institute for Education Research.
• Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Delacruz, S. (2014). Using Nearpod in elementary guided reading groups. Tech Trends 58(5), 62-69.
• Denzin, N. (2006). Sociological methods: A sourcebook (5th ed.). Piscataway, NJ: Aldine Transaction.
• Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of professional development on teacher instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112.
• Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199.
• Draper, S. W. & Brown, M. I. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(2), 81-94.
• Pearson Education. (2017). edTPA. Retrieved from https://edtpa.com.
• Fagen, A.P., Crouch, C.H., & Mazur, E. (2002). Peer instruction: Results from a range of classrooms. The Physics Teacher, 40(4), 206-209.
• Fies, C., & Marshall, J. (2006). Classroom response systems: A review of the literature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 101-109.
• Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
• GaDOE (2011). Class Keys: Classroom analysis of state standards. Retrieved on 6 February 2017 from https://www.gadoe.org/School-Improvement/Teacher-and-Leader-Effectiveness.
• Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L. M., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Analysis of a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 915-945.
• Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
• Gordon, J. (1991). Measuring the “goodness” of training. Training, 19–25.
• Guskey, T. R. (1998). The age of our accountability: Evaluation must become an integral part of staff development. Journal of Staff Development, 19(4), 36-44.
• Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
• Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating Professional Development. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45-51.
• Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 84(10), 748-750.
• Guskey, T. R. & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in professional development? Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 495-500.
• Hew, K. F. & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research & Development, 55(3), 223-252.
• Hill, H. (2007). Learning in the teaching workforce. Excellence in the Classroom, 17(1), 111-127. Retrieved on 6 February 2017 from http://www.futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/ publications/journals/.
• Hill, H. (2009). Fixing teacher professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 470-476.
• Hirsh, S. & Killion, J. (2009). When educators learn, students learn. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 464-469.
• Hughes, J. E. & Ooms, A. (2004). Content-focused technology inquiry groups: Preparing urban teachers to integrate technology to transform student learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(4), 397-411.
• Kahoot! (2017). Kahoot! [Mobile application software]. Retrieved on 6 February 2017 from https://getkahoot.com/.
• Killion, J. & Harrison, C. (2006). Taking the lead: New roles for teachers and school-based coaches. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
• Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (1998). The adult learner. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.
• Lee, H. J. (2005). Developing a professional development program model based on teachers’ needs. The Professional Educator, 27(1), 39-49.
• Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: A user’s manual. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Mouza, C. (2003). Learning to teach with new technology: Implications for professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(2), 272-289.
• Nearpod. (2017). Nearpod. [Mobile application software]. Retrieved on 6 February 2017 from http://www.nearpod.com/. 389
• North Carolina State Board of Education. (2007). Rubric for evaluating North Carolina teachers. Retrieved on 6 February 2017 from http://www.necollaborative.org/docs/ ncteacherevaluationrubric.pdf.
• Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
• Penuel, W. R., Boscardin, C. K., Masyn, K., Crawford, V. M. (2007). Teaching with student response systems in elementary and secondary education settings: A survey study. Education Technology Research & Development 55(4), 315-346.
• Polly, D., Rodgers, E., & Little, M. (2015). Leveraging interactive clickers as a tool for formative assessment. In D. Polly (Ed.), Cases on Technology Integration in Mathematics Education (pp. 330-350). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-6497-5.ch016
• Rebecca, C. Y., Andrea, K. S. M., & Jermaine, L. S. S. (2014). Assessment for Learning (AfL) Approaches–How we know that they know. Proceedings of the 40th Annual International Association for Educational Assessment Conference. Singapore, China: IAEA. Retrieved from http://www.iaea.info/documents/paper_226dc2beb.pdf.
• Socrative. (2017). Socrative. [Mobile application software]. Retrieved from http://socrative.com/.
• Sparks, D. (2002). Designing powerful professional development for teachers and principals. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED470239.pdf.
• Walsh, P. D. (2014). Taking advantage of mobile devices: Using Socrative in the classroom. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology. 3(1), 99-101. Retrieved on 6 February 2017 from http://jotlt.indiana.edu/article/view/5016.
• Wang, A. I. (2015). The wear out effect of a game-based student response system. Computers in Education. 82, 217-227. Retrieved on 6 February 2017 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0360131514002516.
• Wayne, A. J., Yoon, K. S., Zhu, P., Cronen, S., & Garet, M. S. (2008). Experimenting with teacher professional development: Motives and methods. Educational Researcher, 37(8), 469-479.
• Williams, H. & Kingham, M. (2003). Infusion of technology into the curriculum. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 30(3), 178-184.