Year 2019, Volume 6 , Issue 4, Pages 693 - 705 2020-01-05

Classroom Response Systems as a Formative Assessment Tool: Investigation into Students’ Perceived Usefulness and Behavioural Intention

Muhittin ŞAHİN [1]

Assessments are conducted to determine the effectiveness of learning. One type of these assessments are formative assessment, which aims to fill the gap between the learner's present situation and the desired situation by giving feedback to learners. For this purpose, Classroom Response Systems can be used in large groups. Paper-based tests, Kahoot, Quizizz, and, Plickers were used for formative assessment. Multiple-choice tests can be created for students with these applications. Students can connect to Kahoot and Quizizz applications via any computer, tablet or mobile phones with an internet connection and answer the questions in the test. For the Plickers application, the questions are displayed by the instructor in an area that all students can see. Students indicate their responses by lifting their paper which has QR code. The instructor scans these QR codes with the help of a mobile device and the students' answers are seen directly. In this context, the perceived usefulness and behavioral intention of the students to use different classroom response systems were investigated. The research was conducted with freshman students at a state university and continued for four weeks. Different applications were presented to the students as like that a paper-based test, Kahoot, Quizizz, and Plickers. When the findings were examined, it was found that students noted Kahoot, Quizizz, and Plickers applications were statistically more useful than the paper-based test. Based on these results, it can be said that students prefer to use technology-supported classroom response systems instead of the paper-based test.
Formative assessment, Classroom response systems, Perceived usefulness, Behavioral intention
  • Andy, F. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage Publication Ltd.
  • Bartsch, R. A., & Murphy, W. (2011). Examining the effects of an electronic classroom response system on student engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 44(1), 25-33.
  • Bayrak, F., & Yurdugül, H. (2016). Web-tabanlı öz-değerlendirme sisteminde öğrenenlerin öz-müdahale algisi ve test alma davranişlarinin başari üzerine etkisi [The effect of self-intervention perception and test taking behaviour on success in web-based self-assessment system]. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 7(1), 221-236.
  • Bayrak, F., & Yurdugül, H. (2016). Web-tabanlı öz-değerlendirme sisteminde öğrenci uyarı indeksini temel alan öğrenme analitiği modülünün tasarlanması [Designing at the micro level learning analytics module for web-based self-assessment system]. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 6(2), 85-99.
  • Beatty, I. D., Gerace, W. J., Leonard, W. J., & Dufresne, R. J. (2006). Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching. American Journal of Physics, 74(1), 31-39.
  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74.
  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). “How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School”, Expanded Edition, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Deal, A. (2007). A teaching with technology white paper: classroom response systems. Office of Technology for Education. Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence. Retrieved June, 25, 2009.
  • Feldman, A., & Capobianco, B. (2003). Real-time formative assessment: A study of teachers’ use of an electronic response system to facilitate serious discussion about physics concepts. In Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Chicago, IL, 2003).
  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research: Addison-Wesley, Reading MA.
  • Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages.
  • Fuller, J. S., & Dawson, K. M. (2017). Student response systems for formative assessment: Literature-based strategies and findings from a middle school implementation. Contemporary Educational Technology, 8(4), 370-389.
  • Judson, E., & Sawada, D. (2002). Learning from past and present: Electronic response systems in college lecture halls. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(2), 167-181.
  • Kay, R. H. (2009). Examining gender differences in attitudes toward interactive classroom communications systems (ICCS). Computers & Education, 52(4), 730-740.
  • Kay, R. H., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 53(3), 819-827.
  • Ke, C. H., Sun, H. M., Yang, Y. C., & Sun, H. M. (2012). Effects of user and system characteristics on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of the web-based classroom response system. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 11(3), 128-143.
  • King, S. O., & Robinson, C. L. (2009). ‘Pretty Lights’ and Maths! Increasing student engagement and enhancing learning through the use of electronic voting systems. Computers & Education, 53(1), 189-199.
  • Lucke, T., Keyssner, U., & Dunn, P. (2013, October). The use of a classroom response system to more effectively flip the classroom. In 2013 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 491-495). IEEE.
  • Martyn, M. (2007). Clickers in the classroom: An active learning approach. Educause quarterly, 30(2), 71.
  • Pinchok, N., & Brandt, W. C. (2009). Connecting formative assessment research to practice: an introductory guide for educators. Learning Point Associates.
  • Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovation. New York: Free Press.
  • Salemi, M. K. (2009). Clickenomics: Using a classroom response system to increase student engagement in a large-enrollment principles of economics course. Journal of Economic Education, 40(4), 385-404.
  • Siau, K., Sheng, H., & Nah, F. H. (2006). Use of a classroom response system to enhance classroom interactivity. IEEE Transactions on Education, 49(3), 398-403.
  • Sievers, M., Reinhardt, W., Kundisch, D., & Herrmann, P. (2012). Developing electronic classroom response apps for a wide variety of mobile devices: Lessons learned from the PINGO project. In mLearn (Vol. 955, pp. 248-251).
  • Sims, R. (2003). Promises of interactivity: Aligning learner perceptions and expectations with strategies for flexible and online learning. Distance Education, 24(1), 87-103.Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 5). Boston, MA: Pearson.
  • Usluel, Y. K., & Mazman, S. G. (2010). Eğitimde yeniliklerin yayılımı, kabulü ve benimsenmesi sürecinde yer alan öğeler: bir içerik analizi çalışması. Çukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 3(39), 60-74.
  • Vetterick, J., Garbe, M., Dähn, A., & Cap, C. H. (2014). Classroom response systems in the wild: technical and non-technical observations. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), 8(1), 21-25.
  • Wu, Y. C. J., Wu, T., & Li, Y. (2019). Impact of using classroom response systems on students' entrepreneurship learning experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 92 (2019), 634-645.
  • Yurdugül, H. & Bayrak, F. (2014). İlkokul öğrencilerinin web tabanlı biçimlendirmeye dönük değerlendirme sistemini kabulleri [The acceptance of web based formative assessment system for primary school students]. Journal of Educational Sciences & Practices, 2014, 13-26.
Primary Language en
Subjects Education, Scientific Disciplines
Published Date December
Journal Section Articles

Orcid: 0000-0002-9462-1953
Author: Muhittin ŞAHİN (Primary Author)
Country: Turkey


Publication Date : January 5, 2020

APA ŞAHİN, M . (2020). Classroom Response Systems as a Formative Assessment Tool: Investigation into Students’ Perceived Usefulness and Behavioural Intention. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education , 6 (4) , 693-705 . DOI: 10.21449/ijate.576249