Student response systems (SRS) generate feedback from students, providing on-the-spot assessment or “a sense of the class.” They have been used for many years and certainly predate the introduction of technology in the classroom. Two examples that require no technology to implement are a show of hands (How many think the answer is A?) and flashcards (green card = A, orange card = B, blue card = C, red card = D). Student response systems engage students in active learning, with a call to action in the moment (Dervan, 2014; Simelane & Mji, 2014). The benefit to teachers is an immediate assessment of student learning and, consequently, the opportunity to expand on a topic, offer further clarification, and invite discussion, comments, and questions.

With the introduction of classroom technology, companies developed high-tech solutions to augment or replace the no-tech SRS methods. One of the early leaders in SRS technology is Turning Technologies (http://www.turningtechnologies.com), which entered the market in the early 2000s with handheld clickers, about the size of a cell phone.  

Before my teaching career, I worked in the high-tech field and remember seeing Turning Technologies’ demo of clickers at a tradeshow. As a web developer, I had no need for clickers, only a passing interest in the technology. Fast-forward to 2008, when I began teaching at an intensive English program and was keen to use technology in my classroom. I discovered that we had a set of clickers and the requisite software installed on PC laptops; I tried it out and have been using SRS technology ever since.

Turning Technologies’ clicker files are simply the PowerPoint interface with added interactivity. Recently, I used clickers for a review of students’ presentations on endangered species. Before the presentations, students knew there would be an assessment of their note-taking and listening skills. Clickers provided a good venue for this follow-up evaluation of listening comprehension. Using their notes, students answered a series of questions about each species they and their peers had researched and presented in the previous class.

Students like playing with electronic devices and always approach SRS activities with enthusiasm. Now part of my teacher toolkit, I use SRS to gauge student interest in a proposed topic, evaluate pre-knowledge, and assess listening and reading comprehension.

Competing SRS products have emerged, and teachers today have many choices, including online freeware. After test-running several of these solutions (Verso, Poll Everywhere, Kahoot, and Socrative), I can highly recommend only one: Socrative (http://www.socrative.com). Currently free for educators, Socrative offers a menu-driven web interface that is simple and straightforward. Teachers create a username/password and are immediately given access to a work area for developing a quiz. Three question types are available: multiple choice, true/false, and short answer.

Pictures can be uploaded and added to the questions. The teacher can opt to indicate the correct answer, which makes instant feedback available when students take the quiz.

A unique classroom number is assigned to the teacher and students access the teacher’s quiz by joining their teacher’s classroom, which is identified by a Socrative-provided number. Students can use any Internet-enabled device to join the classroom and they have access only when the teacher selects the “Start Quiz” button.  A Results screen is immediately visible to the teacher, indicating the students’ progress and responses.

When the quiz is finished, an Excel file with final results is emailed to the teacher. Web-based Socrative requires no software or hardware, it takes much less time to prepare than a PowerPoint-based SRS, it is platform independent, and electronic results facilitate recordkeeping.

Because I alternate between using clickers and Socrative, I asked my English for STEM students to evaluate and compare the two SRS applications. The majority prefer Socrative because they use their smartphones and they take the quiz at their own individual pace. The students who prefer clickers like them for the more collaborative approach we use (for example, students might take turns reading the questions and have the opportunity to seek/offer clarifying information that generates a discussion).

Regardless of which system is used, students were unanimous in their preference for making SRS a regular part of weekly assessment. My students will be matriculating at U.S. universities where they will very likely encounter SRS, especially in large lecture sections. Therefore, I also view using SRS as an exercise in academic readiness.

To summarize, the benefits of SRS include the following:

· Active learning promotes student engagement.

· Using an electronic device appeals to kinetic learners.

· IEP students will use SRS in the future at their universities.

· Immediate assessment is available to the teacher.

· SRS saves teachers copying time, and going paperless saves trees.

In conclusion, I recommend incorporating or at least trying SRS, perhaps beginning with Socrative and, depending on your school budget, also investigating the latest solutions from Turning Technologies.

References

Dervan, P. (2014). Increasing in-class student engagement using Socrative (an online student response system). All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 6(3). Retrieved from http://ojs.aishe.org/aishe/index.php/aishe-j/index

Simelane, S., & Mji, A. (2014). Impact of Technology-engagement teaching strategy with the aid of clickers on students’ learning style. Global Conference on Linguistics and Foreign Language Teaching, 136, 511-521.

Eileen Kramer is a senior lecturer at Boston University’s Center for English Language and Orientation Programs. She holds an MATESOL degree from the School for International Training.