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

Computer Assisted Language Learning

Volumn 24, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 393-417

  Cardoso, Walcir ^a  

^a Systematic Reviews Project Manager Centre for the Study of Learning and Performance   (Canada)

Author keywords

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

Indexed keywords

EID: 84858813747     PISSN: 09588221     EISSN: 17443210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2011.567354     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Abrahamson, A. 1999. Teaching with classroom communication system-What it involves and why it works Retrieved fromhttp://www.bedu.com/Publications/PueblaFinal2.pdf
2. Al-Jarf, R. 2006. Large student enrolments in EFL programs: Challenges and consequences. Asian EFL Journal, 8: 8-34.
3. Banks, D. A. 2006. Audience response systems in higher education: Applications and cases, Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
4. Barnett, J. 2006. Implementation of personal response units in very large lecture classes: Student perceptions. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22: 474-494.
5. Blodgett, D. L. 2006. The effects of implementing an interactive student response system in a college algebra classroom (MSc thesis) University of Maine, Orono
6. Boardman, D. E. 1968. The use of immediate response systems in junior college (MA thesis) University of California, Los Angeles
7. Bonwell, C. and Eison, J. 1991. Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom (Association for the Study of Higher Education, Report No. 1), Washington, DC: Jossey-Bass.
8. Boyd, W. 1973. Repeating questions in prose learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 64: 31-38.
9. Bruff, D. 2009. Teaching with classroom response systems-Creating active learning environments, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
10. Bruff, D. 2010. Classroom Response System ("Clickers") Bibliography, Retrieved April 22, 2010, from Vanderbilt University, Vanderbilt Center for Teaching website:http://www.vanderbilt.edu/cft/resources/teaching_resources/technology/crs_biblio.htm.
11. Bruner, J. S. 1961. The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31: 21-32.
12. Bunce, D. M., Van den Plas, J. R. and Havanki, K. L. 2006. Comparing the effectiveness on student achievement of a student response system versus online WebCT quizzes. Journal of Chemical Education, 83: 488-493.
13. Caldwell, J. E. 2007. Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. Life Sciences Education, 6: 9-20.
14. Cardoso, W. 2011a. Using clickers in the ESL/EFL classroom. The Internet TESL Journal. In preparation,
15. Cardoso, W. 2011b. Clickers in L2 acquisition of vocabulary (Ms) Concordia University, Montreal. In preparation
16. Carnaghan, C. and Webb, A. 2007. Investigating the effects of group response systems onstudent satisfaction, learning, and engagement in accounting education. Issues in Accounting Education, 22: 391-409.
17. Carroll, S. and Swain, M. 1993. Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study ofthe learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15: 357-366.
18. Chapelle, C. 2001. Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing and research, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19. Christison, M. 1999. Multiple intelligences. ESL Magazine, 2: 10-13.
20. Chun, D. and Plass, J. 1996. The effects of multimedia annotations on vocabulary acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 80: 183-198.
21. Clark, R. E. 1983. Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53: 445-459.
22. Corder, G. Using clickers to engage students and facilitate immediate feedback. Paper presented at the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) Convention. Orlando, FL.
23. Crouch, C. H. and Mazur, E. 2001. Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9): 970-977.
24. Cutrim Schmid, E. 2007. Enhancing performance knowledge and self-esteem in classroom language learning: The potential of the ACTIVote system component of interactive whiteboard technology. System, 35: 119-133.
25. Cutrim Schmid, E. 2008. Using a voting system in conjunction with interactive whiteboard technology to enhance learning in the English language classroom. Computers and Education, 50: 338-356.
26. Dabaghi, A. 2010. Corrective feedback in second language acquisition: Theory, research and practice, Saarbrucken, Germany: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing.
27. DeKeyser, R. 1993. The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 77: 501-514.
28. DeKeyser, R. 1995. Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17: 379-410.
29. Doughty, C. 2001. "Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form". In Cognition and second language instruction, Edited by: Robinson, P. 206-257. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Draper, S. W. 2002. Evaluating effective use of PRS: Results of the evaluation of the use of PRS in Glasgow University Retrieved fromhttp://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/ilig/interim.html
31. Draper, S. W. and Brown, M. I. 2004. Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20: 81-94.
32. Easton, C. 2009. An examination of clicker technology use in legal education. The Free Library, 3 Retrieved fromhttp://www.thefreelibrary.com
33. Ellis, R. 2009. "Implicit and explicit learning, knowledge and instruction". In Implicit and explicit knowledge in a second language, Edited by: R., Ellis, S., Loewen, R., Erlam, J., Philp, C., Elder and H., Reinders. 3-26. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
34. Fagen, A., Crouch, C. and Mazur, E. 2002. Peer instruction: Results from a range of classrooms. The Physics Teacher, 40: 206-209.
35. Fies, C. and Marshall, J. 2006. Classroom response systems: A review of the literature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15: 101-109.
36. Gardner, H. 1993. Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice, New York: Basic Books.
37. Gauci, S., Dantas, A., Williams, D. and Kemm, R. 2009. Promoting student-centered active learning in lectures with a personal response system. Advances in Physiology Education, 33: 60-71.
38. Graham, C., Tripp, T., Seawright, L. and Joeckel, G. 2007. Empowering or compelling reluctant participators using audience response systems. Active Learning in Higher Education, 8: 233-258.
39. Hake, R. 1998. Interactive engagement versus traditional methods: A sixty-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66: 64-74.
40. Hall, R. H., Collier, H. L., Thomas, M. and Hilgers, M. G. A student response system for increasing engagement, motivation, and learning in high enrolment lectures. In Proceedings ofthe 11th Americas Conference on Information Systems. Omaha, NE. pp.1-7.
41. Halloran, L. 1995. A comparison of two methods of teaching: Computer managed instruction and keypad questions versus traditional classroom lecture. Computers in Nursing, 13: 285-288.
42. Hoekstra, A. 2008. Vibrant student voices: Exploring effects of the use of clickers in large college courses. Learning, Media, & Technology, 33: 329-341.
43. Hoffman, C. and Goodwin, S. 2006. A clicker for your thoughts: Technology for active learning. New Library World, 107: 422-433.
44. Jenkins, A. 2007. Technique and technology: Electronic voting systems in an English literature lecture. Pedagogy, 7: 526-533.
45. Johnson, T. and Meckelborg, A. Student response systems: A cure for lecturalgia?. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008. pp.4709-4717. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
46. Judson, E. and Sawada, D. 2002. Learning from past and present: Electronic response systems in college lecture halls. Journal of Computers in Mathematics & Science Teaching, 21: 167-181.
47. Kaleta, R. and Joosten, T. 2007. Student response systems: A University of Wisconsin study of clickers (Research Bulletin, 6), Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research.
48. Knight, J. and Wood, W. 2005. Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell biology Education, 4: 298-310.
49. Littauer, R. 1972. Instructional implications of a low-cost electronic student response system. Educational Technology: Teacher and Technology Supplement, 12: 69-71.
50. MacManaway, L. 1970. Teaching methods in higher education: Innovation and research. Universities Quarterly, 24: 321-329.
51. Mayer, R. 2004. Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59: 14-19.
52. Mazur, E. 1997. Peer instruction: A user's manual, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
53. Meyers, C. and Jones, T. 1993. Promoting active learning: Strategies for the college classroom, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
54. Nagy-Shadman, E. and Desrochers, C. 2008. Student response technology: Empirically grounded or just a gimmick?. International Journal of Science Education, 30: 2023-2066.
55. Nikolova, O. 2002. Effects of students' participation in authoring of multimedia materials onstudent acquisition of vocabulary. Language Learning and Technology, 6: 100-122.
56. Nunan, D. 1991. Language teaching methodology, London: Prentice Hall.
57. Penuel, W. R., Boscardin, C. K., Masyn, K. and Crawford, V. M. 2007. Teaching with student response systems in elementary and secondary education settings: A survey study. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 55: 315-346.
58. Poirier, C. and Feldman, R. 2007. Promoting active learning using individual response technology in large introductory psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 34: 194-196.
59. Poulis, J., Massen, C., Robens, E. and Gilbert, M. 1998. Physics lecturing with audience paced feedback. American Journal of Physics, 66: 439-441.
60. Preszler, R. W., Dawe, A., Shuster, C. B. and Shuster, M. 2007. Assessment of the effects of student response systems on student learning and attitudes over a broad range of biology courses. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6: 29-41.
61. Rosa, E. and Leow, R. 2004. Awareness, different learning conditions, and second language development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25: 269-292.
62. Sartori. 2008. An empirical investigation of electronic student response systems in a K-12 school district: The relationship of ongoing assessment on student achievement (PhD dissertation), Pepperdine University.
63. Saslow, J., Ascher, A. and Tiberio, A. C. 2006. Summit 2: English for today's world, New York: Pearson Longman.
64. Savignon, S. and Berns, M. S. 1984. Initiatives in communicative language teaching, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
65. Schmidt, R. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11: 129-158.
66. Skehan, P. 1998. A cognitive approach to language learning, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
67. Skinner, B. F. 1968. The technology of teaching, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
68. Suchman, E., Uchiyama, K., Smith, R. and Bender, K. 2006. Evaluating the use of a classroom response system in a microbiology course. Microbiology Education, 7: 3-11.
69. Tabak, K. and Cardoso, W. Make your material click: Tweak your class with clickers. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for the Promotion of the Teaching of English as a Second Language in Quebec (SPEAQ) Conference. Montreal, QC.
70. Thornbury, S. 2002. How to teach vocabulary, Essex: Longman.
71. Tinto, V. 1993. Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
72. 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(1): 21-40.
73. Warschauer, M. 1996. "Motivational aspects of using computers for writing and communication". In Telecollaboration in foreign language learning: Proceedings of the Hawai'i Symposium, Edited by: Warschauer, M. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
74. Yoder-Kreger, S. Clickers: Can they be used to facilitate communicative language learning?. Paper presented at the Missouri Modern Languages and Modern Technologies (MO3) Conference. USA: University of Missouri-Columbia.