The Effect of Interactive Response Tools on Student Engagement in Classroom Discussions

1Running head: The Effect of Interactive Response Tools on Student Engagement in Discussion

The Effect of Interactive Response Tools

on Student Engagement in Classroom Discussions

Jonathan Crocker

University of Alaska Southeast

2The Effect of Interactive Response Tools on Student Engagement in Discussion

Abstract

In order to determine if interactive response tools can increase student engagement in

classroom discussions, an app known as Socrative is used to facilitate discussions during

the reading of a novel in both a 6th grade English class and a 7th/8th grade combination

English class. Students are given a survey at the end of the unit and asked to which degree

they agreed with statements comparing discussions with Socrative with oral discussion

(using a Likert scale). Some statements allowed students to elaborate on their answers.

Results showed a considerable preference for Socrative, with students citing anonymity as

a consistent reason for preferring the app. Conclusions discuss the use of this and similar

apps as increasing engagement and being compatible with schools implementing BYOD

policies, as well as possible implications for reducing bullying and fear of embarrassment.

Keywords: interactive response, clickers, Socrative, engagement, middle school, literature,

discussion, Socratic, bullying, self-esteem, BYOD, iPod, app, anonymous.


Introduction

It is well-established that discussion with peers (and teachers) enhances student learning in

a number of ways. In particular, others’ ideas allow students to build new knowledge and

connect it to existing knowledge. Several studies have shown that the use of interactive

response technologies increase student engagement overall, and give more voice to the

normally “quiet” students in particular.

In most cases, teachers who regularly use discussions in their classes (to check for

understanding, to connect new knowledge to prior knowledge, to allow students to introduce

new ideas in the hopes of building new knowledge, etc.) want all of their students engaged

in the conversation as much of the time as possible. Getting more engagement in

discussions not only maximizes constructive learning among students, it also provides the

teacher with more feedback on student knowledge and can be a useful formative

assessment tool.

Teachers interested in engaging (in classroom discussions) the greatest number of students

to the highest possible degree might consider using interactive response tools. This study

will use one such tool (Socrative) with a class of middle school students to discuss reading

selections before, during, and after the reading takes place. Student feedback will give

valuable information as to their perceptions of engagement when compared to discussions

that take place without the use of Socrative.


Question

Does the use of the Socrative interactive response tool increase student engagement in

classroom discussions?

Literature Review

For teachers that specialize in the humanities, having engaging classroom discussions is an

integral part of teaching. Discussions can help students come to powerful realizations, and

the conversations can often lead to interesting places where new knowledge can be

created. According to Almasi and Gambrell, "participation in peer discussions improves

students’ ability to monitor their understanding of text, to verbalize their thoughts, to

consider alternative perspectives, and to assume responsibility for their own learning"

(2007, p. 152).

In high-quality class discussions, students can learn as much from their peers as they can

from the teacher; some students are even more eager to accept points of view posited by

peers. In a study of learning based on peer discussion interaction, Hurst, Wallace, and

Nixon found, "Analysis of data revealed three findings: (a) students learned from others,

thus enhancing comprehension and retention by activating prior knowledge, making

connections, and consolidating new ideas; (b) social interaction created a positive working

environment; and (c) social interaction provided a means for our students to view topics

from multiple perspectives and enhance their critical thinking and problem solving skills"

(2013, p. 390).


As new tools become available, teachers are eager to adopt those that they think will

improve student engagement in these discussions; students get more out of discussions

and lessons when they are actively engaged. Various student response systems have

become available in the past several years, and these make it easy for students to let the

teacher (and each other) know what they know about the topic, to offer up new ideas to

further the discussion, to collaborate on answers, and to build knowledge based on

classmate answers. All of this was possible with oral discussions of the past, but the new

technologies have added benefits that include a student's ability to think of an answer and

type it out (not having to speak it with minimal processing time) and the ability to answer

anonymously. Ideally, these facets will make it possible for more students to be engaged

than would be without student response systems.

Marlow, Wash, Chapman, and Dale published a study in which each used student response

systems in separate classrooms. Their observations included, "Students today are

comfortable with handheld technology: remote controls, iPods, cell phones, and video game

controllers. Giving them a similar device in the classroom puts them in familiar territory

where they may more readily engage class content" (2009, p. 19). More specifically, from a

science classroom: "The final benefit I have found is the option to use the system

anonymously to poll the class… This is especially useful when discussing bioethical issues

about which students might not express their opinions honestly due to social pressure or

fear of reprisal" (2009, pp. 20-21). Similar situations can be found in English and social

studies classrooms, when a reading selection or subject matter includes ethical issues that

might cause certain students to shy away from engaging in discussion.


Chen and Looi wrote about the use of a tool called "Group Scribbles," which “enables

collaborative generation of ideas through a shared space based upon individual effort and

social sharing of notes in graphical and textual form (SRI international, 2006 in Chen and

Looi, 2011). Their observations included: "The students get a quick feel for the range of

diversity of the ideas, which can help widen the debate and discussions among the

students... Students also helped re-think and improve each others’ ideas...The anonymity of

the postings in GS helps to create and maintain a safe environment in which differences

can be exposed and worked with in a non-threatening way, with sufficiently reduced

personal fears of embarrassment or ridicule. This is especially beneficial for those passive

learners and shy students. One small contribution by an individual may provide a critical

step to further progress in the group" (2011, p. 683).

One newer app that allows for interactive student response is Socrative. With this app, the

teacher has a homepage that can be displayed in front of the class--this page can contain

the question being asked, and will also show students’ responses to that question, either in

bar graph form (for multiple choice questions) or in text boxes. There are also the options of

voting on student responses, “race” games in which groups/students can try to complete a

quiz before others, pre-loaded quiz possibilities, and exit ticket options. Typed responses

can be anonymous or can require that students type in their names. In regards to the

Socrative app specifically, Dervan found, "The system is reliable and easy to use and

feedback from students is positive. Specifically, 65% of students strongly agreed (and 35%

agreed) that the use of Socrative increased interaction during lectures. 35% strongly agreed

(and 50% agreed) that the use of the system highlighted gaps in their knowledge.

Significantly, 77% students surveyed would like to see more (or significantly more) use of


the system with 23% strongly agreeing (and 50% agreeing) that use of the system had

helped them understand course concepts" (2013, p. 11).

It is easy to understand that many teachers want to measure changes in class engagement

when new technology tools are implemented. We want to know how well the tool works, and

we know that we should always be aiming to keep students engaged. But engagement is a

very broad, multi-faceted term; engagement is difficult to measure. Furthermore, many

students who might not appear to be engaged are actually engaged with the content, they

just aren't necessarily participating. Obenland, Munson, and Hutchinson found that a

significant portion of "silent" students in their study were actually quite engaged: "silent

students were not passive. They were engaged by Socratic and discussion questions and

attempted to think of answers to such questions. Silent students, although responding

differently than vocal students to the survey questions, also indicated that they participated

in the active classroom even though they were not responding verbally in class" (2012, p.

96). With that in mind, we must be careful in our assumptions, as many of our students who

don't look "engaged" might actually be completely engaged, but the engagement takes

place internally and cannot be easily seen by a teacher or observer looking for visual clues

to that engagement. This study goes on to note, "...lack of understanding was not likely a

strong motivation behind remaining silent. Other silent students also referenced individual

preference or learning style" (2012, p. 97). Therefore, I have decided that measuring

student engagement through participation would be fallacious.

Even so, participation itself is still a good indicator of engagement, and participation by

those willing to contribute to discussions can still benefit and engage those students not


participating. Again, from Obenland, Munson, and Hutchinson: "One silent student

commented, 'It’s really nice to be able to hear how other people reach the conclusions and

helps to be able to think for yourself in class'" (2012, p. 97).

Participation itself can be represented quantitatively (i.e. the number of times a student

adds to a discussion), yet there is no guarantee that those who participate in a discussion

are making useful contributions; they might simply be asking for clarification over and over,

or even using the discussion as an opportunity to practice improv comedy. If a teacher is

attempting to measure participation by counting the number of student contributions, the

quality of those contributions should be measured by their usefulness, or perhaps based on

whether or not they involve or encourage deeper thinking, either at a higher level on

Bloom's taxonomy or a higher number on the depth of knowledge scale. A simpler way to

measure engagement would be to help students define engagement before asking them to

gauge their own levels of engagement in a given discussion or lesson. In an effort to keep

this feedback as honest as possible, it can be gathered via Socrative using anonymous

posts and saved for later analysis.

Methodology

Participants

This study will follow two classes (a 6th grade class and a 7th/8th grade class) over a one-

week period as they read and discuss a novel (The Giver).

Procedure

During each day of the one-week period, students will start the session by answering

questions designed to re-activate background knowledge and to stimulate thought that will


prepare them for the day’s read. Two to three chapters will be read during each session,

with a short break between each chapter to ask discussion questions. Finally, there will be

more discussion questions at the end of each reading session.

During the first two days and for the beginning discussion during the third, all of the

discussion based on the reading will take place orally: the teacher will read questions aloud

to the class and wait for students to raise their hands and respond. After each response,

other students will be given the chance to elaborate on their classmates’ ideas as time

allows (this will likely be limited to three minutes per question, maximum).

During the remainder if the third day thru the end of the week (day 5), all of the discussion

based on the reading will be facilitated with the app known as Socrative. The teacher will

both read the question aloud and post it on the class Smart Board in the browser window

containing the Socrative “room,” where students can see it and can also see the answers

being displayed. Again, the time limit for discussing any given question will not exceed three

minutes due to class time constraints. Student answers to each question will be saved for

later analysis.

Data Collection

Once the classes have finished reading and discussing the novel, they will answer a set of

survey questions, also using Socrative. Their answers to these questions will be

anonymous, yet they will not be displayed for the class to see (they will display on the

teacher’s computer, not on the Smart Board). This should ensure that student answers are


not influenced by classmate answers, nor will they be influenced by a desire to give the

teacher an answer that they think the teacher will want to see.

Using a Likert scale from 1-5, 1 being “I do not agree” and 5 being “I agree completely,”

students will indicate to what extent they agree with the following statements:

1. I contributed more often to the discussions that used Socrative. 2. Being able to see classmates’ responses was helpful to my own response. 3. Being able to see the question displayed on the Smart Board was helpful to my own

response. 4. I feel that I learned more from discussions using Socrative. 5. The discussions using Socrative were a better use of class time. 6. I feel that the discussions using Socrative were more balanced and not dominated by

any students in particular. 7. My contributions to discussions using Socrative were more valuable.8. Being able to respond anonymously changed the way I responded to discussion

questions. Explain: 9. Being able to type my response changed the way I responded to discussion

questions. Explain: 10. Overall, I felt more engaged in class discussions when the class used Socrative.

Explain:

The final three statements will be followed immediately by opportunities for students to type

explanations that elaborate on those answers in particular. Each of these statements is

designed to determine changes in engagement when compared to class discussions with

no interactive response technology as an aid, specifically regarding whether or not students

felt comfortable, valued, interested, eager, and satisfied that their time was well-spent.

Number two and three are included to see if the tool is helpful in engaging students who

may prefer visual/text cues to auditory learning, helping determine if learning style

differences may have an effect on engagement one way or another.

Before the survey takes place, students will be briefly shown how to answer questions on a

Likert scale (which will be review for many) and reminded to answer honestly, thinking


carefully about the discussions in both contexts, as the wording of the survey itself might

make it seem as if the student is expected to wholeheartedly endorse this particular app—

the wording is simply that way in order to accurately answer the research question, so this

conversation will be important. Students will also review their definition of student

engagement (which they will have developed before the unit) before taking the survey.

Results and Analysis

The following graphs show the results of the survey from both classes combined (the 6th

grade class and the 7th/8th grade combo). The number of responses varies slightly, as

occasionally a student would accidentally select more than one option from the Likert scale

due to the screen size and the proximity of one button to the next, so there is a small margin

of error. Other students chose two neighboring options (i.e. “mostly agree” and “agree

completely”) when they were unable to decide between the two. Another student had to

leave the survey early for a school-related duty.


I do not agree I barely agree I halfway agree I mostly agree I agree completely0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

I contributed more often to the discussions that used Socra-tive.

Analysis: All but a few students contributed more often with Socrative.


2

4

6

8

10

12

Being able to see classmates’ responses was helpful to my own response.

Analysis: Students felt that their responses were improved when they could see the responses of their classmates.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Being able to see the question displayed on the Smart Board was helpful to my own response.

Analysis: Most students found it helpful to see the discussion question when formulating a response.


2

4

6

8

10

12

I feel that I learned more from discussions using Socrative.

Analysis: In general, students felt that discussions using Socrative were more educational, though these responses are not as obviously positive as those to other questions.



2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

The discussions using Socrative were a better use of class time.

Analysis: These answers show a huge preference for Socrative due to its perceived value as a better use of time. This answer could also mean that students find little value in classroom discussions that are oral-only, or a combination of the two.


2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

I feel that the discussions using Socrative were more balanced and not dominated by any

students in particular.

Analysis: Students felt that discussion that used Socrative were more balanced. The two that strongly disagreed are likely to be those that formerly dominated classroom discussions, though it cannot be confirmed. There was a similar distribution of written answers that prefer oral classroom discussions.



2

4

6

8

10

12

My contributions to discussions using Socrative were more valuable.

Analysis: Students felt that their responses were more valuable, but not overwhelmingly. However, when compared to not responding at all (which is the case for some students), the change in value is obvious.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Being able to respond anonymously changed the way I responded to discussion questions.

Analysis: This appears to be the least positive response of all the survey questions, though still showing preference for Socrative. The written explanations to this question make it seem like the sample shown here is not as accurate, showing several extraneous responses. Please read on for the written explanations (after the charts)—those results imply that this is actually a very important benefit for most students surveyed.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Being able to type my response changed the way I responded to discussion questions.

Analysis: Most students preferred being able to type their responses (see elaboration below).


2

4

6

8

10

12

Overall, I felt more engaged in class discussions when the class used Socrative.

Analysis: These responses show a vast increase in engagement when Socrative is used to facilitate discussions (see elaboration below).


The final three survey statements also gave students an opportunity to type a response in

order to elaborate on their selection. The following are excerpts from those explanations,

unaltered (including incorrect spelling, text speak, and incorrect grammar).

Explanations added to “Being able to respond anonymously changed the way I responded to discussion questions.” (Complete sample)-Some questions are test questions and someone might cheat.-yes beacuse i dont like saying my actually awnser aloud because if i get it wrong i dont want to get laughed at. and its just eaisier to say what i actually want to say with out my actually name. -i was able to say more with out being embaressed if i was wrong -because you can give an answer without having people know who you are and have people give you flack about it -Well i like to annoumously put out my answers but i also like it being heard. -no because i do not see why it would matter if you raised your hand or put in some letters -bcz u can see what u put and cant judge others -i can say my answer and not be embarrased by all the bullys that laugh at EVERYTHING i do -i always respond honestly -yes because if i put my name people might make fun of my answer an know who i am evem when my answer is serious and related to the topic..... -yeah because if i got it wrong i wouldnt be laughed at or bullied by people that call me nube like the popular kids witch i can name at least 7 people -it canged cause i wont have #peps looking at mine and saying no or something else that i dont agree with-well sometimes people will say things so there friends will still like them , everyone does it and it makes it easier to write your true thoughts and beleifs if they are not influenced by other people -It makes it so you don't have to feel embarresed if you have a bad answer ot not the correct one. -when you type your answer up you dont know if someone else has the same answer-it changes because then everybody sees what i typed -IT CHANGES tHE way i type becausde sometimes i have spelling errors when i type and now nobody knows if i do -i was able to have more time to think about my answere-Yes cause then no one can say you are wrong and then u dont get imbarrassed. also then tou can see what other people think -because im am not embarressed that someone will laugh -i totally agree because i texty something more amazing then i would aay the old fashion way -because a really dont care what ppl think about me-i like being anonymas because i can say more without people thinking it is wrong and blaming me. -being able to respond anomously changed the way i respond to questions by when you get a choise to raise your hand and haveing to tyep the answer


Analysis: Of 24 responses, 12 (50%) of students cited lack of possible embarrassment as a

reason for preferring anonymous answers. Two of those also cited bullying concerns. This

was a far more influential factor than expected.

Explanations added to “Being able to type my response changed the way I responded to discussion questions.” (representative sample)-yes because i could go re-read the question and understand it better.-a little bcz u have to think of an anwser instead of pick one that is right-Because i dont like talking-i mostly agree because you have more time to write it and you can fix what you said if you type it wrong.-well most people enjoy texting there friends and it som thing different that isnt the normality in school so we are more exited to awnser the questions-i was able to think for myself and get my own answeres-when i type i explane more than i do if o sya it out loud i get tongue twisted-for me its just easier to type-i would type what i meant to say.

Analysis: Of 24 responses, six noted that they had more clarity to their answers, two noted

more complete answers, two noted more thought to answers, and four noted that they don’t

like talking.

Explanations added to “Overall, I felt more engaged in class discussions when the class used Socrative.” (representative sample)-yeah because u can c other pepoles answers and elaborate-I felt somewhat engaged but i like to discus in words and typing.-i felt more engaged because i can answer with out being laughed at-well if you actually have type something out then it helps you think about the question andunderstand what its asking-since everyone has an answer its interesting since you get to know there answers-i felt more engaged becausei got to give my opinion-no its the same-yes u did because evry had to answer not just me-yes because i knew know one kenw ho i am-normally i dont like sharing my thoughts.

Analysis: Of 24 responses, six (25%) liked that everyone gets to answers, four were more

engaged due to comfort with anonymity, two were equally engaged (compared with oral


discussions), two cited ease of response as raising engagement, one was more engaged

with oral discussion (for elaboration), one noted the ability to elaborate on typed answers,

and one cited deeper analysis of the question.

Discussion

The answer to the question “Does the use of the Socrative interactive response tool

increase student engagement in classroom discussions?” was very clearly answered by

student responses to the last question of the survey (seen in the final chart above). We can

easily say that the use of this app increased student engagement during the classroom

discussions.

The responses to other questions (including the students’ elaborated answers to “Overall, I

felt more engaged in class discussions when the class used Socrative”) aim to figure out

why the use of this tool is more engaging. We can conclude that a majority of students (with

one clear exception in each class surveyed) found it more engaging for a variety of reasons,

but the ability to answer anonymously seems to be most important, and for a number of

reasons: students may lack self-esteem or confidence and fear embarrassment, students

may fear bullying, students might not like to talk in class, students may have difficulty

expressing themselves verbally, and some students might not think their opinion will be as

respected when their name is attached. Other benefits to using interactive response tools

include greater participation (all students answer instead of a few), the ability to answer with

more depth and clarity, and the ability to see classmates’ responses and add new ideas to

those already displayed on the board.

Because of these benefits, students felt that discussions using Socrative were a better use


of class time—this has its own set of implications. If this is the case, does that mean that

many of these same students feel that oral discussion is not a good use of class time, or

just not a good use when compared to discussion with an interactive response tool? If the

student in question does not want to participate in the discussion, yet still thinks about the

question and his or her classmates’ answers (and thinks of his or her own answer), then

that student is engaged (see Obenland, Munson, and Hutchinson, above). But the student

that does not participate and is thinking of something else entirely is not engaged, and it is

difficult for a teacher to tell the difference. When all fear related to contributing to class

discussions is removed and a student’s contributions are valued because of their quality,

then the silent but engaged students become empowered. When responses are required so

that even otherwise disengaged students must answer, those students at least have the

benefit of seeing other responses before contributing their own; some of these students

may not have been engaged because they did not understand the question, and the ability

to see other answers posted not only allows them better understanding of the question, it

also brings about the chance that the student can add to existing answers and make a

valuable contribution, going from being disengaged to engaged.

A small minority of students consistently answered negatively (“I do not agree”) to most or

all of the questions (one or two students in each class). Similarly, (for those questions that

allowed elaboration) there would be two or three answers that stated that the student found

no difference between oral discussion and discussion using Socrative (or the student stated

that he or she preferred oral discussion). If a student is used to engaging in (and usually

leading) oral discussions, one can understand that such a student would not be eager to

use this tool. First of all, such a student is already adept and used to formulating an answer


quickly and sharing it by speaking it aloud, so having to type out an answer might seem like

a chore or a waste of time. For these students, it might be possible to allow them to

continue answering orally, but having their responses typed can often be beneficial to the

rest of the class. While they might not like typing their answer as much as speaking it, their

discomfort is more than outweighed by the benefit of increased engagement in the

remainder of the class.

The anonymity of answers can be a drawback as well as a benefit. Some teachers fear that

students will use anonymity as an opportunity to waste class time by being clever or to even

post inappropriate answers. While not all interactive response tools work exactly the same,

most have either changed due to these possibilities or been designed with these

possibilities in mind. If a teacher chooses, he or she can post a question that requires that a

student add their name to the answer, yet that name will not be displayed on the board

unless the teacher specifically clicks a button to reveal the name associated with an

answer. This allows the teacher to have the best of both worlds—students can answer with

confidence, yet any inappropriate answers can be easily dealt with (and hidden, should the

teacher choose). This also makes new applications of the tool possible, such as contests in

which students vote for their favorite answer(s) (another feature of Socrative), and the

winner can have his or her name revealed (if he or she desires).

A common fear among teachers in schools with BYOD (bring your own device) policies is

that student will be using their phones or tablets to chat, text, or browse the internet while

they are supposed to be doing other things. If interactive responses are being used as a

regular way to respond (whether for discussion or just as a check for understanding with a


true/false or multiple choice question), it could not only keep students on task, but the

responses themselves will quickly tell the teacher whether or not the student is engaged.

Not only do regular questions show the teacher if students are engaged, the answer can

also work as a formative assessment by allowing the teacher to instantly take note of any

misconceptions or of any concepts that need to be re-taught (and some of those can be

addressed immediately). Furthermore, since the Socrative app is free, any student can

quickly and easily install the app on their own device.

Socrative is not the only tool that allows students to answer questions electronically during a

class session. Teachers interested in such tools may need to do some research to find the

tool that best fits their needs. Other options include (but are not limited to) SmartResponse

clickers, LanSchool, Pear Deck, and Nearpod.

Finally, interactive responses seem to alleviate the fear of bullying for some students. As

bullying (and cyberbullying) prevention continues to be a top priority for schools across the

country, we can think of ways in which these tools can help bullied students re-engage in

classes that they share with potential bullies. If a student is in the same class with another

student that they fear, an obvious reaction would be to withdraw emotionally and not

participate, as anything they say or do could become a topic of future ridicule. If these

students are allowed to have an anonymous voice via an interactive response tool, then

they would have the ability to participate in discussions without that fear of ridicule. Even

answering multiple choice or true/false questions in this way would be beneficial, as raising

one’s hand to answer or volunteering to answer on the board might cause that student to be


perceived as a know-it-all, brainiac, teacher’s pet, and so on.

Conclusions

Any classroom teacher looking to increase and improve student engagement during in-class

questioning should find interactive response tools to be very useful. These tools offer

numerous advantages when compared to oral questioning, including:

Responses from all students instead of a few (depending on time allowed).

The ability to read the question and other responses.

The ability to formulate a more thorough or in-depth response (for many).

The ability to instantly address any misconceptions.

The ability to save answers for later analysis.

The ability for students to answer anonymously, with implications in regards to

emotional well-being and bullying.

Greater perceived value for students.

Ease of use for students, especially those with their own devices.

As these tools continue to develop and improve, it is important for interested educators to

stay up-to-date with the new features that are added with each revision (for continually

improved classroom or online use), and also to give feedback to app developers for future

improvements. As an increasing number of teachers begin to use these tools, we will likely

see a more comfortable, confident, and engaged student population.


References

Almasi, J.F., & Gambrell, L.B. (1997). Conflict during classroom discussions can be a good thing. In J.R. Paratore, & R.L. McCormack (Eds.), Peer talk in the classroom: Learning from research (pp. 130-155). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Hurst, B., Wallace, R., & Nixon, S. (2013). The Impact of Social Interaction on Student Learning. Reading Horizons, 52(4), 375-398.

Marlow, D., Wash, P., Chapman, J., & Dale, T. (2009). Electric Engagement: The Use of Classroom Response Technology in Four Disciplines. Currents in Teaching & Learning, 2(1), 17-27.

Chen, W., & Looi, C. (2011). Active classroom participation in a Group Scribbles primary science classroom. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 676-686.

Dervan, Paul (2013). Increasing in-class student engagement using Socrative (an online Student Response System). International Conference on Engaging Pedagogy 2013. Retrieved from http://icep.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Dervan.pdf

Obenland, C., Munson, A., & Hutchinson, J. (2012). Silent Students' Participation in a Large Active Learning Science Classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(2), 90-98.

The Effect of Interactive Response Tools on Student Engagement in Classroom Discussions

Documents

Transcript of The Effect of Interactive Response Tools on Student Engagement in Classroom Discussions