This study reports on a participatory design approach including the design, development, implementation, and evaluation of a mobile app-based personal response system (PRS). The first cycle formulated initial design principles through context and needs analysis; the second utilized the collaboration with instructors and experts embodying specific design guidelines to advance instructional benefits; the third developed a PRS and revised it based on pilot implementations; and the fourth engaged instructors and students in evaluating the PRS in terms of the class participation and learning support as well as design components. The authors provide an overview of the design and development process and summarize the results of the evaluation on design components. The results of this study inform educational researchers about the usefulness of a participatory design approach to formulate design components of educational software. This study also provides a natural guide toward future research on the relationship between each design aspect and learner performance when using a PRS.
Al-JarfR. (2006) Large student enrolments in EFL programs: Challenges and consequences. Asian EFL Journal8(1): 8–34.
2.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
3.
BeekesW. (2006) The ‘millionaire’ method for encouraging participation. Active Learning in Higher Education7(1): 25–36.
BucknerE.KimP. (2014) Integrating technology and pedagogy for inquiry-based learning: The Stanford Mobile Inquiry-based Learning Environment (SMILE). Prospects44(1): 99–118.
6.
CardosoW. (2011) Learning a foreign language with a learner response system: The students’ perspective. Computer Assisted Language Learning24(5): 393–417.
7.
Cheong, C., Bruno, V., & Cheong, F. (2012). Designing a mobile-app-based collaborative learning system. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 11(1), 94--119.
8.
CrombieG.PykeS. W.SilverthornN.JonesA.PiccininS. (2003) Students’ perception of their classroom participation and instructor as a function of gender and context. Journal of Higher Education74(1): 51–76.
9.
Czapracki, A., & Burrows, C. (2011). Bringing students and faculty together through mobile devices. In: Proceedings of the 39th annual ACM SIGUCCS conference on User services (pp. 215--218). ACM.
10.
FilerD. (2010) Everyone’s answering: Using technology to increase classroom participation. Nursing Education Perspectives31(4): 247–250.
11.
Hawkins, L. A. (2011). Clicker technology and course retention: A quantitative study of Maryland community colleges (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Capella University, Minnesota.
12.
HorwitzE. K.HorwitzM. B.CopeJ. (1986) Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language Journal70(2): 125–132.
13.
JohnsonL.AdamsS.CumminsM. (2012) NMC Horizon Report: 2012 K-12 edition, Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
14.
KigerD.HerroD.PruntyD. (2012) Examining the influence of a mobile learning intervention on third grade math achievement. Journal of Research on Technology in Education45(1): 61–82.
15.
KingA. (1992) Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and notetaking-review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal29(2): 303–323.
16.
KitanoK. (2001) Anxiety in the college Japanese language classroom. The Modern Language Journal85(4): 549–566.
17.
Kukulska-HulmeA. (2009) Will mobile learning change language learning. ReCALL21(2): 157–165.
18.
LamY. (2000) Technophilia vs. technophobia: A preliminary look at why second-language teachers do or do not use technology in their classrooms. Canadian Modern Language Review56(3): 389–420.
19.
LiuM.JacksonJ. (2008) An exploration of Chinese EFL learners’ unwillingness to communicate and foreign language anxiety. The Modern Language Journal92(1): 71–86.
20.
MayerR. E.StullA.DeLeeuwK.AlmerothK.BimberB.ChunD.ZhangH. (2009) Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology34(1): 51–57.
21.
MillerR. G.AsharB. H.GetzK. J. (2003) Evaluation of an audience response system for the continuing education of health professionals. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions23(1): 109–115.
22.
MurrayH.LangM. (1997) Does classroom participation improve student learning. Teaching and Learning in Higher Education20(1): 7–9.
23.
PrattonJ.HalesL. W. (1986) The effects of active participation on student learning. The Journal of Educational Research79(4): 210–215.
24.
Robb, M., & Shellenbarger, T. (2012). Using technology to promote mobile learning: engaging students with cell phones in the classroom. Nurse Educator, 37(6), 258--261.
25.
RodriguezL. A.ShepardM. (2013) Adult English language learners’ perceptions of audience response systems (clickers) as communication aides: A Q-methodology study. TESOL Journal4(1): 182–193.
26.
ScornavaccaE.HuffS.MarshallS. (2009) Mobile phones in the classroom: If you can’t beat them, join them. Communications of the ACM52(4): 142–146.
27.
Song, D., Kim, P., & Karimi, A. (2012). Inquiry-based learning environment using mobile devices in math classroom. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), Louisville, KY.
28.
Stav, J., Nielsen, K., Hansen-Nygard, G., & Thorseth, T. (2010). Experiences obtained with integration of student response systems for iPod Touch and iPhone into e-learning environments. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 8(2), 179--190.
29.
TatarS. (2005) Why keep silent? The classroom participation experiences of non-native-English speaking students. Language and Intercultural Communication5(3–4): 284–293.
30.
WeaverR. R.QiJ. (2005) Classroom organization and participation: College students’ perceptions. The Journal of Higher Education76(5): 570–601.
