Classroom Response Systems

The article by Draper and Brown was written for Higher Education in 2004. This task summarises the article, highlighting how practice differs in Secondary Schools in 2011.

Draper and Brown discuss the devices used and the technical support provided. As with any technology, it must work efficiently to gain staff confidence. In 2004, wireless devices were a relatively new concept, based on infrared signals. In 2011, devices designed for the classroom use radio technology and reliability has improved dramatically. However, two points made by Draper and Brown are very valid. Portability allows for the technology to be shared easily and used flexibly. Many secondary classrooms now have devices in portable boxes. Technical support remains as crucial as ever, allowing the teachers to ‘concentrate on their job’.  (Draper & Brown, 2004, p. 84)

So, what is their job? Using technology has to address an identified problem and in HE, this is the ‘inadequacy of the lecture format…..the lack of interactivity’. (Draper & Brown, 2004, p. 82)  Secondary classrooms may not suffer from this as greatly as in HE but there can be a tendency for a teacher to dominate a classroom, following the ‘sage on a stage’ model. Research has shown that the more pupils are engaged, the better they learn. Indeed, Bruner (1960, p.80) stated that ‘motives for learning must be kept from going passive… they must be based as much as possible upon the arousal of interest in what there is be learned’. Draper and Brown cite research from Crouch and Mazur (2001) which shows that ‘a voting system, when used as part of a particular pedagogical method, produces large and statistically significant improvements in standardised test results.’ This leads us to focus on the ‘pedagogical method’.

The tutors in the article were early adopters. Use in Secondary schools today varies from schools with sets of devices in every classroom to schools with just one shared set. Whoever is using the devices, one fact remains clear. They enable students to interact fully with the teacher. In Draper and Brown’s article, three clear areas are given in which the devices make a difference: feedback, interactivity and anonymity. In Robert Powell’s book ‘The Response Revolution’ he states that ‘Dylan Wiliam’s research suggests that the quicker the intervention, the more likely the student is to learn’. (Powell, 2011, p. 12) Draper and Brown discuss how this can lead to ‘contingent teaching’ – changing the teaching based on the students’ responses. Secondary classrooms have been slow to adopt this idea, partly due to a fear of lesson plans becoming redundant as discussion moves away from the focus of the teaching. Interactivity, however, is key- and devices now allow for more varied input than simple multiple-choice questions. Anonymity is useful in some contexts, but in general it is more useful if the devices can be associated with a user. This enables for more coherent support and facilitates classroom discussion.

In summary, whilst there are some differences between the 2004 article and the current approach in Secondary education, the most important message is that ‘success depended on putting pedagogy first, technology second….’ (Draper & Brown, 2004, p. 93) is still appropriate.


Bruner, J. (1960) The Process of Education. Harvard.

Draper, S., & Brown, M. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20, 81-94.

Powell, R. (2011). The Response Revolution. Robert Powell Publications.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s