You are here:

Reflections at Hand: Using Student Response System Technology to Mediate Teacher Reflective Thinking ARTICLE

, Newberry College, United States ; , University of South Carolina, United States

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education Volume 20, Number 2, ISSN 1059-7069 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA


The purpose of this study thus was to empirically investigate the association between teachers’ self-reported reflective practices and their use of student response systems. Analysis of responses from 214 teacher participants from the southeastern US to the Teachers’ Technology Use and Belief Survey (TTUBS) revealed the following findings. First, self-reflection scores and reported SRS use were low yet significantly correlated. Second, an increase in SRS predicts an increase in self-reflection. With regard to the relationship of grade level and level of experience, this study shows SRS use the highest in middle school classrooms and that beginning teachers report using SRS more than experienced teachers. Considerations involving SRS availability, training, and use are discussed relative to the findings. Implications for enhancing professional growth through SRS use and reflective practice also are presented.
Keywords: reflection, student response system technology, formative assessment


Waller, L. & Edens, K. (2012). Reflections at Hand: Using Student Response System Technology to Mediate Teacher Reflective Thinking. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 20(2), 205-222. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved March 18, 2018 from .



  1. Abrahamson, A.L. (2006). A brief history of networked classrooms: effects, cases, pedagogy, and implications. In D.A. Banks (ed.), Audience Response Systems in Higher Education: Applications and cases (pp. 1 – 25). Hershey, Pa: information science Publishing.
  2. Aukes, L.C., Geertsma, J., Cohen-schotanus, J., Zwierstra, R.P., & Slaets, J.P. (2007). The development of a scale to measure personal reflection in medical practice and education. Medical Teacher, 29 (2), 177-182.
  3. Berliner, D.C. (1989). Implications of studies of expertise in pedagogy for teacher education and evaluation. In Proceedings of the 1988 Educational Testing Service Invitational Conference: New directions for teacher assessment (pp. 39-65). Princeton, nJ: educational Testing service.
  4. Black, S. (2002). Thinking about teaching: how teachers can put reflection at the heart of their teaching. Inform, 5 (2), 14-17.
  5. Boston, C. (2002). The concept of formative assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(9). Retrieved november 4, 2005 from
  6. Burnstein, R. & Lederman, L. (2001). Using wireless keypads in lecture classes. The Physics Teacher, 39, 8-11.
  7. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
  8. Dewey, J. (1933). How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Lexington, Ma: heath.
  9. Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: the Theory of Inquiry. Troy, MO: holt, rinehart & Winston.
  10. Draper, S. (2005). EVS Technologies, alternative, and vendors. Retrieved July 18, 2008 from, University of Glasgow department of Psychology Website:`steve/ilig/tech.html
  11. Glazer, E., & Hannafin, M. (2008). Factors that influence mentor and teacher interactions during technology integration collaborative apprenticeships. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16 (1), 35-61.
  12. Hamilton, M.B. (2005). Online survey response rates and times. SuperSurvey Tercent Inc. Retrieved on October 5, 2007, from
  13. Larrivee, B. (2000). Transforming teacher practice: Becoming the critically reflective teacher. Reflective Practice, 1 (3), 293 – 307.
  14. National Board for Professional Teaching standards. (2002). What teachers should know and be able to do. Arlington, Va: nBPTs.
  15. National Council for accreditation of Teacher education. (2008). Professional Standards for the Accreditation of Teacher Preparation Institutions. Washington, D.C.: nCaTe.
  16. National education association (2008). Access, adequacy, and equity in education technology.
  17. North Carolina department of education. (2006). Education first: North Carolina school report card. Retrieved from
  18. Pedro, J. (2006). Taking reflection into the real world of teaching. Kappa Delta Phi Record, 129-132.
  19. Rhodes, L. (1988). We have met the system – and it is us. Phi Delta Kappan, 70(1), 28-30.
  20. Rodgers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: another look at John dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College Record, 104(4), pp. 842-866.
  21. Schön, D.A. (1983).The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. NY: Basic Books.
  22. Schön, D.A. (1996). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sweeney, C. (1998). Opening Pandora’s box through critical reflection: Changing my pedagogy. Teachers and Teaching, 6 (3), 1-6.
  23. Tennessee department of education. (2006). State of Tennessee statewide report card. Retrieved from
  24. VandeGrift, T., Wolfman, S.A., Yasuhara, K., & Anderson, R. (2000). Promoting interaction in large classes with a computer-mediated feedback system. Retrieved 9/04, 2005, from the World Wide Web:

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact