Student feedback in the college classroom: A technology solution

  • James L. Fitch


Technology in the university classrooms has made great strides in the area of presentation of materials. Ceiling-mounted projectors and media carts with projection capabilities have made the multimedia classroom presentation a routine event for much of the worl of higher education. Now there is technology that permits the instructor to solicit student responses during class via wireless keypads. This allows all students to respond simultaneously and the instructor to know the results immediately. This article reports the results of a pilot study on student reaction to a specific system (LearnStar). Students were uniformly positive in their appraisal of this technology as a teaching tool.


Educational Technology Learning Style Student Feedback Communication Disorder Projection Capability 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Berge, Z. (1999). Interaction in post-secondary Webbased learning.Educational Technology, 39(1) 5–11.Google Scholar
  2. Blake, R. (2002). Faculty incentive grants awarded academic year 2002–2003— LearnStar:Invigorating undergraduate education. Retrieved April 15, 2003, from Texas Tech University, Teaching, Learning, and Technology Center Web site: Scholar
  3. Borsook, T., & Higginbotham-Wheat, N. (1991). Interactivity: What is it and what can it do for computer-based instruction?Educational Technology, 31(10), 11–17.Google Scholar
  4. Classroom Performance System (CPS). (n.d.). Retrieved April, 15, 2003, from plate.cfm?color=blue&link=learnaboutcps.Google Scholar
  5. ClassTalk. (n.d.). Retrieved April, 18, 2003, from University of Massachusetts, Teaching Development Opportunities Web site: Scholar
  6. Cronin, M. (1993). Teaching listening skills via interactive videodisc.Technological Horizons in Education, 21(5), 62–67.Google Scholar
  7. Egbert, J., & Thomas, M. (2001). The New Frontier: A Case Study in Applying Instruction Design for Distance Teacher Education.Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(3), 391–404.Google Scholar
  8. James, R., Lamb, C., Baily, M., & Householder, D. (2000). Integrating Science, Mathematics, and Technology in Middle School Technology-Rich Environments: A Study of Implementation and Change.School Science and Mathematics, 100, 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. King, J., & Doerfert, D. (1996). Interaction in the distance education setting. Retrieved March 12, 2003, from University of Missouri, Social Sciences Unit Web site: Scholar
  10. Milheim, W. (1995–96). Interactivity and computer-based instruction.Journal of Education Technology Systems, 24(3), 225–233.Google Scholar
  11. Miller, M. (1995). Technoliteracy and the New Professor.New Literacy History, 26(3), 601–611.Google Scholar
  12. Notar, C., Wilson, J., Restauri, S., & Friery, K. (2002). Going the Distance: Active Learning.Education, 122(4), 649–656.Google Scholar
  13. Personal Response System (PRS) (2003). Scholar
  14. Pritchard, W., Micceri, T., & Barrett, J. (1989). A review of computer-based training materials: Current state of the art (instruction and interaction).Educational Technology, 29(7), 16–22.Google Scholar
  15. Schroeder, C. (1993). New students-new learning styles.Change 25(5), 21–26.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • James L. Fitch
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Communication DisordersSpeech and Hearing Clinic, at Auburn University

Personalised recommendations