Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 17, Issue 5, pp 483–499 | Cite as

The C3 Framework: Evaluating Classroom Response System Interactions in University Classrooms



The larger the classroom, the more likely is it that communications consist of a one-way flow from the instructor to students. Classroom Response Systems (CRSs) are frequently hailed as technologies capable of improving communications by opening the space for dialogic engagement; yet, a causal relationship is not documented in the literature. The data reported on here stem from a mixed methodology study and provide insights into motivations for CRS use and enacted CRS use across disciplines, as well as student and instructor perceptions of the tool’s effects on teaching and learning. From these data emerged a framework of interaction (the C3 Framework) that situates CRS use from both the instructors’ and learners’ perspectives. The framework consists of an interdependent relationship between Concerns, Centeredness, and Control of discourse. Although this study took place in university classrooms, the C3 Framework presented here applies across educational settings.


Classroom Response System Educational technology Discourse Motivation 


  1. Abrahamson L (2006) A brief history of networked classrooms: effects, cases, pedagogy, and implications. In: Banks DA (ed) Audience response systems in higher education: applications and cases. Information Science Publishing, Hershey, PA, p 405Google Scholar
  2. Alderfer T (2005) CAMPUS: costly classroom response system shelved—Technical problems said to dog pilot project, but is it just student apathy? Retrieved 21 January, 2006, from
  3. Ames C, Archer J (1988) Achievement goals in the classroom: students’ learning strategies and motivation processes. J Educ Psychol 80(3):260–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bransford JD, Brown AL, Cocking RR (eds) (2000) How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school (expanded edition). National Research Council, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. Bromley H (1998) Introduction: data-driven democracy? Social assessment of educational computing. In: Bromley H, Apple MW (eds) Education/technology/power. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, pp 1–25Google Scholar
  6. Carnevale D (2005) Run a class like a game show: ‘clickers’ keep students involved. Chronicle Higher Educ 51(42):B3Google Scholar
  7. Draper SW, Brown MI (2004) Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. J Comput Assist Learn 20:81–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elliott ES, Dweck CS (1988) Goals: an approach to motivation and achievement. J Pers Soc Psychol 54(1):5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fies C (2005) Classroom response systems: what do they add to an active learning environment? (Publication no. AAT 3195271). from ProQuest Digital Dissertations
  10. Fies C, Marshall J (2006) Classroom response systems: a review of the literature. J Sci Educ Technol 15(1):101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldstein LS (1999) The relational zone: the role of caring relationships in the co-construction of mind. Am Educ Res J 36(3):647–673Google Scholar
  12. Gutiérrez R (2002) Change in classroom relations: an attempt that signals some difficulties. J Manage Educ 26(5):527–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hafner K (2004) In class, the audience weighs in. Available at: Retrieved 29 April 2004
  14. Hickey DT (2003) Engaged participation versus marginal nonparticipation: a stridently sociocultural approach to achievement motivation. Elementary School J 103(4):401–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Judson E, Sawada D (2002) Learning from past and present: electronic response systems in college lecture halls. J Comput Math Sci Teach 21(2):167–181Google Scholar
  16. Kennedy GE, Cutts QI (2005) The association between students’ use of an electronic voting system and their learning outcomes. J Comput Assist Learn 21:260–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  18. Mazur E (1997) Peer instruction: a user’s manual. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  19. McDermott LC (1993) How we teach and how students learn—a mismatch? Am J Phys 61(4):295–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meltzer DE, Manivannan K (1996) Promoting interactivity in physics lecture classes. Phys Teach 34:72–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mestre JP, Gerace WJ, Dufresne RJ, Leonard WJ (1997) Promoting active learning in large classes using a classroom communication system*. Paper presented at the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education (ICUPE)Google Scholar
  22. Murphy PK, Alexander PA (2000) A motivated exploration of motivation terminology. Contemp Educ Psychol 25(1):3–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Noddings N (1984) Caring, a feminine approach to ethics & moral education. University of California Press, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  24. Papert S (1997) Why school reform is impossible. J Learn Sci 6(4):417–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Paschal CB (2002) Formative assessment in physiology teaching using a wireless classroom communication system. Adv Physiol Educ 26(4):299–308Google Scholar
  26. Penuel WR, Abrahamson AL, Roschelle J (2006) Theorizing the networked classroom: a sociocultural interpretation of the effects of audience response systems in higher education. In: Banks D (ed) Audience response systems in higher education: applications and cases. Information Science Publishing, Hershey, PA, pp 187–208Google Scholar
  27. Pintrich PR (2000) An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology, theory, and research. Contemp Educ Psychol 25(1):92–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Price EP (2004) Institutional and instructor factors affecting implementation of class response systems. AAPT Announ 34(4):111Google Scholar
  29. Strauss A, Corbin J (1998) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  30. Wentzel KR (2000) What is it that i’m trying to achieve? Classroom goals from a content perspective. Contemp Educ Psychol 25(1):105–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Windschitl M (2002) Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: an analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Rev Educ Res 72(2):131–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhao Y, Pugh K, Sheldon S, Byers JL (2002) Conditions for classroom technology innovations. Teach Coll Rec 104(3):482–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Education and Human Development, Interdisciplinary Learning and TeachingThe University of Texas at San AntonioSan AntonioUSA
  2. 2.College of Education, Curriculum and InstructionThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations