Educational Technology Research and Development

, Volume 65, Issue 6, pp 1425–1449 | Cite as

Student-generated questioning activity in second language courses using a customized personal response system: a case study

  • Donggil SongEmail author
  • Eun Young Oh
  • Krista Glazewski
Research Article


This case study reports on the implementation of student-generated questioning using a customized personal response system (PRS) by two groups of students in second language (L2) courses at a university in the United States. This study aimed to understand more about instructor and student experience with student-generated questioning for promoting student interaction in the L2 classroom, and sources for investigation included class observation, instructor interview, student survey, and pre/post-test. The results of this study indicated that the classroom interaction could be fostered through student-generated questioning with the support of PRS in L2 courses. In addition, there was a significant difference in students’ achievement between the pre- and post-test. The results are consistent with the findings of previous studies that student-generated questioning fosters collaborative interactions and increases frequency of student engagement. The results also suggest that the adoption of student-generate questioning with a technology support may result in promoting classroom interactions where the students are able to practice the target language through conversation with an instructor and peers.


Questioning Student-generated questioning Second language learning Personal response system Classroom interaction 


  1. Abrahamson, A. L., (1998), An overview of teaching and learning research with classroom communication systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Teaching of Mathematics, Samos, Greece.Google Scholar
  2. Berry, J. W., & Chew, S. L. (2008). Improving learning through interventions of student-generated questions and concept maps. Teaching of Psychology, 35(4), 305–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borich, G. D. (2013). Effective teaching methods: Research-based practice. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Boyle, O. F., & Peregoy, S. F. (1990). Literacy scaffolds: Strategies for first-and second-language readers and writers. The Reading Teacher, 44, 194–200.Google Scholar
  5. Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best practice tips. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cao, Y. (2011). Investigating situational willingness to communicate within second language classrooms from an ecological perspective. System, 39(4), 468–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cardoso, W. (2011). Learning a foreign language with a learner response system: the students’ perspective. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(5), 393–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chan, W. M., & Chi, S. W. (2010). A study of the learning goals of university students of Korean as a foreign language. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 7(1), 125–140.Google Scholar
  9. Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2002). Student-generated questions: A meaningful aspect of learning in science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 521–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ding, Y. (2007). Text memorization and imitation: The practices of successful Chinese learners of English. System, 35(2), 271–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dixon, L. Q., Zhao, J., Shin, J. Y., Wu, S., Su, J. H., Burgess-Brigham, R., et al. (2012). What we know about second language acquisition. A synthesis from four perspectives. Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 5–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–161). New York: MacMillan Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fößl, T., Ebner, M., Schön, S., & Holzinger, A. (2016). A field study of a video supported seamless-learning-setting with elementary learners. Educational Technology & Society, 19(1), 321–336.Google Scholar
  15. Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  16. Grabowski, B. L. (2004). Generative learning contributions to the design of instruction and learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 719–743). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Han, J. H., & Finkelstein, A. (2013). Understanding the effects of professors’ pedagogical development with Clicker Assessment and Feedback technologies and the impact on students’ engagement and learning in higher education. Computers & Education, 65, 64–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Janudom, R., & Wasanasomsithi, P. (2009). Drama and questioning techniques: Powerful tools for the enhancement of students’ speaking abilities and positive attitudes towards EFL learning. English for Specific Purposes (ESP) World, 5(26), 1–19.Google Scholar
  19. Jeon, M. (2007). Language ideologies and bilingual education: A Korean-American perspective. Language Awareness, 16(2), 114–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jung, E. H. (2004). Topic and subject prominence in interlanguage development. Language Learning, 54, 713–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kaleta, R., & Joosten, T. (2007). Student response systems: A University of Wisconsin system study of clickers. Educause Center for Applied Research Research Bulletin, 10(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
  22. Kessler, G. (2007). Formal and informal CALL preparation and teacher attitude toward technology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(2), 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom through reciprocal questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 664–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and notetaking-review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 303–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee, J. S. (2002). The Korean language in America: The role of cultural identity in heritage language learning. Language Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 117–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Li, J. (2010). Learning vocabulary via computer-assisted scaffolding for text processing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(3), 253–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lundeberg, M. A., Kang, H., Wolter, B., Armstrong, N., Borsari, B., Boury, N., et al. (2011). Context matters: Increasing understanding with interactive clicker case studies. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(5), 645–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marinescu, V., & Balica, E. (2013). Korean cultural products in Eastern Europe: A case study of the K-Pop impact in Romania region. Regional Studies of Russia, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia, 2(1), 113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  30. Mochizuki, N., & Ortega, L. (2008). Balancing communication and grammar in beginning-level foreign language classrooms: A study of guided planning and relativization. Language Teaching Research, 12(1), 11–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moore, K. D. (2005). Effective instructional strategies: From theory to practice. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  32. Morrison, J. R., Bol, L., Ross, S. M., & Watson, G. S. (2015). Paraphrasing and prediction with self-explanation as generative strategies for learning science principles in a simulation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(6), 861–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2001). Changing perspectives on good language learners. Tesol Quarterly, 35(2), 307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Allen, J. P. (2012). Teacher-student relationships and engagement: Conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the capacity of classroom interactions. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 365–386). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pufahl, I., & Rhodes, N. C. (2011). Foreign language instruction in US schools: Results of a national survey of elementary and secondary schools. Foreign Language Annals, 44(2), 258–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rodriguez, L. A., & Shepard, M. (2013). Adult English language learners’ perceptions of audience response systems (clickers) as communication aides: A Q-methodology study. TESOL Journal, 4(1), 182–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Saiz, A., & Zoido, E. (2005). Listening to what the world says: Bilingualism and earnings in the United States. Review of Economics and Statistics, 87(3), 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shim, D. (2006). Hybridity and the rise of Korean popular culture in Asia. Media, Culture and Society, 28(1), 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sireci, S. G. (1998). The construct of content validity. Social Indicators Research, 45(1–3), 83–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Song, D., & Kim, P. (2015). Inquiry-based mobilized math classroom with stanford mobile inquiry-based learning environment (SMILE). In H. Crompton & J. Traxler (Eds.), Mobilizing mathematics: Case studies of mobile learning being used in mathematics education (pp. 33–46). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Stowell, J. R., & Nelson, J. M. (2007). Benefits of electronic audience response systems on student participation, learning, and emotion. Teaching of Psychology, 34(4), 253–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sung, H., & Padilla, A. M. (1998). Student motivation, parental attitudes, and involvement in the learning of Asian languages in elementary and secondary schools. The Modern Language Journal, 82(2), 205–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Swain, M., Brooks, L., & Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002). 9. Peer-peer dialogue as a means of second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 171–185.Google Scholar
  44. Tan, Z. (2007). Questioning in Chinese university EL classrooms: What lies beyond it? RELC Journal, 38(1), 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Van Blerkom, D. L., Van Blerkom, M. L., & Bertsch, S. (2006). Study strategies and generative learning: What works? Journal of College Reading and Learning, 37(1), 7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 19(2), 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24(4), 345–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yang, J. S. R. (2003). Motivational orientations and selected learner variables of East Asian language learners in the United States. Foreign Language Annals, 36(1), 44–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yeh, H. C., & Yang, Y. F. (2011). Prospective teachers’ insights towards scaffolding students’ writing processes through teacher-student role reversal in an online system. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(3), 351–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceSam Houston State UniversityHuntsvilleUSA
  2. 2.Educational Technology, School of EducationSeoul National UniversitySeoulKorea
  3. 3.Department of Instructional Systems TechnologyIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations