Classroom clickers, also called group response systems, represent a form of technology-enhanced learning. An instructor can pose a question to the class during a lecture, and students can use their clicker devices to submit their answers. The system immediately aggregates the submissions and presents feedback to the instructor (and possibly the class).

This paper describes Informa, an extensible framework for building software-based group response systems. Informa is implemented as a distributed Java RMI application and distinguishes itself from traditional clickers in two key aspects: First, it allows for plug-ins to define the kinds of problems that can be posted (beyond the common multiple-choice). Second, it provides several levels of session anonymity, from completely anonymous sessions where the teacher does not know which student submitted which answer, all the way to authenticated sessions where students need to login when they join.

We have evaluated Informa in a pilot study during an undergraduate programming course, and we have found it to greatly enhance our insight into the students’ understanding of the material.


technology-enhanced learning classroom response systems 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bligh, D.A.: What’s The Use of Lectures. Jossey-Bass (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Penner, J.G.: Why many college teachers cannot lecture: How to avoid communication breakdown in the classroom. C.C. Thomas (1984)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abrahamson, A.L.: An overview of teaching and learning research with classroom communication systems (CCSs). In: Proceedings of the International Conference of the Teaching of Mathematics (June 1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Duncan, D.: Clickers in the Classroom. Pearson Education, London (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Draper, S.W., Cargill, J., Cutts, Q.: Electronically enhanced classroom interaction. Australian Journal of Educational Technology 18(1), 13–23 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roschelle, J., Vahey, P., Tatar, D., Kaput, J., Hegedus, S.: Five key considerations for networking in a handheld-based mathematics classroom. In: Proceedings of the 27th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (July 2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dillenbourg, P.: Over-scripting CSCL: The risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design, pp. 61–91. Open Universiteit Nederland, Heerlen (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Trees, A.R., Jackson, M.H.: The learning environment in clicker classrooms: Student processes of learning and involvement in large courses using student response systems. Learning, Media and Technology 32(1), 21–40 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Roschelle, J., Penuel, W.R., Abrahamson, L.: Classroom response and communication systems: Research review and theory. In: Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (April 2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fies, C., Marshall, J.: Classroom response systems: A review of the literature 15(1), 101–109 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koile, K., Singer, D.: Development of a tablet-pc-based system to increase instructor-student classroom interactions and student learning. In: Workshop on the Impact of Pen-based Technology on Education (April 2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Koile, K., Singer, D.: Improving learning in cs1 with tablet-pc-based in-class assessment. In: Second International Computing Education Research Workshop (submitted)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ICST Institute for Computer Science, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthias Hauswirth
    • 1
  1. 1.University of LuganoLuganoSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations