A Comparison on Behavioral Patterns of Engagement Between Two Different Classroom Settings: With and Without Student Response Systems (SRS)

  • Pooveneswaran Nadarajan Centre for Languages and General Studies, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjong Malim, Perak, MALAYSIA
  • Maizatulliza Muhamad Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Languages and Communication, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tanjong Malim, Perak, MALAYSIA
Keywords: Student Response System, Students’ Engagement, English Language, Language Teaching And Learning


This study investigated the impact of student response system (SRS) on students’ engagement in English language proficiency classrooms. It compared patterns of engagement exhibited by students’ physical behaviours during language classroom activities in two different settings – with and without the use of SRS. This qualitative study gathered data through classroom observations using field notes and observational checklist. All the data were analysed qualitatively using thematic analysis approach. Altogether, three lessons utilizing SRS and three lesson without the utilization of SRS were observed and analysed. The findings showed that students’ behaviours during lessons with SRS indicated positive engagement in the classrooms unlike their behaviours during lessons without SRS. The results of this study implied that SRS could be a preferred choice of interactive, educational tools that could help educators to engage their students during the process of language teaching and learning.


Download data is not yet available.


Adi Bhat. (2019). Non-probability sampling: Definition, methods and examples. Retrieved on 1 September 2019, from https://www.coursehero.com/file/55624862/Non-Probability-Sampling-Definition-Methods-and-Examplespdf/

Behroozizad, S., Nambiar, R., & Amir, Z. (2012). The relationship between language learning strategies and teacher's mediating role. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 18(2), 35-48.

Bucholz, J.L., & Sheffler, J.L. (2009). Creating a warm and inclusive classroom environment: Planning for all children to feel welcome. Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, 2(4), 1-14.

Bundick, M. J., Quaglia, R. J., Corso, M. J., Haywood, D. E. (2014). Promoting student engagement in the classroom. Teachers College Record, 116(4), 1-18.

Dorman, J.P., Aldridge, J.M. & Fraser, B.J. (2006). Using students' assessment of classroom environment to develop a typology of secondary school classrooms. International Education Journal, 7(7), 906-915.

Egelandsdal, K., & Krumsvik, R. J. (2017). Clickers and formative feedback at university lectures. Education and Information Technologies, 22(1), 55-74.

Fredricks, J. A., & McColskey, W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 763- 782). Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_37

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept: State of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59– 119.

Fui-Theng, L., & Mai, N. (2014). Interactive multimedia learning: Innovating classroom education in a Malaysian university. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(2), 99-110.

Gee, J. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gressick, J., & Langston, J. (2017). The guilded classroom: Using gamification to engage and motivate undergraduates. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 17(3), 109-123.

Kazmi, A. (2010). Sleepwalking through Undergrad: Using Student Engagement as an Institutional Alarm Clock. College Quarterly, 13(1), 1-15.

Lane, B. E. S., & Harris, S. E. (2015). A new tool for measuring student BERI protocol. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(6), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050243

Lin, D.T.A., Ganapathy, M., & Kaur, M. (2018). Kahoot! It: gamification in higher education. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 26(1), 565-582.

Mardziah H. Abdullah, Ho, S.W., & Wong, B. E. (2015). Delivering the Elex package: An English language experience approach for developing undergraduates' language proficiency. Journal of Language and Communication, 2(2), 119-132.

Menon, S. (2017). Use of English at tertiary level. The Star Online. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com.my/news/education/2017/11/12/use-of-english-at-tertiary-level/

Mustapha, S. M., & Nik Abdul Rahman, N. S. (2011). Classroom participation patterns: A case study of malaysian undergraduate students. International Journal for Educational Studies, 3(2), 145–158. htthttps://doi.org/10.2121/edu-ijes.v3i2.234

North, B. (2015). The CEFR in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pappamihiel, N. E. (2002). English as a second language students and English language anxiety: Issues in the mainstream classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 36(3), 327-356.

Plump, C., & LaRosa, J. (2017). Using Kahoot! in the classroom to create engagement and active learning: A game-based technology solution for eLearning novices. Management Teaching Review, 2(2), 151-158. https://doi.org/10.1177/2379298116689783

Shin, Y., Park, J., & Lee, S. (2017). Improving the integrated experience of in-class activities and fine-grained data collection for analysis in a blended learning class. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(5), 597-612. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2017.1374980

Star. (2019). The Star Online. Maszlee: Student-based learning the way forward. Retrieved 3 November 2020, from https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2019/01/24/maszlee-studentbased-learning-the-way-forward

Star. (2017). The Star Online. English proficiency still a big problem for many M’sian grads. Retrieved 26 May 2018, from https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2017/01/21/english-proficiency-still-a-big-problem-for-many-msian-grads/

Sun, R., & Shek, D. (2012). Student classroom misbehavior: An exploratory study based on teachers' perceptions. The Scientific World Journal, 2012, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1100/2012/208907

Taylor, L., & Parsons, J. (2011). Improving student engagement. Current Issues in Education, 14, 1-32.

Thomas, C. N., Pinter, E. B., Carlisle, A., & Goran, L. (2015). Student response systems. Journal of Special Education Technology, 30(4), 223–237.

Vygotsky. L. S. (1978). Mind in the society: The development of higher psychological process. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wang, A., & Tahir, R. (2020). The effect of using Kahoot! for learning – A literature review. Computers & Education, 149, 1-22.

Wang, A., Saetre, R., & Zhu, M. (2016). The effect of digitizing and gamifying quizzing in classrooms. In 10th European Conference on Game Based Learning (ECGBL). Paisley, Scotland.

Wang, A. (2015). The wear out effect of a game-based student response system. Computers & Education, 82, 217-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.004

Wang, M., & Holcombe, R. (2010). Adolescents’ perceptions of school environment, engagement, and academic achievement in middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 633-662. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209361209

Woldemichael, D. E. (2018). Enhancing active learning in large classes using web clicker. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 26(1), 111–120.

How to Cite
Nadarajan, P., & Muhamad, M. (2021). A Comparison on Behavioral Patterns of Engagement Between Two Different Classroom Settings: With and Without Student Response Systems (SRS). Asian Journal of Assessment in Teaching and Learning, 11(1), 73-84. https://doi.org/10.37134/ajatel.vol11.1.7.2021