Student response systems in a technology enhanced flipped classroom : A qualitative investigation in higher education

Disruptive technology and a generation with an increased interest in using that technology to aid their learning has caused a need to change the current educational landscape. Student Response Systems are a contemporary means to integrate digital technology in the modern classroom. The purpose of this qualitative study is to examine the perspectives that impact students' engagement when using Student Response Systems in a technology enhanced classroom environment. The study was guided by qualitative methods of inquiry through nonparticipant observations, examination of the course material, and semi-structured interviews. The in-depth interviews (n = 14) were conducted with graduate students who participated in the technology enhanced flipped classroom (TEFC) during their STEM degree studies in southern Sweden. The collected data were analyzed through the means of content analysis. The results of the study show that Student Response Systems are an effective and innovative method to increase students’ engagement in the classroom and embrace a modern learning environment. The participants expressed a positive impact on their willingness to participate in classroom discussions and share their respective views. A drawback that was mentioned is the dissatisfaction to invest more time in preparation ahead of the discussion, compared to lecture-based learning. The Student Response Systems increased the graduate students’ esteem to comfortably engage in classroom discussions and offers educators an additional tool to enhance their current pedagogical methods. The study contributes to the body of knowledge by closing an identified research gap that lacks perceptions from graduate students in a STEM program in southern Sweden. There are a few limitations that the reader should consider. The collected data pertains to graduate-level studies in a STEM degree program. Further, ample data were collected through multiple sources; however, the reflections are limited to 14 interview participants and are, therefore, not generalizable to other populations than those examined in the context