Abstracts
Résumé
L’utilisation des systèmes à réponses personnalisées (SPR) est de plus en plus fréquente dans les salles de classe universitaires. Ce texte à caractère didactique décrit ce que sont ces systèmes et tente de montrer les liens existant entre ces outils technologiques et l’évaluation formative. Cette analyse aborde les dimensions suivantes : 1) la présence au cours et la motivation en cours, 2) la rétroaction, 3) l’ano - nymat, 4) les coûts, 5) l’impact de l’utilisation des SRP sur les apprentissages des étudiants, 6) l’apprentissage de l’environnement des SRP et les considérations techniques et 7) les types d’items et le développement de ces derniers.
Mots-clés :
- télévoteur,
- système de réponse personnalisée,
- évaluation formative,
- salle de classe,
- pédagogie universitaire
Abstract
The use of the personal response systems (PRS) is more and more frequent in the university classrooms. This article addresses a pedagogical point of view describing what these systems are and try to show the existing links between these technological tools and the formative assessment. Our analysis take into account the following dimensions: 1) attendance and the student’s motivation, 2) feedback, 3) anonymity, 4) costs, 5) impact of the use of the PRS on the learning outcomes, 6) learning the environment of the SRP and the technical considerations and 7) types of items and the development of these items.
Keywords:
- clickers,
- personal response system,
- formative assessment,
- classroom,
- university teaching
Resumo
A utilização de sistemas de repostas personalizadas (SRP) é cada vez mais frequente nas salas de aula universitárias. Este texto de caráter didático descreve o que são estes sistemas e tenta mostrar as ligações existentes entre estes instrumentos tecnológicos e a avaliação formativa. Esta análise aborda as seguintes dimensões : 1) a presença e a motivação do estudante ; 2) feedback, 3) anonimato; 4) custos, 5) impacto do uso dos SRP sobre as aprendizagens dos estudantes, 6) a aprendizagem do ambiente dos SRP e as considerações técnicas e 7) os tipos de itens e o seu desenvolvimento.
Palavras chaves:
- televoto,
- sistema de respostas personalizadas,
- avaliação formativa,
- sala de aula,
- pedagogia universitária
Download the article in PDF to read it.
Download
Appendices
Références
- Allai, L. (1988). Vers un élargissement de la pédagogie de la maîtrise: processus de régulation interactive, rétroactive et proactive. Dans M. Huberman (dir.), Assurer la réussite des apprentissages scolaires. Les propositions de la pédagogie de maîtrise (pp. 86126). Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé.
- Allal, L. (1991). Vers une pratique de l'évaluation formative: Matériel deformation continue des enseignants. Bruxelles: DeBoeck Université.
- Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Inside the black box, raising standards through classroom assessment. Extrait de http://blog.discoveryeducation.com/assessment/files/2009/02/blackbox_article.pdf.
- Bloom B. S. (éd.) (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals - Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.
- Boston, C. (2002). The concept of formative assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(9). Extrait de http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=9.
- Boyle, J., & Nicol, D. (2003). Using classroom communication systems to support interaction and discussion in large class settings. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 11(3), 43-57.
- Bradburn, N., Sudman, S., & Wansink, B. (2004). Asking questions: The def initive guide to questionnaire design - for market research, political polls, and social and health questionnaires (2e éd.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- Bruff, D. (2009). Teaching with classroom systems: creating active learning environments. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best practice tips. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9-20. doi:10.1187/cbe.06-12-0205
- Cohen, L. J. (2003). The development and validation of the seating and mobility script concordance test (SMSCT). (Thèse de doctorat non-publiée). University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
- Colton, D., & Covert, R. W. (2007). Designing and constructing instruments for social research and evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- Davies, A. (2007). Making classroom assessment work (2e éd.). Courtenay, BC: Connections publication.
- DeBourgh, G. A. (2007). Use of classroom clickers to promote acquisition of advanced reasoning skills. Nurse Education in Practice, 8, 76-87. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2007.02.002
- Depover, C., Karsenti, T., & Komis, V. (2009). Enseigner avec les technologies: Favoriser les apprentissages, développer des compétences. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université du Québec.
- Fies, C., & Marshall, J. (2006). Classroom response systems: A review of litterature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 101-109. doi:10.1007/s10956-006-0360-1
- Good, R. (2011). Formative Use of Assessment Information: it’s a Process, So Let’s Say What We Mean. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 16(3). Extrait de http://pareonline.net/pdf/v16n3.pdf.
- Haladyna, T. M., Downing, S. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 15(3), 309-334. doi:10.1207/S15324818AME1503_5
- Homme, J., Asay, G., & Morgenstern, B. (2004). Utilization of an audience response system. Medical Education, 38(5), 575.
- Jefferson, W., & Spiegel, D. (2009). Implementation of a university standard for personal response systems. AACE Journal, 17(1), 1-9.
- Kenwright, K. (2009). TechTrends, 53(1), 74-77.
- Legendre, R. (2005). Dictionnaire actuel de l'éducation (3e éd.). Montréal: Guérin.
- Léger, M., Bourque, J., & Richard, J.-F. (2010). Influence des télévoteurs sur le résultat scolaire: une méta-analyse. Revue internationale des technologies en pédagogie universitaire, 7(2), 35-47. Extrait de http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/045247ar.
- McMillan, J. H. (2001). Classroom assessment: Principles and practice for effective instruction (2e éd.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
- Meedzan, N., & Fisher, K. (2009). Clickers in nursing education: An active learning tool in the classroom. Online Journal of Nursing Informatics, 13(2), 1-19.
- Moredich, C., & Moore, E., (2007). Engaging students through the use of classroom response systems. Nurse Educator, 32(3), 113-116. doi:10.1097/01.NNE.0000270225.76661.74
- Moss, K., & Crowley, M. (2011). Effective learning in science: The use of personal response systems with a wide range of audiences. Computers & Education, 56(1), 36-43. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.021
- Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. (2007). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (2e éd., p. 94-131). Upper Saddle River New Jersey: Pearson.
- Ribbens, R. (2007). Why I like clicker personal response systems. Journal of College Science Teaching, 37(2), 60-63.
- Scallon, G. (1988). L'évaluation formative des apprentissages. Tome 1: La réflexion. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval.
- Scallon, G. (1999). L’évaluation formative des apprentissages. Tome 2: L 'instrumentation. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval.
- Scallon, G. (2000). L'évaluation formative. Montréal: ERPI.
- Stein, P. S., Challman, S. D., & Brueckner, J. K. (2006). Using audience response technology for pretest reviews in an undergraduate nursing course. Journal of Nursing Education, 45(11), 469-473.
- Sullivan, R. (2009). Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 37(3), 335-347. doi:10.2190/ET.37.3.i
- Tomanek, D., Talanquer, V., & Novodvorsky, I. (2008). What do science teachers consider when selecting formative assessment tasks? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(10), 1113-1130. doi:10.1002/tea.20247
- Uhari, M., Renko, M., & Soini, H. (2003). Experiences of using an interactive audience response system in lectures. BMC Medical Education, 3(12). doi:10.1186/1472-6920-3-12
- Williamson Sprague, E., & Dahl, D. W. (2010). Evaluation of the personal response system clicker technology in introductory marketing courses. Journal of Marketing Education, 32(93). doi:10.1177/0273475309344806
10.7202/045247ar