Engaging the control-value theory: a new era of student response systems and formative assessment to improve student achievement

  • Mary W. Paul Department of English, California State University, Fresno, CA, USA
  • Colleen Torgerson Kremen School of Education and Human Development, California State University, Fresno, CA, USA
  • Susan Tracz Kremen School of Education and Human Development, California State University, Fresno, CA, USA
  • Kimberly Coy Kremen School of Education and Human Development, California State University, Fresno, CA, USA
  • Juliet Wahleithner Kremen School of Education and Human Development, California State University, Fresno, CA, USA
Keywords: educational technology, student response systems, formative assessment, student achievement, mobile technology


The use of student response systems (SRS) in the form of polling and quizzing via multiple choice questions has been well documented in the literature (Caldwell 2007). This study addressed the gap in the literature and considered content-generating SRS, such as Socrative and Google Slides, during formative assessment activities in college composition courses. Content-generating SRS display student responses to formative assessment questions, and instructors are able to evaluate and adjust course material and feedback in real-time. Quantitative data measuring student perception using Likert-scale surveys and student achievement using essay scores were collected. The statistically significant results between the treatment and control groups for essay scores are objective measurements of student achievement and have implications for how to support both students and faculty in innovative curriculum design. Content-generating SRS allow for a more robust illustration of student understanding and can be adopted for larger lecture classes.


Download data is not yet available.


Bandura, A. (1977) ‘Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change’, Psychological Review, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 191–215. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191

Boyle, J. T. & Nicol, D. J. (2003) ‘Using classroom communication systems to support interaction and discussion in large class settings’, Research in Learning Technology, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 43–57. doi: 10.3402/rlt.v11i3.11284

Buil, I., Catalan, S. & Martínez, E. (2016) ‘Do clickers enhance learning? A control-value theory approach’, Computers & Education, vol. 103, pp. 170–182. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.10.009

Caldwell, J. E. (2007) ‘Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips’, CBE-Life Sciences Education, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 9–20. doi: 10.1187/cbe.06-12-0205

Carmines, E. & Zeller, R. (1979) Reliability and Validity Assessment (Quantitative applications in the social sciences; no. 07-017), Newbury Park, CA. doi: 10.4135/9781412985642

Chua, Z. & Jiang, Z. (2006) ‘Effects of anonymity, media richness, and chat-room activeness on online chatting’, Proceedings of 14th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Sweden, vol. 153, pp. 2336–2348, [online] Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5524/b4e0ba77491091af62fd8c47900bafb6402a.pdf

Conley, D. T. & French, E. M. (2014) ‘Student ownership of learning as a key component of college readiness’, American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 1018–1034. doi: 10.1177/0002764213515232

Davis, S. (2003) ‘Observations in classrooms using a network of handheld devices’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 298–307. doi: 10.1046/j.0266-4909.2003.00031.x

Fies, C. & Marshall, J. (2006) ‘Classroom response systems: a review of the literature’, Journal of Science Education and Technology, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 101–109. doi: 10.1007/s10956-006-0360-1

Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J. & Blanchard, C. (2000) ‘On the assessment of situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: the situational motivation scale (SIMS)’, Motivation and Emotion, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 175–213. doi: 10.1023/a:1005614228250

Hamari, J., et al., (2016) ‘Challenging games help students learn: an empirical study on engagement, flow and immersion in game-based learning’, Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 54, pp. 170–179. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.045

Hoekstra, A. (2008) ‘Vibrant student voices: exploring effects of the use of clickers in large college courses’, Learning, Media and Technology, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 329–341. doi: 10.1080/17439880802497081

Jackson, S. A. & Marsh, H. W. (1996) ‘Development and validation of a scale to measure optimal experience: the flow state scale’, Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 17–35. doi: 10.1123/jsep.18.1.17

Kaleta, R. & Joosten, T. (2007) ‘Student response systems’, Research Bulletin, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–12. doi: 10.4135/9781483346397.n281

Kettanurak, V. N., Ramamurthy, K. & Haseman, W. D. (2001) ‘User attitude as a mediator of learning performance improvement in an interactive multimedia environment: an empirical investigation of the degree of interactivity and learning styles’, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 541–583. doi: 10.1006/ijhc.2001.0457

Kulasegaram, K. & Rangachari, P. K. (2018) ‘Beyond “formative”: assessments to enrich student learning’, Advances in Physiology Education, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 5–14. doi: 10.1152/advan.00122.2017

Laxman, K. (2011) ‘A study on the adoption of clickers in higher education’, Australian Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 1291–1303. doi: 10.14742/ajet.894

Myers, C. B., et al., (2004) ‘Emerging online learning environments and student learning: an analysis of faculty perceptions’, Journal of Educational Technology & Society, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 78–81, [online] Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/jeductechsoci.7.1.78.pdf?casa_token=Bk1fzvlHmrgAAAAA:7sq6ovuEaXKUHhOPgwXCvlGXsgzlUuwm6zbTpYEzfJKU96Ly7zY4vXLVV6mR9Dr7Fr9BPuIR_x1KprYKvGAWMYtLIjrenx0bDVWZ0KgzWxoqiL5PGw

National Research Council. (2000) ‘Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning’, National Academies Press Washington, DC.

Ndoye, A. (2017) ‘Peer/self-assessment and student learning’, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 255–269, [online] Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1146193.pdf

Noel, D., Stover, S. & McNutt, M. (2015) ‘Student perceptions of engagement using mobile-based polling as an audience response system: implications for leadership studies’, Journal of Leadership Education, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 53–70. doi: 10.12806/v14/i3/r4

Nunnally, J. C. & Bernstein, I. H. (1994) Psychometric Theory. Series in Psychology, vol. 3, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Pekrun, R. (2000) ‘Motivational Psychology of Human Development’, Oxford, England: Elsevier.

Pekrun, R. (2006) ‘The control-value theory of achievement emotions: assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice’, Educational Psychology Review, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 315–341. doi: 10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9

Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J. & Maier, M. A. (2006) ‘Achievement goals and discrete achievement emotions: a theoretical model and prospective test’, Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 98, no. 3, p. 583. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.583

Pekrun, R., et al., (2007) ‘The control-value theory of achievement emotions: an integrative approach to emotions in education’, in Emotion in Education, Amsterdam: Academic Press, pp. 13–36. doi: 10.1016/b978-012372545-5/50003-4

Pekrun, R., et al., (2011) ‘Measuring emotions in students’ learning and performance: the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ)’, Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 36–48. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.002

Pekrun, R., Götz, T. & Perry, R. P. (2005) Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ), User’s manual, Unpublished Manuscript, University of Munich, Munich. doi: 10.1037/t21196-000

Perry, R., et al., (2001) ‘Academic control and action control in college students: a longitudinal study of self-regulation’, Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 93, pp. 776–789. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.93.4.776

Pintrich, P., et al., (1991) A Manual for the Use of Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, [online] Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED338122.pdf

Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000) ‘Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions’, Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 54–67. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

Spotts, T. H. (1999) ‘Discriminating factors in faculty use of instructional technology in higher education’, Educational Technology & Society, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 92–99, [online] Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/jeductechsoci.2.4.92.pdf?casa_token=KiQWblZnwv4AAAAA:gGiXxOe25zkKk9QSJyj_b1ftzmXhP2fwmd4UvOlSP-mlnW6OsZkSuAWp9Gc63-uZE1ZvtlMGTeCQQP4nE676ihIa58QrTohXgkr6v4qIY7cDo-y9pg

Weimer, M. (2013) Defining Teaching Effectiveness, [online] Available at: https://www.teachingprofessor.com/topics/for-those-who-teach/defining-teaching-effectiveness/

Wiggins, G. P. (1993) Assessing Student Performance: Exploring the Purpose and Limits of Testing, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Yoon, C. & Rolland, E. (2012) ‘Knowledge-sharing in virtual communities: familiarity, anonymity and self-determination theory’, Behavior & Information Technology, vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 1133–1143. doi: 10.1080/0144929x.2012.702355
How to Cite
Paul M. W., Torgerson C., Tracz S., Coy K., & Wahleithner J. (2020). Engaging the control-value theory: a new era of student response systems and formative assessment to improve student achievement. Research in Learning Technology, 28. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v28.2454
Original Research Articles