本研究的目的是藉由實際測量學生的單字學習的進步成果來探討線上反饋系統對於第二語言學習者的學習成效。實驗結束後所進行的問卷調查與訪談結果也會納入實驗結果的討論，以更深入了解學習者的想法。

研究對象為台灣某國中兩個班級共五十四位八年級的學生。其中的二十七位學生組成控制組，上課中藉由PowerPoint來做單字的練習並用口頭回答；另外的二十七位學生組成實驗組，上課中藉由線上反饋系統---Nearpod來做單字的練習並被要求使用Nearpod反饋系統來回傳答案給老師。在實驗開始前，兩組學生都先接受單字翻譯的前測，以了解學生的先備知識。接著，在兩次的課堂中，實驗組和控制組的學生都閱讀相同的閱讀素材並做相同的單字填空練習。實驗組的學生需使用Nearpod傳送答案給老師而控制組的學生是看完PowerPoint簡報軟體的題目後用口頭回答老師。兩組的學生皆在課堂練習後接受單字翻譯和拼字的立即後測，以了解學生的立即成效。在課程結束的一週後，進行單字翻譯和拼字的延宕後測來了解兩組學生的單字學習效果的持久性。實驗組的學生在延宕後測後施以問卷調查並進行訪談，以了解學生在課堂中使用Nearpod學習單字的感受與想法。

研究結果顯示，實驗組和控制組的學生在單字翻譯方面皆有顯著的進步。然而，不論是在立即後測或延宕後測中，實驗組學生的進步分數皆高於控制組學生的進步分數且達到統計上顯著水準。不論是在高成就群或低成就群，亦是實驗組顯著高於控制組。更進一步說明，實驗組的低成就學習者的進步分數相當於控制組的低成就學習者的兩倍之多。但是在拼字能力方面，兩組學生在立即後測與延宕後測中並無顯著差異。實驗組的學生在問卷與訪談中對於在課堂中使用Nearpod教學大部分抱持正面的態度，他們認為Nearpod可以提升他們的學習動機和課堂參與度，並提供來自教師的立即回饋，這對於他們的學習有很大的幫助。學生的回饋中也指出使用Nearpod的缺點以及對線上反饋系統的建議皆在研究中討論。

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of utilizing mobile IRS in an EFL classroom situation by examining the actual learning gains empirically and analyzing the questionnaire and the semi-structured oral interview with the learners to better understand the learners’ perceptions toward the use of mobile IRS in class.

The participants consisted of 54 eighth graders in a junior high school in Taiwan. Twenty-seven of them were recruited to form the non-Nearpod-supported group and were asked to practice the target words through PowerPoint slides and answer the questions orally. The other twenty-seven participants were recruited to form the Nearpod-supported group and were asked to answer the questions by transmitting the answers to the instructor through the mobile IRS application, Nearpod. The participants in both groups all took a vocabulary translation pretest first. During the two-period session, all the participants read the same reading materials and were required to respond to the same sets of fill-in-the-blank target word practice. Afterwards, the participants in both groups took immediate vocabulary translation posttests and vocabulary spelling posttests to find out how much they progressed on the knowledge of the target words. One week later, delayed posttests of vocabulary translation and vocabulary spelling were conducted to examine vocabulary retention. Afterwards, a questionnaire and a semi-structured oral interview with the learners were conducted to better understand the learners’ perceptions toward the use of mobile IRS in class.

The results indicated that the participants in Nearpod-supported group and non-Nearpod-supported group made significant progress in the vocabulary translation test after the vocabulary practice. Further, the participants of Nearpod-supported group significantly outperformed those of non-Nearpod-supported group in terms of the mean gain scores of the vocabulary translation immediate posttest and the delayed posttest. More specifically, the low achievers in the Nearpod-supported group made gains in scores twice as high as the low achievers in the non-Nearpod-supported group. However, no significant differences were found in the scores of vocabulary spelling tests between the two groups. Further, the participants of the Nearpod-supported group showed favorable attitudes toward the implementation of mobile IRS in the classroom. The use of mobile IRS could enhance their motivation and participation in class, and it provided immediate feedback from the instructor, which was helpful for their learning. The participants also identified several disadvantages of utilizing mobile IRS in class and provided suggestions for improving the system.

REFERENCES
Agostini, A., Di Biase, E., & Loregian, M. (2010, March). Stimulating cooperative and participative learning to match digital natives' needs. In Pervasive Computing
and Communications Workshops (PERCOM Workshops), 2010 8th IEEE International Conference on (pp. 274-279). IEEE.
Ahmed, K., & Nasser, O. (2015). Incorporating iPad technology: Creating more effective language classrooms. TESOL Journal, 6(4), 751-765.
Allwright, R. L. (1984). The importance of interaction in classroom language learning. Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 156-171.
Ally, M. (2009). Mobile learning: transforming the delivery of education and training. Edmonton, AB: AU Press.
Aslan, S., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2011). A trip to the past and future of educational computing: Understanding its evolution. Contemporary Educational Technology, 2(1), 1-17.
Auras, R., & Bix, L. (2007). Wake up! The effectiveness of a student response system in large packaging classes. Packaging Technology and Science, 20(3), 183-195.
Auras, R., Bali, V. A., & Bix, L. (2010). Students Opinions of a Student Response System for Introductory Packaging Classes. NACTA Journal, 54(3), 2-8.
Barnett, J. (2006). Implementation of personal response units in very large lecture classes: Student perceptions. Australasian Journal of EducationalTechnology, 22(4), 474-494.
Beatty, I. D. (2004). Transforming student learning with classroom communication systems. EDUCAUSE Research Bulletin, 1-13.
Beatty, I. D., Leonard, W. J., Gerace, W. J., & Dufresne, R. J. (2006). Question driven instruction: Teaching science (well) with an audience response system.
In Audience Response Systems in Higher Education: Applications and Cases (pp. 96-115). IGI Global.
Beekes, W. (2006). The ‘millionaire’method for encouraging participation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 7(1), 25-36.
Bensoussan, M., & Laufer, B. (1984). Lexical guessing in context in EFL reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 7(1), 15-32.
Blodgett, D. L. (2006). The effects of implementing an interactive student response system in a college algebra classroom (Doctoral dissertation, The University of
Maine).
Boyle, J. (2006). Eight years of asking questions. In Audience response systems in highereducation: Applications and cases (pp. 289-304). IGI Global.
Boyle, J. T., & Nicol, D. J. (2003). Using classroom communication systems to support interaction and discussion in large class settings. ALT-J, 11(3), 43-57.
Bransford, J., Brophy, S., & Williams, S. (2000). When computer technologies meet the learning sciences: Issues and opportunities. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 21(1), 59-84.
Brewer, C. A. (2004). Near real-time assessment of student learning and understanding in biology courses. BioScience, 54(11), 1034-1039.
Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE-Life sciences education, 6(1), 9-20.
Cardoso, W. (2011). Learning a foreign language with a learner response system: The students' perspective. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(5), 393-417.
Carver, R.P. (1994) Percentage of unknown vocabulary words in text as a function of the relative difficulty of the text: implications for instruction. Journal of Reading Behavior 26(4): 413-437.
Chen, X. B., & Kessler, G. (2013). Action research tablets for informal language learning: Student usage and attitudes. Language Learning & Technology, 17(1),
20-36.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 3, 7.
Collins, L. J. (2007). Livening up the classroom: Using audience response systems to promote active learning. Medical reference services quarterly, 26(1), 81-88.
Craik, F. I., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 268.
Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970-977.
Crouch, C. H., Watkins, J., Fagen, A. P., & Mazur, E. (2007). Peer instruction: Engaging students one-on-one, all at once. Research-Based Reform of University
Physics, 1(1), 40-95.
Cue, N. (1998, December). A universal learning tool for classrooms. In Proceedings of the First Quality in Teaching and Learning Conference (pp. 10-12). China: Hong
Kong International Trade and Exhibition Center (HITEC).
Cutrim, E. S. (2008). Using a voting system in conjunction with interactive whiteboard technology to enhance learning in the English language classroom. Computers & Education, 50(1), 338-356.
Dalziel, B., Gosbell, I. B., Jensen, S. O., & Espedido, B. (2014). Clinical classrooms:
Reflections on the choice of technologies when creating a new blended learning experience. Proceedings of the 9th International LAMS and Learning Design
Conference: Innovation in Learning Design, 26th-27th November 2014, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (pp. 57-64).
Delacruz, S. (2014). Using Nearpod in elementary guided reading groups. TechTrends, 58(5), 62-69.
d'Inverno, R., Davis, H., & White, S. (2003). Using a personal response system forpromoting student interaction. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 22(4), 163-169.
Draper, S. W., & Brown, M. I. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(2), 81-94.
Draper, S., Cargill, J., & Cutts, Q. (2002). Electronically enhanced classroom interaction. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 18(1), 13-23.
Ehri, L. C. (1997). Learning to read and learning to spell are one and the same, almost.In C. A. Perfetti, L. Rieben, & M. Fayol (Eds.), Learning to spell: Research,
theory, and practice across languages (pp. 237–269). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Elliott, C. (2003). Using a personal response system in economics teaching. International Review of Economics Education, 1(1), 80-86.
ElliS, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
El-Rady, J. (2006). To click or not to click: That's the question. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 2(4), 6.
Evans, C., & Gibbons, N. J. (2007). The interactivity effect in multimedia learning. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1147-1160.
Fagen, A. P., Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2002). Peer instruction: Results from a range of classrooms. The Physics Teacher, 40(4), 206-209.
Fies, C., & Marshall, J. (2006). Classroom response systems: A review of the literature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 101-109.
Folse, K. S. (2006). The effect of type of written exercise on L2 vocabulary retention. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 273-293.
Fraser, C. (1999). Lexical processing strategy use and vocabulary learning through reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(2), 225–241.
Frontiera, C. (2013). Nearpod: A Way to Organize a Mobile Learning Environment.
Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology, 1418-1423.
Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of interaction: The critical predictor in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 7(3), 8-21.
Gass, S. M. (1988). Integrating Research Areas: A Framework for Second Language Studies1. Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 198-217.
Graham, C. R., Tripp, T. R., Seawright, L., & Joeckel, G. (2007). Empowering or compelling reluctant participators using audience response systems. ActiveLearning in Higher Education, 8(3), 233-258.
Greer, L., & Heaney, P. J. (2004). Real-time analysis of student comprehension: An assessment of electronic student response technology in an introductory earth
science course. Journal of Geoscience Education, 52(4), 345-351.
Häkkinen, P., & Hämäläinen, R. (2012). Shared and personal learning spaces: Challenges for pedagogical design. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(4), 231-236.
Henderson, S., & Yeow, J. (2012, January). iPad in education: A case study of iPad adoption and use in a primary school. System science (hicss), 2012 45th
hawaii international conference on (pp. 78-87). IEEE.
Heyde, A. W. (1979). The relationship between self esteem and the oral production of a second language. Second Language: Trends in Research and Practice. INSTITUTION Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 226-240.
Hill, M., & Laufer, B. (2003). Type of task, time-on-task and electronic dictionaries in incidental vocabulary acquisition. International Review of Applied
Linguistics, 41(2), 87-106.
Hirsh, D. and Nation, P. (1992). What vocabulary size is needed to read unsimplified texts for pleasure? Reading in a Foreign Language, 8(2), 689-696.
Huckin, T., & Coady, J. (1999). Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: A review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 181–193.
Hulstijn, J. H. (1992). Retention of inferred and given word meanings: Experiments in incidental vocabulary learning. Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 113-125). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hutchison, A., Beschorner, B., & Schmidt‐Crawford, D. (2012). Exploring the use of the iPad for literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 66(1), 15-23.
Jones, C., Connolly, M., Gear, A., & Read, M. (2001). Group interactive learning with group process support technology. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 32(5), 571-586.
Judson, E., & Sawada, D. (2002). Learning from past and present: Electronic response systems in college lecture halls. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 21(2), 167-182.
Kaleta, R., & Joosten, T. (2007). Student response systems: A University of Wisconsin
system study of clickers. Educause Center for Applied Research Research Bulletin, 10(1), 12.
Kay, R. H., & LeSage, A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 53(3), 819-827.
Kay, R., & Knaack, L. (2009). Exploring the use of audience response systems in secondary school science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 18(5), 382-392.
Kennedy, G. E., & Cutts, Q. I. (2005). The association between students' use of an electronic voting system and their learning outcomes. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 21(4), 260-268.
Khachan, J., Chan, B., O'Byrne, J., & Sharma, M. D. (2005). An investigation of the effectiveness of electronic classroom communication systems in large lecture classes. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(2), 137.
Klopfer, E., Squire, K., & Jenkins, H. (2002). Environmental detectives: PDAs as a window into a virtual simulated world. Proceedings. IEEE International
Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education, 95-98.
Koole, M., & Ally, M. (2006). Framework for the rational analysis of mobile education (FRAME): A model for evaluating mobile learning devices. In MDE thesis.
Athabasca University, Athabasca.
Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence
for the input hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 440-464.
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2005). Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and trainers. (pp.1), Psychology Press.
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2009). Will mobile learning change language learning? ReCALL, 21(02), 157-165.
Lantz, M. E. (2010). The use of ‘clickers’ in the classroom: Teaching innovation or merely an amusing novelty? Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 556-561.
Laufer, B. (1992). How much lexis is necessary for reading comprehension? Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics, 126-132.
Laufer, B., & Sim, D. D. (1985). Taking the easy way out: Non-use and misuse of clues in EFL reading. English Teaching Forum, 23(2), 7-10.
Leichtenstern, K., André, E., & Vogt, T. (2007, November). Role assignment via physical mobile interaction techniques in mobile multi-user applications for children. In European Conference on Ambient Intelligence (pp. 38-54). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Liu Na and Nation, I.S.P. (1985) Factors affecting guessing vocabulary in context. RELC
Journal, 16(1), 33-42.
Lys, F. (2013). The development of advanced learner oral proficiency using iPads.
Language learning & Technology, 17(3), 94-116.
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction (pp. 9-18). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mcconatha, D., Praul, M., & Lynch, M. J. (2008). Mobile learning in higher education: An empirical assessment of a new educational tool. TOJET: the Turkish Online
Journal of Educational Technology, 7(3).
Meurant, R. C. (2010). The iPad and EFL digital literacy. Signal Processing and Multimedia, 224-234.
Molnar, G. (2012). New learning spaces? M-learnings, in particular the iPads potentials in education. 2012 15th International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL), 1-5.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7.
Moratelli, K., & DeJarnette, N. K. (2014). Clickers to the Rescue. The Reading Teacher, 67(8), 586-593.
Mula, J. M., & Kavanagh, M. (2009). Click go the students, click-click-click: The efficacy of a student response system for engaging students to improve feedback
and performance. e-Journal of Business Education and Scholarship of Teaching, 3(1), 1-17.
Nagy, W. E., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge: Implications for acquisition and instruction. The Nature of Vocabulary
Acquisition, (pp. 19-35). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G. N., & Sharples, M. (2004). Mobile technologies and learning.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nation, I. S. P., & Coady, J. (1988). Vocabulary and reading. In R. Carter & M.McCarthy
(Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching (pp. 97–110). New York: Longman.
Nicol, D. J., & Boyle, J. T. (2003). Peer instruction versus class-wide discussion in large classes: a comparison of two interaction methods in the wired classroom. Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 457-473.
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: effective strategies for online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. Second Language
Vocabulary Acquisition: A Rationale for Pedagogy, 55(4), 174-200.
Penuel, W. R., Boscardin, C. K., Masyn, K., & Crawford, V. M. (2007). Teaching with student response systems in elementary and secondary education settings: A survey study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(4), 315-346.
Quinn, C. (2000). mLearning: Mobile, wireless, in-your-pocket learning. LiNE Zine, 2006.
Riordan, B., & Traxler, J. (2003, August). Supporting computing students at risk using blended technologies. In 4th Annual LTSN-ICS Conference, 26-28.
Rogers, D. L. (2000). A paradigm shift: Technology integration for higher education in the new millennium. Educational Technology Review, 19-27.
Sharples, M., Corlett, D., Bull, S., Chan, T., & Rudman, P. (2005). The student learning organiser. Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and trainers, 139-149.
Shieh, R. S., & Chang, W. (2013). Implementing the interactive response system in a high school physics context: Intervention and reflections. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(5), 748-761.
Simpson, V., & Oliver, M. (2007). Electronic voting systems for lectures then and now: A comparison of research and practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(2), 187.
Sonbul, S., & Schmitt, N. (2009). Direct teaching of vocabulary after reading: is it worth the effort? ELT journal, 64(3), 253-260.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 360-407.
Stowell, J. R., & Nelson, J. M. (2007). Benefits of electronic audience response systems
on student participation, learning, and emotion. Teaching of Psychology, 34(4), 253-258.
Sumler, D., & Zirkin, B. (1995). Interactive or not interactive? That is the question. Journal of Distance Education, 10(1), 95-112.
Traxler, J. (2007). Defining, discussing and evaluating mobile learning: The moving finger writes and having... The International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, 8(2), 1-12.
Traxler, J. (2009). Learning in a mobile age. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL), 1(1), 1-12.
Traxler, J., & Riordan, B. (2003, August). Evaluating the effectiveness of retention strategies using SMS, WAP and WWW student support. In Proceedings of 4th Annual Conference. Galway, Ireland: LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Science (pp. 54-55).
Traxler, J., & Riordan, B. (2004, September). Using PDAs to support computing students. In LTSN Annual Conference, September, in Belfast, Northern Ireland.
Trees, A. R., & Jackson, M. H. (2007). The learning environment in clicker classrooms: student processes of learning and involvement in large university‐level courses using student response systems. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(1), 21-40.
Waring, R., & Nation, I. S. P. (2004). Second language reading and incidental vocabulary learning. Angles on the English Speaking World, 4, 97-110.
Webster, J., & Hackley, P. (1997). Teaching effectiveness in technology-mediateddistance learning. Academy of Management Journal, 40(6), 1282-1309.
Wesche, M. B., & Paribakht, T. S. (2000). Reading‐based exercises in second language vocabulary learning: An introspective study. The Modern Language Journal, 84(2), 196-213.
Wit, E. (2003). Who wants to be…The use of a personal response system in statistics
teaching. MSOR Connections, 3(2), 14-20.
Zhang, S., & Fulford, C. P. (1994). Are interaction time and psychological interactivity the same thing in the distance learning television classroom? Educational
Technology, 34(6), 58-64.
Zurita, G., & Nussbaum, M. (2004). Computer supported collaborative learning using wirelessly interconnected handheld computers. Computers & Education, 42(3),
289-314.