Fostering Student’s Engagement and Active Learning in Neuroscience Education

  • Pablo Ruisoto
  • Juan A. JuanesEmail author
Education & Training
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Technological Innovations in Biomedical Training and Practice (TEEM 2018)


Neurophobia is a term coined to describe university students’ fear of neuroscience, which negatively affect learning. The implementation of new technologies in higher education, such as new response systems, provide an opportunity to improve neurosciences learning and teaching by engaging students. However, most response systems rely on student devices such as clickers. The aim of this study is to illustrate the application of a new digital application for collection of real-time formative assessment data in higher education. Results of this study support the utility paper-based response cards to foster engagement and active learning in higher education, even with complex neuroscience topics, providing real-time formative assessment data without the need for student devices.


Active learning Technology-based education Higher education Classroom response system 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Verbal informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

All authors, Pablo Ruisoto and Juan A Juanes, declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Harden, R. M., and Crosby, J. R., The professor and changes in medical education. AMME Education Guide 20:3–5, 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mitre, S. M., Batista, R. S., Mendonça, J. M. G., Pinto, N. M. N., Meirelles, C. A. B., and Porto, C. P., Metodologias ativas de Ensino aprendizagem na formação profissional em saúde: debates atuais. Ciências e saúde coletiva 13:2133–2144, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Caldwell, J. E., Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE Life Sciences Education 6:9–20, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garcia-Ramirez, J. M., Las Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación, TIC, en la educación universitaria. Andaluciaeduca 76:77–84, 2012.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Briz-Ponce, L., and Juanes-Méndez, J. A., Mobile devices and apps, characteristics and current potential on learning. Journal of Information Technology Research 8:26–37, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Briz-Ponce, L., Pereira, A., Carvalho, L., Juanes-Méndez, J. A., and García-Peñalvo, F. J., Learning with mobile technologies – Students’ behavior. Comput. Hum. Behav. 72:612–620, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Poirier, C. R., and Feldman, R. S., Promoting active learning using individual response technology in large introductory psychology classes. Teach. Psychol. 34:194–196, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Howell, D. D., Tseng, D. C., and Colorado-Resa, J. T., Fast assessments with digital tools using multiple-choice questions. Coll. Teach. 65:145–147, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Blood, E., Effects of student response systems on participation and learning of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behav. Disord. 35:214–228, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clunies-Ross, P., Little, E., and Kienhuis, M., Self-reported and actual use of proactive and reactive classroom management strategies and their relationship with teacher stress and student behaviour. Educ. Psychol. 28:693–710, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Heaslip, G., Donovan, P., and Cullen, J. G., Student response systems and learner engagement in large classes. Act. Learn. High. Educ. 15:11–24, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Malanga, P. R., and Sweeney, W. J., Increasing active student responding in a university applied behavior analysis course: The effect of daily assessment and response cards on end of week quiz scores. J. Behav. Educ. 17:187–199, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stowel, J. R., and Nelson, J. M., Benefits of electronic audience response systems on student participation, learning, and emotion. Teach. Psychol. 34:253–258, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Trees, A. R., and Jackson, M. H., The learning environment in clicker classrooms: Student processes of learning and involvement in large university-level courses using student response systems. Learn. Media Technol. 32:21–40, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lantz, M., The use of clickers in the classroom: Teaching innovation or merely an amusing novelty? Comput. Hum. Behav. 26:556–561, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mayer, R. E., Stull, A., DeLeeuw, K., Almeroth, K., Bimber, B., Chun, D., Bulger, M., Campbell, J., Knight, A., and Zhang, H., Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 34:51–57, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Morling, B., McAuliffe, M., Cohen, L., and DiLorenzo, T. M., Efficacy of personal response systems (“clickers”) in large, introductory psychology classes. Teach. Psychol. 35:45–50, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Haydon, T., Conroy, M. A., Scott, T. M., Sindelar, P. T., Barber, B. R., and Orlando, A. M., A comparison of three types of opportunities to respond on student academic and social behaviors. J. Emot. Behav. Disord. 18:27–40, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hardesty, S. L., McIvor, M. M., Wagner, L. L., Hagopian, L. P., and Bowman, L. G., A further evaluation of response cards: Teaching direct care staff basic behavioral principles. J. Organ. Behav. Manag. 34:156–164, 2014.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Harper, B. E., ‘I’ve never seen or heard it this way!’ Increasing student engagement through the use of technology-enhanced feedback. Teaching Educational Psychology 3:1–8, 2009.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Patry, M., Clickers in large classes: From student perceptions towards an understanding of best practices. International Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 3:1–11, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Haydon, T., and Hunter, W., The effects of two types of teacher questioning on teacher behavior and student performance: A case study. Educ. Treat. Child. 34:229–245, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McCargo, M. G., The effects of Plickers as response cards on academic engagement behavior in high school students (master thesis). Hattiesbrug, Mississippi, USA, 2017.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Solorzano, G. E., and Józefowicz, R. F., Neurophobia a chronic disease of medical students. Neurology 85:116–117, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shapiro, A., An empirical study of personal response technology for improving attendance and learning in a large class. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 9:13–26, 2009.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shaffer, D. M., and Collura, M. J., Evaluating the effectiveness of a personal response system in the classroom. Teach. Psychol. 36:273–277, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Visual Med Systems Research GroupUniversity of SalamancaSalamancaSpain
  2. 2.Faculty of MedicineUniversity of SalamancaSalamancaSpain

Personalised recommendations