Advertisement

Mobile response system: a novel approach to interactive and hands-on activity in the classroom

  • Muztaba Fuad
  • Debzani Deb
  • James Etim
  • Clay Gloster
Development Article

Abstract

Mobile devices are being used profusely in the classrooms to improve passive learning environments and to enhance student comprehension. However, with respect to students’ active involvement in problem solving activities, the typical usage of the mobile devices in answering multiple choice and true/false questions is not adequate and the use of mobile devices need to be expanded to include dynamic and interactive problem-solving activities to better satisfy students’ learning needs. To facilitate such interactive problem solving using mobile devices, a comprehensive software environment is necessary. This paper details the design, deployment and evaluation of Mobile Response System (MRS) software that facilitates execution and assessment of multi-step in-class interactive problem-solving activities using mobile devices. MRS is an active learning tool, which engages students with the visual representation of a problem that spans on multiple screens, allows them to interact with that, and makes them realize the consequences of their actions instantly and visually. The immediate and automated grading feature of MRS enables a feedback-driven and evidence-based teaching methodology, which is important to improve the quality of classroom learning. MRS is designed to be independent of any interactive problem or its domain. Therefore, it allows easier integration of interactive activity Apps developed by others and can be used in any discipline. The results obtained from software metrics and runtime performance data verified the quality of the software. Additionally, the in-class assessment data verified that the MRS software is a helpful intervention for improving student comprehension and satisfaction.

Keywords

Interactive learning environments Architectures for educational technology system Technology-enhanced classroom teaching Mobile technology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by National Science Foundation Grant #1332531.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, R., Davis, P., Linnell, N., Prince, C., Razmov, V., & Videon, F. (2007). Classroom presenter: Enhancing interactive education with digital ink. Computer, 40(9), 56–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avery, Z., Castillo, M., Guo, H., Guo, J., Warter-Perez, N., Won, D. S., & Dong, J. (2010, October). Implementing Collaborative Project-Based Learning using the Tablet PC to enhance student learning in engineering and computer science courses. In Frontiers in education conference (FIE), IEEE, Virginia, USA.Google Scholar
  4. Berque, D. (2006). An evaluation of a broad deployment of DyKnow software to support note taking and interaction using pen-based computers. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 21(6), 204–216.Google Scholar
  5. Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports, ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  6. Braxton, J. M., Jones, W. A., Hirschy, A. S., & Hartley, H. V. (2008). The role of active learning in college persistence. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 115, 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheikhi, L., Al-Qutaish, R. E., Idri, A., & Sellami, A. (2014). Chidamber and kemerer object-oriented measures: Analysis of their design from the metrology perspective. International Journal of Software Engineering & Its Applications, 8(2), 359–374.Google Scholar
  9. Chidamber, S. R., & Kemerer, C. F. (1994). A metrics suite for object oriented design. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 20(6), 476–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cometa, M. (2011). Use of technology-rich learning environment reveals improved retention rates. Rochester University of Technology. Retrieved December 15, 2015, from https://www.rit.edu/news/story.php?id=48699.
  11. DeWitt, D., Alias, N., & Siraj, S. (2014). The design and development of a Collaborative mLearning prototype for Malaysian secondary school science. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(4), 461–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Draper, S. W. (2002). Evaluating effective use of PRS: Results of the evaluation of the use of PRS in Glasgow University. Retrieved December 15, 2015, from http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/evs/papers/eval.pdf.
  13. Echo360. (2015). Retrieved September 28, 2015, from http://echo360.com.
  14. E-Clicker. (2015). Retrieved September 28, 2015, from http://www.bignerdranch.com/apps/eclicker-presenter-ios.
  15. Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance improvement quarterly, 6(4), 50–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fairweather, J. (2008). Linking evidence and promising practices in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate education. Board of Science Education, National Research Council, The National Academies, Washington, DC. Retrieved December 15, 2015, from https://www.nsf.gov/attachments/117803/public/Xc–Linking_Evidence–Fairweather.pdf.
  17. Fredericksen, E. E., & Ames, M. (2009). Can a $30 Piece of Plastic Improve Learning? An Evaluation of Personal Responses Systems in Large Classroom Settings. EDUCAUSE. Retrieved September 28, 2015, from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/csd2690.pdf.
  18. Fuad, M. (2018) Mobile Response System. http://mrs.altl.org. Accessed 14 Jan 2018.
  19. Fuad, M., Deb, D., & Etim, J. (2014). An evidence based learning and teaching strategy for computer science classrooms and its extension into a mobile classroom response system. In Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT).  https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2014.52.
  20. Griswold, W. G., & Simon, B. (2006). Ubiquitous presenter: fast, scalable active learning for the whole classroom. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 38(3), 358–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hao, S., Dennen, V. P., & Mei, L. (2016). Influential factors for mobile learning acceptance among Chinese users. Educational Technology Research and Development.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9465-2.Google Scholar
  22. Hitz, M. (1996). Chidamber and Kemerer’s metrics suite: a measurement theory perspective. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 22(4), 267–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. iTestMe. (2015). Retrieved September 28, 2015, from http://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/lei-bao/id482868428.
  24. Jones, A., & Issroff, K. (2007). Motivation and mobile devices: Exploring the role of appropriation and coping strategies. Research in Learning Technology, 15(3), 247–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jošt, G., Huber, J., & Heričko, M. (2013). Using object oriented software metrics for mobile application development. Second Workshop on Software Quality Analysis, Monitoring, Improvement and Applications, SQAMIA, Novi Sad, Serbia.Google Scholar
  26. Karnaugh, M. (1953). The map method for synthesis of combinational logic circuits. Transactions of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, 72(9), 593–599.Google Scholar
  27. Kim, P., Hagashi, T., Carillo, L., Gonzales, I., Makany, T., Lee, B., et al. (2011). Socioeconomic strata, mobile technology, and education: A comparative analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(4), 465–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Knight, J. K., & Wood, W. B. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology Education, 4(4), 298–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Land, S. M., & Zimmerman, H. T. (2015). Socio-technical dimensions of an outdoor mobile learning environment: a three-phase design-based research investigation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(2), 229–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meisenberger, M., & Nischelwitzer, A. (2004). The mobile learning engine—A mobile, computer-aided, multimedia-based learning application. Multimedia Applications in Education, 4, 52–58.Google Scholar
  31. MetricsReloaded. (2015). Retrieved December 28, 2015, from https://github.com/BasLeijdekkers/MetricsReloaded.
  32. Mitchell, D. (2010). Education That Fits: Review of international trends in the education of students with special educational needs. University of Canterbury, New Zealand. Retrieved December 15, 2015, from https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/special_education/education-that-fits-review-of-international-trends-in-the-education-of-students-with-special-educational-needs/executive-summary.
  33. Mockus, L., Dawson, H., Edel-Malizia, S., Shaffer, D., An, J., & Swaggerty, A. (2011). The impact of mobile access on motivation: Distance education student perceptions. In 17th Annual Sloan-C Consortium International Conference on Online Learning, Lake Buena Vista, FL. Retrieved December 28, 2015, from http://learningdesign.psu.edu/assets/uploads/pdf/MLRTWhitePaper.pdf.
  34. Nedungadi, P., & Raman, R. (2012). A new approach to personalization: integrating e-learning and m-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(4), 659–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Parsons, D., & Ryu, H. (2006). A framework for assessing the quality of mobile learning. In Proceedings of the international conference for process improvement, research and education (pp. 17–27).Google Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Perry, B. (2000). How the brain learns best. Instructor, 110(4), 34–35.Google Scholar
  38. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. QuizCast. (2015). Retrieved December 15, 2015, from https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/quizcast/id495598997?mt=8.
  40. Romney, C. (2011, October). Tablet PC use in freshman mathematics classes promotes STEM retention. In Frontiers in education conference (FIE), IEEE, Rapid City, USA.Google Scholar
  41. Roschelle, J., Penuel, W. R., & Abrahamson, L. (2004). Classroom response and communication systems: Research review and theory. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Retrieved December 28, 2015, from http://www.humansphere.com.sg/pdf/an/Classroom%20Response%20and%20Communication%20Systems.pdf.
  42. Saville, B. K. (2010). Using evidence-based teaching methods to improve education. S. A. Meyers & J. R. Stowell (Eds.), Essays from e-excellence in teaching (Vol. 9, pp. 48–54).Google Scholar
  43. Singh, G., Denoue, L., & Das, A. (2004). Collaborative note taking. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE international workshop on wireless and mobile technologies in education (pp. 163–167).Google Scholar
  44. Socrative. (2015). Retrieved December 15, 2016, fom https://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/socrative/id477618133.
  45. Structure Analysis for Java (STAN). (2015). Retrieved December 15, 2015, from http://stan4j.com.
  46. Top Hat Monocle. (2015). https://www.tophatmonocle.com. Accessed 12/15/15.
  47. Vrasidas, C. (2000). Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design, and evaluation in distance education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6(4), 339–362.Google Scholar
  48. West, P., Foster, G. G., & Clayton, P. G. (2005). Content exposure of slide show presentations for selective download and annotation via mobile devices. In The 4th World Conference on mLearning. Retrieved January 9, 2016, from http://www.mlearn.org.za/CD/papers/West.pdf.
  49. Whattananarong, K. (2004, September). An experiment in the use of mobile phones for testing at King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology North Bangkok, Thailand. In Intl. conference on making education reform happen: Learning from the Asian experience and comparative perspectives. Retrieved September 28, 2015, from http://www.seameo.org/vl/krismant/mobile04.pdf.
  50. Wu, W. H., Jim, Wu Y C, Chen, C. Y., Kao, H. Y., Lin, C. H., & Huang, S. H. (2012). Review of trends from mobile learning studies: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 59(2), 817–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Young, J. (2008). Mobile College App: Turning iPhones into ‘Super-Clickers’ for Classroom Feedback. Chronicle of higher education. Retrieved December 15, 2015, from http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/mobile-college-app-turning-iphones-into-super-clickers-for-classroom-feedback/4434.

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Winston-Salem State UniversityWinston-SalemUSA
  2. 2.North Carolina A&T UniversityGreensboroUSA
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceWinston-Salem State UniversityWinston-SalemUSA

Personalised recommendations