Advertisement

Mobile Voting Tools for Creating a New Educational Design of the Traditional University Lecture in Russia

Chapter
  • 994 Downloads
Part of the Education in the Asia-Pacific Region: Issues, Concerns and Prospects book series (EDAP, volume 40)

Abstract

Mobile voting tools can enhance learning and teaching experiences in many ways, by providing instant feedback, better diagnosis of learning problems and creating new formats of enquiry-based activities. Mobile voting apps, also known as mobile clickers, which directly introduce dialogue and interactivity between teacher and student, have been used successfully within the context of the university classroom for the last decade. The objective of the international study Enhancing Technology Awareness and Usage of m-Learning in Russia and Norway was to evaluate the impact of a mobile voting tool student response system (SRS) on creating a collaborative environment for university lecture courses. As part of a comparative experimental study, this research quantitatively compares student’s test scores across two groups (56 students) of Lomonosov Moscow State University (Russia). This data was combined with that from a qualitative attitudinal student survey. Research indicates that an SRS-supported approach influenced important aspects of lecture design such as time management, the mode of material presentation and activity switch patterns. In addition, SRS was also found to impact on learner-teacher interactions, student collaboration and motivation and formats of activities.

References

  1. Arnesen, K. (2012). Experiences with use of various pedagogical methods using student response system, From the 11th European conference on e-Learning (pp. 20–27). Reading: Academic Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  2. Arnesen, K., Talmo, T., & Stav, J. (2013). Implementation of mobile response technology and activity based training in a University College (pp. 4655–4658). Proceedings from the International Technology, Education and Development Conference (INTED 2013), 4–6 March 2013, Valencia, Spain.Google Scholar
  3. Beatty, I. (2004). Transforming student learning with classroom communication systems. EDUCAUSE Research Bulletin, 3, Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB0403.pdf
  4. Berns, A., Palomo-Duarte, M., Dodero, J. M., Ruiz-Ladrón, J. M., & Calderón Márquez, A. (2015). Mobile apps to support and assess foreign language learning. In F. Helm, L. Bradley, M. Guarda, & S. Thouësny (Eds.), Critical CALL – Proceedings of the 2015 EUROCALL Conference, Padova, Italy (pp. 51–56). Dublin: Research-publishing.net. http://dx.doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2015.000309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolona Lopez, M. D. C., Ortiz, M. E., & Allen, C. (2015). Using mobile devices and the Adobe Connect web conferencing tool in the assessment of EFL student teacher performance. In F. Helm, L. Bradley, M. Guarda, & S. Thouësny (Eds.), Critical CALL – Proceedings of the 2015 EUROCALL conference, Padova, Italy (pp. 77–83). Dublin: Research-publishing.net. http://dx.doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2015.000313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruff, D. (2009). Teaching with classroom response systems: Creating active learning environments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Bruff, D. (2010). Multiple-choice questions you wouldn’t put on a test: Promoting deep learning using clickers. Essays on Teaching Excellence, 21(3), 25–34. Retrieved from http://www.podnetwork.org/publications/teachingexcellence/09-10/V21,%20N3%20Bruff.pdf.Google Scholar
  8. Cavallo, D. (2012). Liberating learning: How ubiquitous access to connected computational devices releases education from the tyranny of information recall, Program of the 7th IEEE International Conference on Wireless, and Ubiquitous Technologies in Education (p. 2). Kagawa: Kagawa University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Clough, G. (2016). Mobile informal learning through Geocatching. In J. Traxler & A. Kukulska-Hulme (Eds.), Mobile learning – The next generation (pp. 43–66). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. (2001). Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdf
  11. Cook, J. (2010). Mobile phones as mediating tools within augmented contexts for development. In E. Brown (Ed.), Education in the wild: Contextual and location-based mobile learning in action (pp. 23–26). Nottingham: University of Nottingham, Learning Sciences Research Institute.Google Scholar
  12. Danaher, P. A., Gururajan, R., & Hafeez-Baig, A. (2009). Transforming the practice of mobile learning: Promoting pedagogical innovation through educational principles and strategies that work. In H. Ryu & D. P. Parsons (Eds.), Innovative mobile learning: Techniques and technologies (pp. 21–46). Hershey: Information Science Reference/IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dangel, H. L., & Wang, C. X. (2008). Student response systems in higher education: Moving beyond linear teaching and surface learning. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 1(1), 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DeGani, A., Martin, G., Stead, G., & Wade, F. (2010). E-learning standards for an M-learning world – Informing the development of e-learning standards for the mobile web. Research in Learning Technologies, 25(3), 181–185. Retrieved from http://www.researchinlearningtechnology.net/index.php/rlt/article/view/19153
  15. Demouy, V., Eardley, A., Shrestha, P., Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2011). The interactive oral assessment project: Using Talkback® for practice and assessment of listening and speaking skills in languages. In ICL 2011 Interactive Collaborative Learning. Pieštany, Slovakia. http://oro.open.ac.uk
  16. Driver, P. (2012). Pervasive games and mobile technologies for embodied language learning. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 2(4), 23–37. doi: 10.4018/ijcallt.2012100104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dudeney, G., Hockly, N., & Pegrum, M. (2013). Digital literacies: Research and resources in language learning. Oxford: Pearson.Google Scholar
  18. Fies, C., & Marshall, J. (2006). Classroom response systems: A review of the literature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 101–109. doi: 10.1007/s10956-006-0360-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, M. (2012). The NMC horizon report: 2008 Australia-New Zealand edition. Austin: The New Media Consortium. http://nmc.org/pdf/2008-Horizon-Report-ANZ.pdf.Google Scholar
  20. Kahn, P., & O’Rourke, K. (2005). Guide to curriculum design: Enquiry-based learning. Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/460509/Guide_to_Curriculum_Design_Enquiry-Based_Learning
  21. Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012). Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology Journal, 20(1), 21–34. Retrieved from http://www.researchinlearningtechnology.net/index.php/rlt/article/view/14406/html#AF0001.Google Scholar
  22. Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Jones, C. (2011). The next generation: Design and the infrastructure for learning in a mobile and networked world. In A. D. Olofsson & J. Ola Lindberg (Eds.), Informed design of educational technologies in higher education: Enhanced learning and teaching (pp. 57–78). Hershey: Information Science Reference (an Imprint of IGI Global).Google Scholar
  23. Kukulska-Hulme, A., Pettit, J., Bradley, L., Carvalho, A., Herrington, A., Kennedy, D., & Walker, A. (2011). Mature students using mobile devices in life and learning. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 3(1), 18–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lammons, E., Momata, Y., Mynard, J., Noguchi, J., & Watkins, S. (2015). Developing and piloting an app for managing self-directed language learning: An action research approach. In F. Helm, L. Bradley, M. Guarda, & S. Thouësny (Eds.), Critical CALL – Proceedings of the 2015 EUROCALL Conference, Padova, Italy (pp. 342–347). Dublin: Research-publishing.net. http://dx.doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2015.000356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martyn, M. (2007). Clickers in the classroom: An active learning approach. Educause Quarterly, 2, 71–74. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EQM0729.pdf.Google Scholar
  26. Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. doi: 10.1080/03075070600572090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nielsen, K. (2012). How the initial thinking period affects student argumentation during peer instruction: students’ experiences versus observations. In Student response systems in science and engineering education. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim.Google Scholar
  28. Oberg, A., & Daniels, P. (2013). Analysis of the effect a student-centred mobile learning instructional method has on language acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(2), 177–196. Retreived from http://www.tandfonline.com.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pallof, R., & Pratt, K. (2009). Assessing the online learner: Resources and strategies for faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  30. Pemberton, L., Winter, M., & Fallahkhair, S. (2010). Collaborative mobile knowledge sharing for language learners. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology, 6(1), 144–148. http://www.rcetj.org.Google Scholar
  31. Rubner, G. (2012). MbClick: An electronic voting system that returns individual feedback. Retrieved from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/stem-conference/gees/Geoff_Rubner.pdf
  32. Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sambell, K. (2010). Enquiry-based learning and formative assessment environments: Student perspectives. Practitioner Research in Higher Education. University of Cambria, 4(1), 52–61. Retrieved from http://194.81.189.19/ojs/index.php/prhe/article/view/34
  34. Sambell, K., & Hubbard, A. (2004). The role of formative ‘low-stakes’ assessment in supporting nontraditional students’ retention and progression in higher education: Student perspectives. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 6(2), 25–36. Retrieved from http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/openu/jwpll/2004/00000006/00000002/art00004.Google Scholar
  35. Sato, T., Murase, F., & Burden, T. (2015). Is mobile-assisted language learning really useful? An examination of recall automatization and learner autonomy. In F. Helm, L. Bradley, M. Guarda, & S. Thouësny (Eds.), Critical CALL – Proceedings of the 2015 EUROCALL Conference, Padova, Italy (pp. 495–501). Dublin: Research-publishing.net. http://dx.doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2015.000382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  37. Tarr, T., & Beasley, J. (2012). Tips for using clickers in the classroom. Retrieved from http://ctl.iupui.edu/Resources/Teaching-Strategies/Tips-for-Using-Clickers-in-the-Classroom
  38. Titova, S. (2012). Developing of ICT competence of language teachers through an online professional development course in Moodle. In 6th International Technology, Education and Development Conference Proceedings (pp. 4739–4746). Valencia, Spain. Retrieved December 15, 2015, from http://library.iated.org/view/TITOVA2012DEV
  39. Titova, S., & Talmo, T. (2014). Mobile voting systems for creating collaboration environment and getting immediate feedback: A new curriculum model of the university lecture. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 6(3.), 2014), 18–34. doi: 10.4018/ijmbl.2014070102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Titova, S., Talmo, T., Avramenko, A. (2013). Language acquisition through mobile technologies: A new fad or an unavoidable necessity? Proceedings of EDULEARN13 Conference (pp. 5046–5050). Spain, Barcelona. Retrieved from http://library.iated.org/view/TITOVA2013LAN
  41. Traxler, J. (2010). The ‘learner experience’ of mobiles, mobility and connectedness. In Background paper to presentation ELESIG symposium: Digital futures. Reading: University of Reading. Retrieved from http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloud/view/3472
  42. Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education NEXT, 12(1), 82–83. Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/the-flipped-classroom/.Google Scholar
  43. Voelkel, S., & Bennett, D. (2013). Combining the formative with the summative: The development of a two-stage online test to encourage engagement and provide personal feedback in large classes. Research in Learning Technology, 21(1), 75–92. Retrieved from http://www.researchinlearningtechnology.net/index.php/rlt/article/view/19153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Far Eastern Federal UniversityVladivostokRussia

Personalised recommendations