MOBILE VOTING TOOLS FOR CREATING A NEW DESIGN OF INTERACTIVE LECTURE
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to investigate the pedagogical impact of mobile voting tools on creating collaborative environment at university lecture courses and getting immediate feedback from large classes. Our research demonstrated that integration of mobile voting app Student Response System (SRS) created in Norwegian University HiST (Trondheim) influenced not only lecture design - time management, the mode of material presentation, activity switch patterns - but also learners8teacher interaction, student collaboration and output, formats of activities and tasks. SRS supported lectures help instructors gradually get the grasp of a new type of digital classroom - flipped classroom, and then, in the long run, MOOC lecturing. The analysis based on qualitative and quantitative data collected from 56 undergraduate students showed that SRS supported lectures enhance their motivation, improve their intercultural competence and language skills.
About the Authors
Svetlana V. Titova
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Tord Talmo
Sør-Trøndelag University College in Trondheim
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Титова С.В., Авраменко A.П. Компетенции преподавателя в среде мобильного обучения // Высшее образование в России. 2014. №6. С. 162-180
2. Kukulska-Hulme A. (2010) Mobile learning for quality education and social inclusion. Moscow: UNESCO IITI
3. Traxler J. (2009) Learning in a mobile age. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, no. 1(1), pp. 1-12
4. Kumar S. (2010) Blackboards to Blackberries: Mobile Learning Buzzes Across Schools and Univer sities. Available at: http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/authors/315/sesh-kumar
5. Talmo T., Sivertsen Korpås G., Mellingsæter M., Einum E. (2012) Experiences with Use of New Digital Learning Environments to Increase Academic and Social Competence. Procee$ dings of the 5th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, Mad8 rid, Spain. Pp. 4540-4545
6. DeGani A., Martin G., Stead G.,Wade F. (2010) E-learning Standards for an M8learning world - informing the development of e-learning standards for the mobile web. Available at: http://www.m-learning.org/images/stories/MobScorm.pdf
7. Cook J. (2010) Mobile phones as mediating tools within augmented contexts for development. E. Brown (ed.), Education in the wild: co ntex tual and locatio n$ba sed mobi le learning in action. University of Nottingham, UK: Learning Sciences Research Institute, pp.23-26
8. Driver P. (2012) Pervasive Games and Mobile Tec hnologies for Embodied Langu age Learning. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, vol. 2, issue 4, pp. 23-37
9. Danaher P.A., Gururajan R., Hafeez8Baig A. (2009) Transforming the practice of mobile learning: Promoting pedagogical innovation through educational principles and strategies that work . H. Ryu, D.P. Parsons (eds.), Innovative mobile learning: Techniques and technologies, pp. 21-46. Hershey, PA and New York: Information Science Reference/ IGI Global
10. Kearney M., Schuck S., Burden K., Aubusson P. (2012) Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology Journal, vol. 20, issue 1, pp. 21-34. Available at: http://www.researchinlearningtechnology.net/index.php/rlt/article/view/14406/html#AF0001
11. Sambell K. (2010) Enquiry-based learning and formative assessment environments: student perspectives. Practitioner Research in Higher Education. University of Cambria, vol. 4, issue 1, pp. 52-61
12. Traxler J. (2010) The ‘learner experience’ of mobiles, mobility and connectedness. Background paper to presentation ELES IG Symposium: Digital Futures. UK: University of Reading. Available at: http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloud/view/3472
13. 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. Japan: Kagawa University Press
14. Titova S., Talmo T., Avramenko A. (2013). Language Acquisition Thro ugh Mobile Technologies: A New Fad Or An Unavoidable Necessity? Proceedings of EDULEARN13 Conference, pp. 5046-5050. Spain, Barcelona. Available at: http://library.iated.org/view/ TITOVA2013LAN
15. Rubner G. (2012) MbClick: An Electronic Voting System that returns individual feedback. Available at: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ assets/documents/stem8conference/gees/Geoff_Rubner.pdf
16. Bruff D. (2009) Teaching with classroom response systems: Creating active learning environments. San Francisco: Jossey8Bass
17. Arnesen K. (2012) Experiences with Use of Various Pedagogical Methods Using Student Response System. Proceedings from the 11th European Conference on e$Learning, pp. 20-27 . Reading, UK: Acade mic Publishing Limited
18. Nielsen K. (2012) How the Initial Thinking Period affects Student Argumentation during Peer Instruction: Students’ Experiences Versus Observations. Student Response Systems in Science and Engineering Education. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim
19. Voelkel S., Bennett D. (2013) Combining the formative with the summative: the development of a two8stage online test to encourage engagement and provide personal feedback in large classes. Research in Learning Technology, vol. 21, issue 1, pp. 75-92. Available at: http:/ /www.researchinlearningtechnology.net/index.php/rlt/article/view/19153
20. Андреев А.А. Российские открытые образовательные ресурсы и массовые открытые дистанционные курсы. 2014. №6. С. 150-156
Review
Views:
18109
Email this article 