Impact Investigation of using a Digital Literacy Technology on a Module: Case Study of Tophat
Keywords:
Tophat; Technology enhance learning; Digital classroom; Students' engagement; feedbackAbstract
With digital technologies replacing the previous source of
entertainment and communication and becoming the primary means by
which we are informed and entertained, there is a need to be informed
and competent with the relevant skills. Also, there is a greater need to
use the digital devices that are employed by students using these
technologies, which tend to keep them captivated at all times. The aim
of this study is twofold: to enhance student performance by improving
the approach to feedback and enhance student engagement by
improving student class participation with the use of their 'disruptive'
devices. We hypothesize that student engagement with the digital
devices lead to better and overall student performance. The areas
identified for research were in relation to student feedback and
engagement through the encouragement of their participation. The
approach adopted in this research was the evaluation of the use of
Tophat as a tool in the creation of an enhanced student-centred learning
experience by creating an active learning environment. The strategy was
to adhere to the usual idea of student tutorial and after an hour the first
research activity started. This involved the use of the disruptive devices
(mobile phones, iPads and Android devices) in a constructive manner.
At the end of the session, Tophat was used to provide additional
feedback and prepare them for their coursework. This was achieved
through the use of 'Tournament' to find out each week those that
engaged and performed well. The results showed that 74.8% of the
students are of the view that the use of Tophat enhanced their
engagement in the module and 71.9% students perceived that higher
level of feedback was received through Tophat. The impact of digital
technology in higher education was discussed in this study.
References
Biggs, J. (1999) What the Student Does: teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 18(1), 57-75.
Biggs, J. & Catherine, T. (2010). Applying constructive alignment to outcomes-based teaching and learning. Training Material for “Quality Teaching for Learning in Higher Education†Workshop for Master Trainers, Ministry of Higher Education, Kuala Lumpur.
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2015). Constructive alignment: An outcomes-based approach to teaching anatomy. In L. K. Chan, & W. Pawlina (Eds.), Teaching anatomy: A practical guide (pp. 31-38). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Brown, E. A., Nicholas, J., Thomas, & Lisa, Y. T. (2014). Students’ willingness to use response and engagement technology in the classroom. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 15, 80-85.
Bruff, D. (2009). Teaching with Classroom Response Systems: Creating Active Learning Environments. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chickering, A.W., & Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-6.
Dervan, P. (2014). "Increasing in-class student engagement using Socrative (an online Student Response System)." AISHE-J: The All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. 6(2), 1977-1983
Hoekstra, A. (2008).Vibrant student voices: exploring effects of the use of clickers in large college courses. Learning, Media and Technology.33, 329–341.
Ihde, D. (1993). Postphenomenology: essays in the postmodern context. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
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), 1-12.
Karakostas, A., Adam, D., Kioutsiouki, D., & Demetriadis, S. (2014, November). A pilot study of QuizIt: The new android classroom response system. In Interactive Mobile Communication Technologies and Learning (IMCL), 2014 International Conference on (pp. 147-151). IEEE.
Kärkkäinen, K., & Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2013). Sparking Innovation in STEM Education with Technology and Collaboration.
Krause, K.L.; Hamish, C. (2008). Students’ engagement in firstâ€year university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493-505.
Kuh, G. D. (2008). Advising for student success. In V. N. Gordon, W. R. Habley & T. J. Grites (Eds.), Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook (2nd ed., pp. 68-84). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lane, D. R. & Michael W.S. (2001). The centrality of communication education in classroom computerâ€mediatedâ€communication: Toward a practical and evaluative pedagogy. Communication Education, 50(3), 241-255.
Liburd, J. J. & Inger-Marie F. C. (2013). Using web 2.0 in higher tourism education. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education,12 (1), 99-108.
McAleese, M., et al. (2013). Report to the European Commission on Improving the quality of teaching and learning in Europe’s higher education institutions. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.
Wilson, L., & McManimon, S. (2014, October). Bringing Back the ICEAGE: Interactive Cloud-based Engagement Activities Globalizing Education!. In World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education. 2014(1), 2065-2068.
Merchant, G. (2012). Mobile practices in everyday life: Popular digital technologies and schooling revisited. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5), 770-782.
Park, J. D., & Farag, J. D. (2015). Transforming the Legal Studies Classroom: Clickers and Engagement. Journal of Legal Studies Education, 32.
Parry, D. (2011). Mobile perspectives: on teaching mobile literacy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5),770-782.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
Ravishankar, J., Epps, J.; Ladouceur, F., Eaton, R., & Ambikairajah, E. (2014). Using iPads/Tablets as a teaching tool: Strategies for an electrical engineering classroom. In Teaching, Assessment and Learning (TALE), 2014 International Conference on (pp. 246-251). IEEE.
Robinson, C. C., & Hullinger, H. (2008). New benchmarks in higher education: Student engagement in online learning. Journal of Education for Business, 84(2), 101-109.
Sander, P., Stevenson, K., King, M., & Coates, D. (2000). University students' expectations of teaching. Studies in Higher education, 25(3), 309-323.
Terrion, J. L., & Aceti, V. (2012). Perceptions of the effects of clicker technology on student learning and engagement: a study of freshmen Chemistry students. Research in Learning Technology, 20.
Woodcock, B., Middleton, A., & Nortcliffe, A. (2012). Considering the Smartphone Learner: an investigation into student interest in the use of personal technology to enhance their learning. Student Engagement and Experience Journal, 1(1), 1-15.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2015 Xue Zhou, Stella-Maris Orim
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
All articles published by IJLTER are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No-Derivatives 4.0 International License (CCBY-NC-ND4.0).
