You are here:

Does the Pedagogy Make the Tool or the Tool Make the Pedagogy?: Using Teachably to Foster an Active Learning Classroom
PROCEEDING

, Doctoral Candidate, University of Nebraska, Lincoln; Sykes TalentSprout, Chicago, IL, United States

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Las Vegas, NV, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-35-3 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

Full Text

Abstract

Student response systems (SRSs) have been shown to improve classroom performance and engagement. However, even in best-case usage, their design only serves to compensate for classroom limitations, such as facilitating processes like logging attendance in large lectures or documenting assessment responses. Even thoughtful lesson design based on SRS features limits a system’s effectiveness as an active learning tool, placing focus on punctuating lectures with check-ins instead of empowering learners to drive their own learning and discussion. As an alternative, learning technology tools can be designed and used to support pedagogical potential instead of hindering it. By looking at an active learning–focused SRS, Teachably, this paper will show how an activity like “muddiest point” is limited by current SRS technology and how better tool and lesson designs can enhance pedagogy, not constrain it.

Citation

Robbins, K. (2018). Does the Pedagogy Make the Tool or the Tool Make the Pedagogy?: Using Teachably to Foster an Active Learning Classroom. In Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 224-229). Las Vegas, NV, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 10, 2024 from .

© 2018 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Aljaloud, A., Gromik, N., Billingsley, W., & Kwan, P. (2015). Research trends in student response systems: A literature review. International Journal of Learning Technology. Doi: 10.313.
  2. Beatty, I. (2011, March). Hidden perspectives underlying success or failure teaching with clickers. Paper presented at Lily Conference on College and University Teaching. Greensboro, NC.
  3. Beatty, I.D., Gerace, W.J., Leonard, W.J., & Dufresne, R.J. (2006). Designing effective questions for classroom response system teaching. American Journal Of Physics, 74(1), 31–39.
  4. Brady, M., Seli, H., & Rosenthal, J. (2013). Metacognition and the influence of polling systems: How do clickers compare with low-technology systems. Educational Technology Research & Development, 61(6), 885–902.
  5. Brown, J. (2008). Student-centered instruction: Involving students in their own education. Music Educators Journal, 94(5).
  6. Bruff, D. (2018, May 7). Classroom response systems ("Clickers"). Retrieved from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guidessub-pages/clickers/
  7. Cooper, K.M., Haney, B., Krieg, A., & Brownell, S.E. (2017). What’s in a name? The importance of students perceiving that an instructor knows their names in a high-enrollment biology classroom. CBE Life Sciences Education, 16(1). Retrieved from
  8. Crouch, C.H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9), 970–977.
  9. Deal, A. (2007, November). Classroom response systems: A teaching with technology white paper. Retrieved from https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/technology/whitepapers/ClassroomResponse_Nov07.pdf
  10. Flosason, T., McGee, H., & Diener-Ludwig, L. (2015). Evaluating impact of small-group discussion on learning utilizing a classroom response system. Journal Of Behavioral Education, 24(3), 317–337. . (2014, June). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAS, 111(23), 8410–8415.
  11. Glenz, T. (2014, April). The importance of learning students’ names. Journal on Best Teaching Practices, 21–22.
  12. Hoekstra, A., & Mollborn, S. (2011). How clicker use facilitates existing pedagogical practices in higher education: Data from interdisciplinary research on student response systems. Learning, Media and Technology, 37, 1– 18. Doi:10.1080/17439884.2011.568493.
  13. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Smith, K.A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 30(4), 26–35.
  14. King, D.B. (2011). Using clickers to identify the muddiest points in large chemistry classes. Journal Of Chemical Education, 88(11), 1485–1488. Doi: 10.1021/ed1004799
  15. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  16. Morrison, R.W., Caughran, J.A., & Sauers, A.L. (2014). Classroom response systems for implementing interactive inquiry in large organic chemistry classes. Journal Of Chemical Education, 91(11), 1838–1844. Doi: 10.1021/ed300688d
  17. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Video

Also Read

Related Collections