Webinar - Applications for Raptivity in the University Classroom

Copyright © 2016 Harbinger Knowledge Products Pvt. Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
Applications for Raptivity
in the University Classroom
Webinar

If you cannot hear the audio:
1. Click the arrow icon at the upper right, in the webinar panel
2. Expand the Audio section
3. Click the Audio setup
4. If necessary, choose the Use Telephone option to see a
phone number you can use

Speakers
Lisa Vinney PhD, CCC-SLP
Assistant Professor
Illinois State University
K. V. Abbott Ph.D., CCC-SLP
Professor
University of Pittsburgh

Education in Speech-Language Pathology
Clinician Student
Goal: Knowledge & Skill

How do we engage the learner?

Mini Quiz Games (MQGs)

The Testing Effect
►Taking a test on studied material likely promotes:
►Knowledge retrieval
► (Paul, Messina, & Hollis, 2006; Kapicke & Blunt, 2011)
►Calibration of knowledge through immediate and corrective
feedback
► (McDaniel, Anderson, Derbish, & Morrisette, 2007; Dwyer & Cameron, 2005; Dihoff, Brosvic, Epstein, &
Cook, 2004)
►Transfer appropriate processing
►(Morris, Bransford, & Franks, 1977)

Use of games in education

Focus Group Results

Gap in Knowledge
►Do electronic content-specific educational games
improve learning and test performance in college
students beyond traditional study methods?
Vinney L.A., Howles L., Leverson G., & Connor N.P. (in press). Augmenting college students' study of speech-language
pathology using computer-based mini quiz games. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology.

Hypothesis
MQGs + Traditional Studying MQGs Alone
Will result in substantial gains in immediate recall and longer-term
retention when compared with conventional study alone or no
content review (control condition).

Hypothesis
Students will perceive MQGs more positively
than traditional studying.

Subjects
►93 Undergraduates
►Native English speakers
►Ages 18-23
►No documented learning
disability/cognitive
impairment

Groups
Traditional Studying Games
Both Control (no games or studying)

Studying=24
Pre-test &
questionnaire
Game=23 Both=23
Lecture
Immediate Recall Posttest & Questionnaire
Control=23

Longer-term Retention Follow-up Test=75
***3 days Later***
Studying=18Game=19 Both=20 Control=18

Games
►Jeopardy
►Voice
Vocabulary
Challenge
►Million Dollar
Quiz

Games

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Mean%DifferencebetweenPretest
&Posttest(adjustingforpretest)
Control Games Games & Study Study
Average Difference between Pretest & Posttest by Group
*

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Control Games Games and
Study
Study
Mean%DifferencebetweenPretest&
Follow-upTest(adjustingforpretest)
Average Difference between Pretest & Follow-up Test by
Group
*

Are games a viable study method?
►All Groups (93 participants)
►YES (88%, n=81)
►NO (12%, n=11)

Did playing MQGs facilitate learning of lecture content?
►Games & Games/Study Groups only (46 participants)
►Yes (93%, n=43)
►No (7%, n=3)

Were MQGs perceived as more or less effective than studying?
►Games/Study Group only (33 participants)
►More Effective (88%, n=29)
►Less Effective (9%, n=3)
►Just as Effective (3%, n=1)

Which game was preferred?
►Games & Games/Study Groups only (46 participants)
►Million Dollar Quiz (52%, n=24)
►Voice Vocabulary Challenge(7%, n=3)
►Voice Jeopardy (17%, n=8)
►No Preference (24%, n=11)

Discussion
► MQGs may be as effective as studying in facilitating recall of recently learned
foundational information
► Many students would rather play games than study
► Studying was not significantly better at promoting longer-term retention than no
intervention
► MQGs were generally perceived as a viable study method by all participants and
as more effective in facilitating new content than traditional studying by Games and
Study group members.
► Results are preliminary and should be considered in the context of the current
study methodology.

Conclusion
►MQGs are:
►Quick to learn, easy to play
►Easily implemented into many
educational models
►Likely to facilitate recall and
retention of knowledge at lower
levels of Bloom’s taxonomy
(Bloom, 1956)

Questions
http://engage.doit.wisc.edu/sims_games/showcase/speechpathology/index.html
https://csd.wisc.edu/slpgames/

References
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: Longman.
Dihoff, R. A., Brosvic, G. M., Epstein, M. L., & Cook, M. J. (2004).Provision of feedback during preparation for academic
testing: Learning is enhanced by immediate but not delayed feedback. The Psychological Record, 54, 207–231.
Dwyer, F. M., & Cameron, B. (2005). The effect of online gaming, cognition and feedback type in facilitating delayed
achievement of different learning objectives. Journal of Interactive Learning Research,16, 243–258.
Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept
mapping. Science, 331, 772–775.
McDaniel, M. A., Anderson, J. L., Derbish, M. H., & Morrisette, N.(2007). Testing the testing effect in the classroom.
European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 494–513.
Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levelsof processing versus transfer appropriate processing.
Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 16, 519–533.
Paul, S. T., Messina, J. A., & Hollis, A. M. (2006). A technologyclassroom review tool for general psychology. Teaching of
Psychology, 33, 276–279.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
Vinney L.A., Howles L., Leverson G., & Connor N.P. (in press). Augmenting college students' study of speech-language
pathology using computer-based mini quiz games. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology.

► Co-Investigator and Mentor
► Dr. Nadine Connor
► Professor of Communication Sciences and Disorders & Surgery at University of Wisconsin-Madison
► Co-investigator
► Mr. Les Howles
► Faculty Associate of the Division of Continuing Studies at University of Wisconsin Madison
► Co-investigator and statistician
► Dr. Glen Leverson
► Senior Scientist at University of Wisconsin-Madison for the School of Medicine and Public Health
► University of Wisconsin-Madison Engage to Learn Program
► Dr. Lori Bakken
► Associate Professor of Human Ecology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
Acknowledgements

Speakers
K. V. Abbott Ph.D., CCC-SLP
Professor
University of Pittsburgh

►Reviewed paper by Vinney et al. (in press).
►Findings on the potential utility of electronic game
platforms for teaching in voice disorders.
Origins

►Obtained free trial version of Raptivity.
►Received guidance from Dr. Vinney and the
outstanding Raptivity team in programming.
Next steps

►Clinical master’s level course in Voice Disorders
►Students in the last semester of their 2-yr M.A. program;
work all day and come to class at night; most not
particularly interested in voice (more interested in child
speech and language etc.)
Application

►How to enhance their in-class learning?
►How to keep them awake?
Application

►Cognitive effort enhances learning (citations x 1 million)
►Repetition enhances learning (citations x 1 million)
►Fun enhances learning (citations x 0.05 but intuitive)
►Keeping students awake enhances learning (citations x 0
but clear)
Theory

►Stated differently: Games are involved, but underlying
theoretical underpinnings are non-trivial.
Theory

►Several lectures organized in approximately 10-minute
segments, that covered a specific topic
►Raptivity quiz then emailed to students in class, for their
immediate response and our collective review
Specifics

Examples
Vocal fold oscillation

Examples
Semi-occluded vocal tract

Examples
Biology of vocal fold wound healing

Examples
Vocal effort and dehydration

Examples
Factors affecting voice output intensity

Examples
Factors affecting vocal fold impact stress

Examples
Acoustic measures

►Voice assessment
►Case history
►Voice-related quality of life, effort measures, perceptual measures
of voice
►Physiological measures
►Acoustic measures of voice
Examples

►Controlled study not done as by Vinney et al.
►Informal observations and reports
►Students liked class and didn’t want to miss due to “value of game
activities”
►Students vastly more engaged than for other evening courses (by
report of other professors)
►Students generally appeared to do better on exams on relevant
materials compared to exams from previous years (informal
observation)
►Post-course student evaluations indicated Raptivity games were
among the “best” parts of the course
Results

►Extend and deepen games in class
(e.g., Wisconsin games posted)
►Possibly create a bank of games to
share across instructors (challenge is
that different instructors cover
different information in voice
disorders courses at different
institutions)
Future directions

►Ask students to create their own games and swap with partners or
other class members
►Challenge due to cost and due to difficulties with Mac platform for now
Future directions

Summary and conclusions
►Absolutely worth the investment
►Student involvement (based on their reports)
►Student learning (apparently)
►Instructor amusement

Merci

Questions
http://engage.doit.wisc.edu/sims_games/showcase/speechpathology/index.html

Meet The Rapid Interactivity builder

►190+ customizable interactions (diagrams,
exercises, games, simulations, videos…)
►Do-It-Yourself interface
►HTML5 & Flash publishing options
►Tracking Support (SCORM, xAPI, AICC)
►Multi-Language Support
►Seamless Integration with Authoring
Tools, LMS, websites, PPT & more
Some highlights

For any queries:
info@raptivity.com
www.raptivity.com Thank You

Webinar - Applications for Raptivity in the University Classroom

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Webinar - Applications for Raptivity in the University Classroom

Similar to Webinar - Applications for Raptivity in the University Classroom (20)

More from Raptivity

More from Raptivity (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Webinar - Applications for Raptivity in the University Classroom