Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Eurocall 2014 titova

554 views

Published on

Presentation at EUROCALL 2014

Published in: Education

Eurocall 2014 titova

  1. 1. Mobile Voting Tools for Creating Collaboration Environment and a New Educational Design of the University Lecture Lomonosov Moscow State University S. Titova
  2. 2. Overview  Mobile devices in language classroom: what for?  Our research project on M-Learning  SRS – technological characteristics and didactic potential  SRS Supported Lecture Framework  Data collection  Data analysis and result interpretation  Suggestions for further research
  3. 3. M-Learning: what for?  enhance learner autonomy (Kukulska-Hulme, 2010);  offer immediate diagnosis of learning problems (Talmo, Sivertsen Korpås, Mellingsæter & Einum, 2012);  create mobile networking collaboration and provide instant feedback (DeGani, Geoff, Stead & Wade 2010; Voelkel & Bennett, 2013);  create new formats of problem solving, interactive tasks based on augmented reality, geolocation awareness and video capture (Cook, 2010; Driver, 2012);  design of new assessment models (Stav, 2013)
  4. 4. Research projects on M-Learning in LMSU
  5. 5. Enhancing Technology awareness and usage of m-learning in Russia and Norway Research participants  56 second year undergraduate Russian students, aged 19-22  Students of Intercultural Communication Studies Majors, lecture course Introduction to American Studies  Language competence of the students was B1-B2  September 2012 - May 2013
  6. 6. Student Response System (SRS) flexibility in use of voting devices or mobile clicker Anonymous voting Immediate feedback Test results are visualized No need to upload questions Makes every student’s voice heard BYOD Cost-efficient
  7. 7. Instructor chooses the format of tasks and sets up the time
  8. 8. Technological SRS Pedagogical Potential characteristics of SRS Immediate test assessment and feedback Immediate diagnosis of teaching problems Instant feedback on learning problems Group dynamics evaluation Increase participation of all students Skill practice by means of formative SRS tests Instant visualization of the test results Enhance learner motivation Encourage peer discussions and collaborative post-test activities Evaluation of group dynamics Anonymous submission of the test results Creation a low anxiety environment Correction is supportive, done in a form of collaborative activities "Tag-It" function Visualization of learning materials Maintain student attention longer The teacher interface for SRS forms an invisible "layer” The system is very flexible and handy Equipment necessary: 1 teacher computer and student mobile devices Teaching in low-tech environments No need for profound tech preparation
  9. 9. SRS Supported Lecture Framework
  10. 10. Time Management of Traditional Lecture vs. SRS Supported Lecture Traditional lecture SRS supported lecture Material presentation 80-90 minutes 40-50 minutes PPpresentation Material Assess ment and Collabor ation activities Weekly SRS tests - 15 minutes Brainstorming - 0-15 minutes Brief Group - 0-15 minutes Discussion Questions for lecturer 0-10 minutes Questions (if any) are asked orally after presentation 0-10 minutes Questions (if any) are sent via mobile instant messaging apps (Twitter, SMS, What's up, Google Talk) during presentation
  11. 11. SRS integration presents challenges for a lecturer
  12. 12. Data Collection Methods Used
  13. 13. Cycle 1: Data Analysis Results  students had advanced level of mobile competence;  technologically (98%) and psychologically (87%) students were ready to use their own MD both in classroom and autonomous work regularly;  98% were not against bring your own device approach
  14. 14. Cycle 1: Student experience in mobile devices use in their learning
  15. 15. Cycle 2: SRS Intervention – tasks and activities We measured
  16. 16. Cycle 2: The overall summative test scores of the control and experimental groups
  17. 17. Cycle 2. Result interpretation: academic performance improvement of the exp. group
  18. 18. Cycle 3: Post-study evaluation of learner experience Strongl y disagree di sagree Agree Strongly agree Mean score New lecture design prepared me well for SRS tests 0 3 20 7 3,0 3 SRS tests helped me understand the topic in focus 1 2 19 8 3,5 SRS tests helped me get ready for midterms and final a lot 0 6 15 9 3,1 SRS tests and post-test activities made me read a lot at home 0 2 8 20 3,6 SRS tests were frustrating, they complicated my learning a lot 7 21 2 0 1,9 Instant feedback was very supportive and encouraging for my learning 0 1 15 14 3,5 1 0 0 9 21 3,7 Activity switching kept me be involved during the lectures 2 3
  19. 19. Cycle 3: Students’ free-text comments  Mobile devices are the best tools to be used for collaborative work.  The use of mobile devices and tasks based on SRS was fun and changed my attitude to learning.  It was not just a traditional lecture course, it was a permanent interaction and collaboration with my group mates and the instructor, I mean, it was a kind of active learning course.  We were not passive learners, we worked hard to contribute even during lecture time, it was a very unusual and challenging experience.  SRS based tests are motivating and challenging
  20. 20. Suggestions for further research  introduce new formats of interactive in-class activities based on instant messaging tools  work out valid criteria for mobile supported collaborative activities assessment  pilot a more advanced mobile testing system - PeLe with SRS installed as an assessment tool both for summative and formative purposes (October 2013-May 2014)  analyze the impact of mobile social apps and instant message services on learner motivation and class performance and output.
  21. 21. SRS supported approach "enables teachers to design for learning beyond the boundaries of their institution" (Kukulska-Hulme & Jones, 2011)
  22. 22. References  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). University of Nottingham, UK: Learning Sciences Research Institute.  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.  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.  Kukulska-Hulme, A., Pettit, J., Bradley, L., Carvalho, A., Herrington, A., Kennedy, D., & Walker, A. (2011b). Mature students using mobile devices in life and learning. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 3(1), 18–52.  Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2007). A theory of learning for the mobile age. In (Ed.) R. Andrews & C. Haythornthwaite, The SAGE handbook of e-learning research (pp. 221–224). London: Sage.  Talmo, T., Sivertsen Korpås, G., Mellingsæter, M., & Einum, E. (2012). Experiences with Use of New Digital Learning Environments to Increase Academic and Social Competence. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (pp 4540-4545).  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.
  23. 23. Contacts Learn&Teach with the WEB www.titova.ffl.msu.ru Comments: stitova3@gmail.com Download presentation http://www.slideshare.net/titova

×