Increasing Active Engagement

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 207-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melinda Jones Ault ◽  
Channon K. Horn
Keyword(s):  
Student Response ◽  
Mobile Technologies ◽  
High Tech ◽  
Active Engagement ◽  
Response Cards ◽  
Student Response Systems ◽  
Task Behavior ◽  
Response Systems ◽  
On Task Behavior ◽  
Academic Responding

The use of response cards is a research-based strategy to increase active engagement, on-task behavior, and academic responding. With new and affordable mobile technologies, teachers now have access to a host of high-tech digital student response systems to increase engagement. This article describes the logistical, management, and pedagogical considerations for teachers using such systems. This article provides guidelines for teachers when planning, implementing, and monitoring the use of student response systems. A classroom example is provided along with data sheets and a graphing system to use when collecting data and evaluating effectiveness. This article also provides a table of digital student response systems including their descriptions and features.

Applying High Leverage Practices to Increase Active Engagement and On-task Behavior of Students with Intellectual Disabilities during Literacy Activities

2021 ◽  
pp. 016264342110193
Author(s):  
Channon K. Horn ◽  
Kera B. Ackerman ◽  
Elena J. Hitch
Keyword(s):  
High School ◽  
High School Students ◽  
Intellectual Disabilities ◽  
Skill Acquisition ◽  
Active Engagement ◽  
Response Cards ◽  
School Students ◽  
Task Behavior ◽  
On Task Behavior ◽  
Students With Intellectual Disabilities

The high leverage practices of promoting active student engagement and using assistive and instructional technology can be implemented simultaneously in resource settings. The purpose of the study was to compare two commonly used methods of engagement, hand-raising and digital response cards, to determine their effect on students’ active engagement, on-task behavior, and reading comprehension. An ABAB design was used to evaluate the effects among high school students with intellectual disabilities during reading lessons. The results indicated there was a positive correlation associated with digital response cards on the level of active engagement, on-task behavior and skill acquisition as evidenced by whole group means.

Using Mentimeter to Elicit Student Responses in the EAP/ESP Classroom

RELC Journal ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 198-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Luke Moorhouse ◽  
Lucas Kohnke
Keyword(s):  
Test Scores ◽  
English For Academic Purposes ◽  
Student Response ◽  
English For Specific Purposes ◽  
Response Cards ◽  
Student Response Systems ◽  
Student Responses ◽  
Use Of Technology ◽  
Response Systems ◽  
Potential Use

The affordances and pedagogical benefits of technology in the English for Specific Purposes (ESP) and English for Academic Purposes (EAP) classrooms are widely acknowledged. One potential use of technology is in eliciting and managing students’ responses, which is an area where EAP/ESP teachers often report difficulties. Traditionally, teachers either nominate students to respond or rely on students volunteering to answer questions. In practice, this condition tends to mean that the more confident students respond, or students are ‘put on the spot’ by being nominated to speak by a teacher. One way to address this issue is through response cards. Students can respond in unison with a card or whiteboard displaying the answer. Response cards are effective at all levels of education. They increase active responses, improve test scores, and motivate learners. There are now digital alternatives to response cards called ‘student response systems’ (SRS). These systems provide a flexible and diverse way for students to respond using their mobile devices. SRS include Mentimeter, Kahoot, Plickers, GoSoapBox, and Poll Everywhere. Due to its versatility and unlimited number of participants, we believe Mentimeter has greater potential in the EAP/ESP classroom. This tech review will provide an overview of Mentimeter’s features and potential uses.

scholarly journals Student Response Systems: a rationale for their use and a comparison of some cloud based tools

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Compton ◽  
Jason Allen
Keyword(s):  
Student Response ◽  
Student Response Systems ◽  
Score Analysis ◽  
Response Systems ◽  
Analysis System

Student Response Systems (SRS) take many forms but we argue that there are compelling reasons to use some form of SRS in lectures and seminars at some points in the year, irrespective of subject taught and setting. Deciding which tool to use can be a challenge which is why we have selected a range of cloud based SRS types with varying functions and levels of difficulty and offer reviews of each here using the 'SCORE' analysis system enabling the reader to compare the perspectives of experienced users of each tool before trialling one or more of them. The tools we review here are:  Todaysmeet, Slido, Polleverywhere, Mentimeter, Socrative, Kahoot and Zeetings.** Note from Authors 17th May 2018: Since publication we have received notice that Todaysmeet will cease operating in June 2018

scholarly journals Clickers, Best Uses and Benefits

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Renato Herrera Hernández
Keyword(s):  
First Trimester ◽  
Student Response ◽  
Student Response System ◽  
Student Response Systems ◽  
Response System ◽  
Large Size ◽  
Quality Of Teaching ◽  
Response Systems ◽  
Engaging Student

<p>This study provides an analysis of the use student response systems in undergraduate and postgraduate classrooms. Research was conducted utilising a qualitative analysis approach, grounding theories by reviewing related literature, interviewing lecturers and conducting class observation. The study was carried out over two consecutive trimesters, summer 2010 and first trimester of 2011, at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. By conducting this research it is hoped to help improving the quality of teaching. Within this study, it was determined that student response systems are useful for both engaging student and increasing their overall enjoyment of the class. The benefit of using student response systems in the classroom was also found to be dependent on preserving the novelty of the technology and keeping students’ responses anonymous, by redesigning lecturers to have proper student response system questions in order to make the most out of the technology. Overall, this study determined that the decision whether or not to utilise student response systems in the classroom should be made based on the level of education of the class and its objectives, whether it is a lecture, tutorial or seminar, with clickers working best in large size, undergraduate classrooms.</p>

Attitudes Toward the Use of Student Response Systems Survey

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terri Friedline ◽  
Aaron R. Mann ◽  
Alice Lieberman
Keyword(s):  
Student Response ◽  
Student Response Systems ◽  
Response Systems

Student Response Systems for Active Learning

2011 ◽  
pp. 803-807
Author(s):  
Lisa Byrnes ◽  
Stephanie J. Etter
Keyword(s):  
Active Learning ◽  
Subject Matter Expert ◽  
Student Response ◽  
Cognitive Resources ◽  
Student Response Systems ◽  
Wrong Answer ◽  
Male And Female ◽  
Passive Learning ◽  
Learner Centered ◽  
Response Systems

The importance of a student’s involvement in learning is well documented and well known. It is easy to sum up research related to active learning by simply saying, “students who participate in the learning process learn more than those who do not” (Weaver & Qi, 2005, p. 570). Active learning seeks to create a learner-centered environment and engage students as active participants in their education. The opposite of this is passive learning, which is thought of as the traditional way of teaching where the professor is a subject matter expert whose role is to convey the knowledge to an audience of students (Barr & Tagg, 1995). While the success of active learning is well documented, some instructors may find it difficult to fully engage students as active learners in the classroom. Active learning requires student participation, which is easier for some students than it is for others. Larkin and Pines (2003) found theF common practice of calling on students to promote active learning in the classroom resulted in a “clear and unmistakable pattern of avoidance behavior as reported by both male and female students” because many students seek ways to avoid the psychologically unpleasant situation of providing the wrong answer and looking foolish. Larkin and Pines (2003) argue that if a student’s emotional and cognitive resources become directed towards avoiding the immediate threat of being called on, then arguably the practice of calling on students may reduce active learning, which was the intended goal of calling on the student in the first place. Fortunately, educational technologies are able to assist in this challenge.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document