engagement, the opportunity for them to contribute would encourage them to connect with and communicate their feelings. From our perspective as staff, it was also important that we gained some insight into how the students were feeling at the mid-point of their first semester. We recognised that students would not wish to share their own experiences openly – particularly in a large group of fellow students whom they had only joined six weeks previously. While we intended to use the panel discussion to model openness as a way of removing stigma and promoting community, we acknowledged that students needed to feel safe and anonymous if they were to share their feelings honestly. This recognition directly informed the use of Mentimeter as the most suitable Student Response technology, as part of our ethical design considerations. Mentimeter was used as part of a suite of tools during the session, alongside PowerPoint, YouTube video, and a discussion panel comprising Law lecturers, the Law School’ s Learning Development Tutor, and our Keele alumna Graduate Teaching Assistant.
Why use a Student Response System?
Interestingly, the decision to use technology as part of the session – and the decision to use Mentimeter in particular – arose from discussions as to how we could best engage and encourage student participation in the session. Mayer( 2001) identified two approaches to educational technology: the technology-centred approach; and one that is instead centred on the learner and considers how technology can support the learner’ s cognitive processing. In our case, the session was very much learner-centred, and the decision to integrate technology into the session was driven by how it could aid student engagement with, and awareness of, Law student wellbeing.
Our venue was a large lecture theatre. In one sense, this was an ideal venue; we wanted to use the AV screen, to show slides and play videos, and we also wanted sufficient room“ onstage” to seat the panel at a long table facing the students. Yet in another sense, the space presented the challenge of how best to engage the intended audience of first year Law students. The cohort was approximately 180 students and, while the session was optional, we had to plan for the possibility of a large number of attendees. Geski( 1992) had criticised large lectures; and Ekeler( 1994) found that students in large lectures were merely passive learners. On the other hand, Wulff et al( 1987) found that anonymity was a key factor in students’ positive evaluation of large classes; but while the reduced pressure and feeling of being in the spotlight promoted a safer environment for students, the impersonal nature of large classes remained a factor in their negative evaluation.
However, several studies have suggested that Student Response Systems can be effective in facilitating large group participation and engagement. An SRS is“ a wireless response system that provides faculty the means to actively engage students in lecture classes”( Kaleta and Joosten, 2007). There are several types of SRS, such as clickers, Socrative, Kahoot, Poll Everywhere, and Mentimeter. Studies that examined“ clicker” technology found that they were regarded positively by students and linked to improved student performance( see eg Patterson et al, 2010; Mayer, 2009; Trees and Jackson, 2007). Heaslip et al( 2014) found that“ clicker” technology can support student engagement while protecting anonymity, although it is possible that it is the active presentation of questions( rather than the SRS itself) that supports the engagement( see Morling et al, 2008).
SRS‘ compensates for the passive, one-way communication inherent in lecturing and the difficulty students experience in maintaining sustained concentration’( Caldwell, 2007: 11). Asking students questions every 20 minutes or so enlivens students’ attention and engages them to participate( Kay and LeSage, 2009). Blackburn and Stroud’ s research into Socrative( 2015) highlighted its potential for more dialogic teaching, which was an important consideration in view of the session’ s aims. We wanted to facilitate student participation in discussing topics that they may not feel comfortable discussing openly, and to ensure that more introverted students felt secure( see Braden and Smith, 2006). This was another important factor in choosing SRS for the session, which by its nature involved talking about difficult subjects, such as feelings of failure and inadequacy.
Furthermore, the instant-response feedback system would achieve two things we considered essential for the success of the session: it would help challenge students’ preconceptions that they were
52