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