Presentation at EUROCALL 2014

1. Mobile Voting Tools
for Creating Collaboration Environment
and a New Educational Design of the
University Lecture
Lomonosov
Moscow
State University
S. Titova

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. 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)

5. Research projects on
M-Learning in LMSU

6. 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

7. 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

9. Instructor
chooses the
format of tasks
and sets up the
time

10. 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

11. SRS Supported Lecture Framework

12. 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

13. SRS integration
presents challenges for a lecturer

14. Data Collection
Methods Used

15. 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

16. Cycle 1: Student experience in mobile devices
use in their learning

17. Cycle 2: SRS Intervention – tasks and activities
We measured

18. Cycle 2: The overall summative test scores
of the control and experimental groups

19. Cycle 2. Result interpretation: academic
performance improvement of the exp. group

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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.

23. SRS supported approach "enables teachers
to design for learning beyond the boundaries
of their institution" (Kukulska-Hulme & Jones, 2011)

24. 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.

25. Contacts
Learn&Teach with the WEB
www.titova.ffl.msu.ru
Comments: stitova3@gmail.com
Download presentation
http://www.slideshare.net/titova