Research Article

A Case Study of the Practical Implications of Using Interactive Technology in Teaching International Postgraduate Students

Samer Skaik 1 * , Roksana Jahan Tumpa 2
More Detail
1 School of Engineering and Technology, Central Queensland University, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia2 School of Engineering and Technology, Central Queensland University, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 14(1), January 2022, ep335, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/11372
Published: 26 November 2021
OPEN ACCESS   2852 Views   1810 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Many educators struggle to engage or stimulate students to actively engage in classes. International students, in particular, are more vulnerable to the risk of disengagement due to their competing priorities and social barriers. The use of interactive technology can promote active learning and facilitate better student experience and inclusion. This case study aims to examine the practical implication of one of the popular interactive technologies on the learning experience of international students. The study revealed that adopting the interactive technology in lectures had an obvious positive impact on student learning experience, attainment of learning outcomes, and motivation levels. It helped students engage genuinely in the assessment tasks and have their voice heard without fear or influence by faculty or peer pressure. The study also identified some challenges including the lead time required for training both faculty and students on using the technology more effectively. The study contributes to the existing knowledge by providing evidence-based implications of using interactive technology in higher education.
Keywords: active learning, interactive technology, international students, Mentimeter

CITATION (APA)

Skaik, S., & Tumpa, R. J. (2022). A Case Study of the Practical Implications of Using Interactive Technology in Teaching International Postgraduate Students. Contemporary Educational Technology, 14(1), ep335. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/11372

REFERENCES

  1. Abrahamson, A. L. (2006). A brief history of networked classrooms: Effects, cases, pedagogy and implications. In D. A. Banks (Ed.), Audience response systems in higher education: Applications and cases (pp. 1-25). Information Science. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-947-2.ch001
  2. Andrade, M. (2006). International students in English-speaking universities: Adjustment factors. Journal of Research in International Education, 5(2), 131-154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240906065589
  3. Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1573
  4. Blasco-Arcas, L., Buil, I., Hernández-Ortega, B., & Sese, F. J. (2013). Using clickers in class. The role of interactivity, active collaborative learning and engagement in learning performance. Computers & Education, 62, 102-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.019
  5. Brady, M., Seli, H., & Rosenthal, J. (2013). “Clickers” and metacognition: A quasi-experimental comparative study about metacognitive self-regulation and use of electronic feedback devices. Computers & Education, 65, 56-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.001
  6. Bretag, T., Mahmud, S., Wallace, M., Walker, R., McGowan, U., East, J., Green, M., Partridge, L., & James, C. (2014). ‘Teach us how to do it properly!’ An Australian academic integrity student survey. Studies in Higher Education, 39(7), 1150-1169. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.777406
  7. Briguglio, C., & Smith, R. (2012). Perceptions of Chinese students in an Australian university: Are we meeting their needs?. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 32(1), 17-33. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2012.655237
  8. Brimble, M. (2016). Why students cheat. An exploration of the motivators of student academic dishonesty in higher education. In: Bretag T. (Ed.), Handbook of Academic Integrity (pp. 1-14). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7_58-1
  9. Cain, J., Black, E. P., & Rohr, J. (2009). An audience response system strategy to improve student motivation, attention, and feedback. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 73(2), 21. https://doi.org/10.5688/aj730221
  10. Cowley, P., & Hyams-Ssekasi, D. (2018). Motivation, induction, and challenge: Examining the initial phase of international students’ educational sojourn. Journal of International Students, 8(1), 109-130. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v8i1.154
  11. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE.
  12. DeBourgh, G. A. (2008). Use of classroom “clickers” to promote acquisition of advanced reasoning skills. Nurse Education in Practice, 8(2), 76-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2007.02.002
  13. Duggan, P. M., Palmer, E., & Devitt, P. (2007). Electronic voting to encourage interactive lectures: A randomised trial. BMC Medical Education, 7(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-7-25
  14. Fies, C., & Marshall, J. (2006). Classroom response systems: A review of the literature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 101-109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-0360-1
  15. Funnell, P. (2017). Using audience response systems to enhance student engagement and learning in information literacy teaching. Journal of Information Literacy, 11(2), 28-50. https://doi.org/10.11645/11.2.2238
  16. Gautam, C., Lowery, C. L., Mays, C., & Durant, D. (2016). Challenges for global learners: A qualitative study of the concerns and difficulties of international students. Journal of International Students, 6(2), 501-526. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v6i2.368
  17. Gokbulut, B. (2020). The effect of Mentimeter and Kahoot applications on university students’ e-learning. World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues, 12(2), 107-116. https://doi.org/10.18844/wjet.v12i2.4814
  18. Gomes, C., Berry, M., Alzougool, B., & Chang, S. (2014). Home away from home: International students and their identity-based social networks in Australia. Journal of International Students, 4(1), 2-15. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v4i1.493
  19. Heaslip, G., Donovan, P., & Cullen, J. G. (2014). Student response systems and learner engagement in large classes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(1), 11-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787413514648
  20. Hellsten, M., & Prescott, A. (2004). Learning at university: The international student experience. International Education Journal, 5(3), 344-351.
  21. Heng, T. T. (2018). Different is not deficient: Contradicting stereotypes of Chinese international students in US higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 43(1), 22-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1152466
  22. Hof, Y. T. (2020). Managing a teaching technologies assimilation program at nursing school in Israel. Journal of US-China Public Administration, 17(2), 63-70. https://doi.org/10.17265/1548-6591/2020.02.003
  23. Hosny, M., & Fatima, S. (2014). Attitude of students towards cheating and plagiarism: University case study. Journal of Applied Sciences, 14(8), 748-757. https://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2014.748.757
  24. Huang, Q., Davison, R. M., & Gu, J. (2008). Impact of personal and cultural factors on knowledge sharing in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25(3), 451-471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-008-9095-2
  25. Hunsu, N. J., Adesope, O., & Bayly, D. J. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of audience response systems (clicker-based technologies) on cognition and affect. Computers & Education, 94, 102-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.013
  26. Introna, L., Hayes, N., Blair, L., & Wood, E. (2003). Cultural attitudes towards plagiarism: Developing a better understanding of the needs of students from diverse cultural backgrounds relating to issues of plagiarism. Lancaster University.
  27. Kambouropoulos, A. (2014). An examination of the adjustment journey of international students studying in Australia. The Australian Educational Researcher, 41(3), 349-363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-013-0130-z
  28. Khalili, M., & Ostafichuk, P. M. (2018). Improving class participation by using an online interactive platform. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA), Vancouver, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.v0i0.13095
  29. Khawaja, N. G., & Stallman, H. M. (2011). Understanding the coping strategies of international students: A qualitative approach. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 21(2), 203-224. https://doi.org/10.1375/ajgc.21.2.203
  30. Kulatunga, U., & Rameezdeen, R. (2014). Use of clickers to improve student engagement in learning: Observations from the built environment discipline. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 10(1), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15578771.2013.826754
  31. Kuritza, V. C., Cibich, D. P., & Ahmad, K. A. (2020). Interactive presentation digital tool Mentimeter perceived as accessible and beneficial for exam preparation by medical students. Advances in Educational Research and Evaluation, 1(2), 63-67. https://doi.org/10.25082/AERE.2020.02.002
  32. Lin, X., & Lin, C. (2020). Communication theories applied in Mentimeter to improve educational communication and teaching effectiveness. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Culture, Education and Economic Development of Modern Society. Russia, 416. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200316.191
  33. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8
  34. Little, C. (2016). Mentimeter smartphone student response system: A class above clickers. Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, 9(13), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.21100/compass.v9i13.328
  35. Mayer, R. E., Stull, A., DeLeeuw, K., Almeroth, K., Bimber, B., Chun, D., & Zhang, H. (2009). Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 51-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.04.002
  36. Mayhew, E. (2019). No longer a silent partner: How Mentimeter can enhance teaching and learning within political science, Journal of Political Science, 15(4), 546-551. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2018.1538882
  37. McGarr, O. (2009). A review of podcasting in higher education: Its influence on the traditional lecture. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(3), 309-321. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1136
  38. Novera, I. A. (2004). Indonesian postgraduate students studying in Australia: An examination of their academic, social and cultural experiences. International Education Journal, 5(4), 475-487.
  39. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
  40. ONF, (2014). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(5), 545-547. https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.545-547
  41. Paschal, C. B. (2002). Formative assessment in physiology teaching using a wireless classroom communication system. Advances in Physiology Education, 26(4), 299-308. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00030.2002
  42. Petersohn, B. (2008). Classroom performance systems, library instruction, and instructional design: A pilot study. Portal: Libraries and the Academy, 8(3), 313-324. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.0.0007
  43. Phakiti, A., & Li, L. (2011). General academic difficulties and reading and writing difficulties among Asian ESL postgraduate students in TESOL at an Australian university. RELC Journal, 42(3), 227-264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688211421417
  44. Poyrazli, S., & Grahame, K. M. (2007). Barriers to adjustment: Needs of international students within a semi-urban campus community. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34(1), 28.
  45. Rashid, T., & Asghar, H. M. (2016). Technology use, self-directed learning, student engagement and academic performance: Examining the interrelations. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 604-612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.084
  46. Reay, N. W., Bao, L., Li, P., Warnakulasooriya, R., & Baugh, G. (2005). Toward the effective use of voting machines in physics lectures. American Journal of Physics, 73(6), 554-558. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.1862638
  47. Regmi, K. (2014). Triangulation in healthcare research: What does it achieve? SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/978144627305014534931
  48. Robertson, M., Line, M., Jones, S., & Thomas, S. (2000). International students, learning environments and perceptions: A case study using the Delphi technique. Higher Education Research and Development, 19(1), 89-102. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360050020499
  49. Rudolph, J. (2018). A brief review of Mentimeter—A student response system. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 1(1), 35-37. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2018.1.1.5
  50. Sanner, S., & Wilson, A. (2008). The experiences of students with English as a second language in a baccalaureate nursing program. Nurse Education Today, 28(7), 807-813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2008.03.004
  51. Sawir, E. (2005). Language difficulties of international students in Australia: The effects of prior learning experience. International Education Journal, 6(5), 567-580.
  52. Sawir, E., Marginson, S., Forbes-Mewett, H., Nyland, C., & Ramia, G. (2012). International student security and English language proficiency. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16(5), 434-454. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315311435418
  53. Schulte, S., & Choudaha, R., 2014. Improving the experiences of international students. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 46(6), 52-58. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2014.969184
  54. Sillaots, M. (2014). Achieving flow through gamification: A study on re-designing research methods courses. European Conference on Games Based Learning, 2, 538-545. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1674245409?pqorigsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true
  55. Skoyles, A., & Bloxsidge, E. (2017). Have you voted? Teaching OSCOLA with Mentimeter. Legal Information Management, 17(4), 232-238. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1472669617000457
  56. Sovic, S. (2008). Coping with stress: The perspective of international students. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 6(3), 145-158. https://doi.org/10.1386/adch.6.3.145/1
  57. Van Daele, T., Frijns, C., & Lievens, J. (2017). How do students and lecturers experience the interactive use of handheld technology in large enrolment courses? British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(6), 1318-1329. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12500
  58. Wang, C. C., Andre, K., & Greenwood, K. M. (2015). Chinese students studying at Australian universities with specific reference to nursing students: A narrative literature review. Nurse Education Today, 35(4), 609-619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2014.12.005
  59. Wang, T., & Shan, X. (2007). Exploring Chinese postgraduate students’ academic adjustment experiences in Australia. In The Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia Inc, 2007 International Conference (pp. 624-633).
  60. Winn, S. (1995). Learning by doing: Teaching research methods through student participation in a commissioned research project. Studies in Higher Education, 20(2), 203-214. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079512331381703
  61. Wong, J. K. K. (2004). Are the learning styles of Asian international students culturally or contextually based?. International Education Journal, 4(4), 154-166.
  62. Wood, A. (2020). Utilizing technology-enhanced learning in geography: Testing student response systems in large lectures. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 44(1), 160-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2019.1697653
  63. Yanagi, M., & Baker, A. A. (2016). Challenges experienced by Japanese students with oral communication skills in Australian universities. TESOL Journal, 7(3), 621-644. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.229
  64. Yazan, B. (2015). Three approaches to case study methods in education: Yin, Merriam, and Stake. The Qualitative Report, 20(2), 134-152. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2102
  65. Yin. R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). SAGE.
  66. Yourstone, S. A., Kraye, H. S., & Albaum, G. (2008). Classroom questioning with immediate electronic response: Do clickers improve learning?. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 6(1), 75-88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2007.00166.x
  67. Yu, B., & Wright, E. (2016). Socio-cultural adaptation, academic adaptation and satisfaction of international higher degree research students in Australia. Tertiary Education and Management, 22(1), 49-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2015.1127405
  68. Yue, Y., & Fan, S. (2010). Learning experiences of Chinese background international students in an Australian tertiary context. AARE2010, 1-16.
  69. Zhang, Y., & Mi, Y. (2010). Another look at the language difficulties of international students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(4), 371-388. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315309336031
  70. Zhou, Y., Jindal-Snape, D., Topping, K., & Todman, J. (2008). Theoretical models of culture shock and adaptation in international students in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 33(1), 63-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070701794833